Sitting of 25 June 1998

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

  LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 2 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Inflation Targets
    Mr. James Gray: When he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss inflation targets. [46147]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I meet the Governor of the Bank of England at regular intervals to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, on 1 May last year, inflation was on target at 2.5 per cent. and interest rates were 6 per cent. Since then, he has missed his inflation target 12 times out of 13. When will he start hitting it?
    Mr. Brown: The previous Government missed their inflation target 43 times out of 55, so we will take no lectures from the Opposition. When we came to power, we found that inflation was going to rise substantially above target and that the action that the previous Government should have taken had not been taken, for all the wrong, party political, reasons. We immediately took action to move the economy from the violence of stop-go economic cycles—which had bedevilled us in the past and which, at the beginning of the 1990s, had given us the worst recession since the war—to a platform of sustainable and steady growth.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Did my right hon. Friend read the remarkably prescient article in the Fabian Review two years ago—it was written by someone I know—which pointed out that the rate of inflation left by the Tories would present us with real problems? It is quite ridiculous for the party of inflation—at least, those Tory Members who turn up to Treasury questions—to raise this issue. Will he, in the fight against inflation, consider a new golden rule—that people, especially those in the
    1154
    upper reaches of pay, should not give themselves pay awards ahead of productivity? We could start with the outside earnings of Conservative Members.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Wage responsibility all round, from the boardroom outwards, is necessary if we are to tackle inflation. He mentions the record that we inherited from the previous Government. I notice that, in a speech made only last night, the shadow Chancellor said that long-term interest rates in Britain were very low—below 6 per cent. That is because, over the past year, people have seen that we shall meet our inflation target, and long-term interest rates are now the lowest for 30 years.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that two men are responsible for the inflationary difficulties we face—the previous Chancellor, who failed to put up interest rates before the general election, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, who used two Budgets to impose taxes on hard-pressed businesses rather than on free-spending consumers?
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If we had followed his advice, we would be taxing everything under the sun. The Liberal Democrats' policy is to raise taxes on everything and to increase public spending, whereas we have imposed strong discipline both on public spending and on taxation. We cut VAT on fuel, without a great deal of support from him; we have reduced corporation tax from 33p to 31p and now to 30p; we have reduced small business taxation; we have abolished the gas levy; and from next April, national insurance for every employee will be cut. We are determined to provide the resources to encourage both work incentives and the investment that is necessary in industry. We are taking measures for long-term stability and growth in the British economy, and it is about time that the Liberal Democrat party started to support us.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend reasonably pleased that unit wage costs rose by 3.2 per cent. in the first quarter of this year—they rose by 3.6 per cent., which is much more, in the last quarter of 1997—and that the number of jobs advertised in the national press is up by a third on the peak during the 1980s boom?
    Mr. Brown: There are many vacancies in the economy—more than 200,000 vacancies are registered with the Employment Service, and there are 75,000 vacancies in the hotel and hospitality industry alone. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public sector has contributed to wage responsibility with wage rises of around 2.5 per cent, but there must be responsibility all round in the economy. That is why I said in the pre-Budget statement in November that responsibility would be necessary in the boardroom and right across the private sector. We are determined to tackle the inflationary problem that we inherited from the previous Government, to put the economy on a long-term stable path for non-inflationary growth.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Why was the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee not informed of the Chancellor's plans to abandon his public

    1155
    spending limits? Does the Chancellor agree with Professor Goodhart, who told the Select Committee on the Treasury that the Chancellor's spending plans would increase inflationary pressure even further, making it likely that interest rates would have to go up yet again?
    Mr. Brown: I welcome the shadow Chancellor to his new job and his first Question Time. I also welcome him on his return to the Treasury brief following his period as Financial Secretary to the Treasury from 1990–92.
    The Governor of the Bank of England has reported to the Treasury Committee—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that he agrees—as follows:
    "Of course we knew as everybody else knew that the Chancellor was undertaking his expenditure review."
    He went on:
    "I knew that the report was unlikely to change the fiscal outlook over the next couple of years."
    Mr. Maude: It is not true.
    Mr. Brown: It is a statement from the Governor of the Bank of England. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to contest a statement that is in the Treasury Committee's record, he had better think again. The fact is that there is a fiscal tightening in the economy of 3.5 per cent. over three years. That continues into next year, as I reported in my public expenditure statement.
    Let us be clear on public spending prudence. The previous Government had a current deficit of 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product over the cycle, the equivalent of a deficit of £12 billion a year. That is why we inherited a national debt that had doubled, and interest payments running at £25 billion a year. We have acted prudently so that there will be balance over the cycle in the current account. Instead of attacking us, the right hon. Gentleman should praise our prudence.
    If the right hon. Gentleman says—and he does—that we are going on a spending spree, he had better tell us what he would cut. Would it be the health service, or education? Which public services would the Conservative party cut? Would it be transport, or social security? If the Conservatives think that our public spending figures are wrong, what will they cut?
    Mr. Maude: The Chancellor has forgotten that this is Question Time for the Government. I am not attacking the Governor of the Bank of England, who has been put in an impossible position. He told the Treasury Committee that he understood that the Chancellor's plans would make no difference for the next two years. That was not true. The Governor was misled because the Chancellor's expansionary spending plans kick in—he may not know this, but we have spotted it—from April next year.
    Is not the truth that inflation is up, strikes are up, savings are down, unemployment claimants are up and manufacturing is in recession? The Chancellor has created boom and bust at the same time. After 17 tax rises in only 15 months, is not the truth that hard-working people are paying an ever higher price to the Treasury's tartan tax army? After the Treasury team's own goal, should not they go home early as well?
    Mr. Brown: I said at the beginning that the right hon. Gentleman had been Financial Secretary to the Treasury
    1156
    from 1990 to 1992. I will not take any lectures from a former Minister who was at the Treasury while interest rates rose to 15 per cent., inflation rose to nearly 10 per cent., public borrowing started its inexorable rise to £50 billion, the national debt started to rise—eventually doubling—and unemployment rose by 1 million people. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his record at the Treasury. It is no wonder that he was thrown out at the 1992 election.

    National Insurance
    Ms Joan Ryan: If he will make a statement on the representations he has received on his plans to reform employees' national insurance contributions. [46148]
    Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on the representations he has received on his plans to reform employees' national insurance contributions. [46152]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The reforms to employees' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget, together with the introduction of the working families tax credit, have been welcomed by a wide range of individuals and organisations. They will increase the return from working and the incentive to move from welfare to work.
    Ms Ryan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's Budget measures on national insurance contributions. Will he outline how he expects them to help my 2,500 constituents in Enfield, North who are, by any definition, low paid, and the 2,375 adults who are registered as unemployed? That is some 5,000 people in my constituency alone who seek assistance from our Government and who got none from the previous one. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the Opposition groan as if they did not support what she said, let us remember that we are reducing national insurance for employees. If the Conservative party is going to oppose that as well, it is an additional problem that it will have with the electorate at the next general election.
    Our strategy to help people to move from welfare to work, especially my hon. Friend's constituents, is based first of all on the national minimum wage, which we are introducing from next year. It is supplemented by the working families tax credit, which means that no one working full-time, with a family, will earn less than £180 a week, and they will not pay tax until £220 a week. That is complemented by the rise in child benefit for families, the improvement of child care with the new child care tax credit and the reduction of national insurance that we have achieved. This Government take seriously our contribution to the working poor, and we are doing our determined best to reduce poverty among working families. It is about time the Opposition started supporting us on these things.
    Shona McIsaac: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we take the changes to national insurance, the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage, for certain people—for example, a lone parent with

    1157
    one child working 16 hours a week—the effective hourly rate of the national minimum wage will be about £11 per hour? Are my sums correct?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, it is possible for a single parent going to work to earn decent wages, and a return from her work that will enable her to bring up her family. That is an important development. [Laughter.] Again, the Conservative party laughs when we are trying to help single parents get back into work. The Conservatives should support measures to deal with unemployment. We can build on these measures by making it possible for more and more people to find opportunities for work.
    Through the national child care strategy, there will be child care to back that up. The child care credit means that people above the average wage will be able to claim help with child care so that they do not have to choose between their children and the work that they have to do. They can get proper help with child care. We are the first Government to introduce a national child care strategy, which is to the benefit of thousands of mothers and fathers.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Chancellor clear up a muddle? In his Budget statement, he said that no employee learning less than £81 a week would have to pay national insurance, yet when the Social Security Bill passed through the House, we found that the figure was £64 a week, in line with that in the Red Book. That dashed the hopes of many low-paid people that they would have their national insurance payments cut. They were under a false impression. Can the Chancellor clear this up once and for all?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman accuses us of falsehoods about national insurance. We have cut national insurance in a way that the previous Government did not: £1.26 a week for every employee. We also said that future reforms of national insurance will mean that no one will pay national insurance or income tax before £81 a week. When we announced the figures, we published them in the Red Book. The hon. Gentleman rightly attributes to the Red Book the correct information, which was also the information in the Budget speech. Again, the Conservative party should support cuts in national insurance, as they should support what we have done on child benefit and the working families tax credit, but it is impossible to get sense out of the Conservative Opposition.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: The published projections of the Chancellor in the Red Book take no account of the effect of the future cut in national insurance contributions for employees earning less than £81 a week. The Chancellor has now told the Treasury Select Committee that that is simply an aspiration. I repeat the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown): when do the Government intend to make the cut, or is that pledge as worthless as Labour's other pledges?
    Mr. Brown: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench, a move that was part of the changes in the Conservative Front-Bench team, but he should get his figures accurate. We have cut national insurance from next April, and any impression that the Conservative party
    1158
    tries to give to the contrary is utterly wrong. We are the party that has made it possible for people in work to have a lower tax rate through a cut in national insurance. Conservative Members should welcome it. As for what the hon. Gentleman says about the intentions of the Government, I refer him to my Budget speech, which is entirely accurate. The information on that is reflected in the Red Book. Instead of griping, the Conservative party should start welcoming the good things that we are doing.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that he is giving to the constituents of Normanton in the form of help for the low-paid, and people who are in work and still living in poverty? It is commendable. May I put it to him that many of my constituents who rely on the state pension realise that national insurance contributions are for their benefit? What protection is he giving to people who rely on the state pension for their livelihood and quality of life? That is important to many people. Any contribution that my right hon. Friend could make would be most helpful.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about his constituency and about the pension. He, like me, represents a constituency that had thousands of jobs in the mining industry and which has looked to the Government to sort out a policy for the coal industry. I am pleased that many hon. Members from mining areas are in the House of Commons today. Our obligations to pensioners are set out in our manifesto, and we shall uphold them.
    We started by cutting VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. That helped every pensioner in the country. We abolished the gas levy to cut fuel bills. At the same time, we introduced direct help for winter fuel bills of £20 for every pensioner household in the country and £50 for households on income support. By those measures, taken with the changes in regulation, we have reduced the average pensioner household's fuel bill by about £100. The Government take seriously their obligations to the elderly, and we shall continue to meet all the commitments that we made in our manifesto.

    Charities Taxation
    Mr. Tim Boswell: When he expects to complete his review of charities taxation.[46149]
    Mr. John Bercow: What representations he has received regarding the taxation of charities. [46158]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): There has been an excellent response to the first phase of the review of charities taxation. We expect to publish a consultation document shortly.
    Mr. Boswell: Yes, but, as the Treasury is fond of the long term, will the Financial Secretary concede that hard-pressed charities feel that they will have a long wait to know what will happen to them in the long term? Will she now at last concede that the compensation payments were offered to charities on a degressive basis against the loss of their dividend tax credits, and are a reflection of the damage that the Chancellor's proposals have already inflicted on the income of the charities sector?
    Dawn Primarolo: No, I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he well knows, the charities have

    1159
    been trying to persuade Governments for some time to undertake a comprehensive review of both direct and indirect taxation and the way in which it impacts on their ability to contribute to our society.
    The Government have received more than 3,500 responses. It is important that we consider all of them and that the consultation document offers charities the proposals that they are looking for so that they can plan for the long term a system that is simple and easy to operate, and respects their contribution to society. Charities already receive direct and indirect relief of more than £1.8 billion from the Government, and the compensation to which the hon. Gentleman refers was very generous indeed.
    Mr. Bercow: The Financial Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will be a grave disappointment to thousands of charities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Why is the hon. Lady not prepared to commit the Government, when the formal period of transitional relief has come to an end, to the provision of some sort of continuing relief from which charities can benefit? If she is not prepared to make that commitment on the Floor of the House this afternoon, why does she not simply go away and rethink the unwarranted £400 million tax hit on the charities sector introduced by her Government?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the charitable sector, which has widely welcomed the Government's review of both indirect and direct taxes and how they impact on charities. Far from being gravely disappointed, charities welcome the fact that there is now a Government who recognise the contribution they make to society and who are prepared to make plans with them for the long term.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that some charities are a great deal more charitable than others? As a survivor of the private education system, may I suggest that it is impossible to justify the current scale of tax advantages made available to schools whose main objective is to maintain the class system in this country?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is quite right to identify the vast range of charities and charitable activity. What is important is that the review recognises that charities make a contribution, treats them fairly, and provides a tax system that will suit their needs into the next century, instead of one that matches what the previous Government thought their activities should have been in the last century.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Why should charities have to pay more tax to compensate for the Government's failure to control welfare spending? Has the hon. Lady seen the correspondence from the Thalidomide Trust, which has written to her about the £75,000 it lost through the withdrawal of tax credits last year, because Ministers drew up the compensation scheme so narrowly that they excluded the mixed funds in which the trust had invested?
    Dawn Primarolo: In case the hon. Gentleman missed the point I made earlier, I shall repeat it: charities received
    1160
    £1.8 billion of tax relief from the Government. The compensation scheme that was established is generous, and lasts for five years. The hon. Gentleman should turn his mind to ways in which to support the Government in their proposals to provide a secure base for charities, instead of trying to make cheap points at their expense.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Andrew Love: What progress he has made in securing international commitment to the Mauritius mandate targets. [46150]
    Mr. Patrick Hall: What progress he has made in helping to reduce the burden of debt of the world's most impoverished countries. [46163]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government have made progress on many fronts, as evidenced most recently in the G8 Birmingham summit communiqué, which encouraged all debtor countries to begin the process of securing debt relief by 2000 and looked forward to the speedy and determined implementation of debt relief in more countries under the highly indebted poor countries initiative.
    Mr. Love: Real and effective debt relief is essential to countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique to provide them with the opportunity for economic development and social rehabilitation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the measures promoted by the Government for debt relief will assist those countries in such efforts?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a perceptive point: debt relief is not enough in itself. It might be a necessary precondition for economic growth and development, but it is essential in the long term that the indebted countries implement policies that will lead to economic growth and development, so that they never again return to the high levels of debt that exert such a drag on their economics and create the conditions in which poverty becomes endemic.
    Mr. Hall: I should like to tell my hon. Friend that many people from Bedford and Kempston have told me that they support the Government's commitment to the flexible and speedy implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative—[Interruption.]Unlike some Opposition Members, many people in this country do not find that initiative amusing. Does my hon. Friend agree with those commentators who say that, if only Governments would co-operate more effectively on the initiative, it would be of great benefit to as many as 300 million of the poorest people in the world?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point, which contrasts with the mocking remarks of Opposition Members. Up to 20,000 people have written to the Treasury in support of the initiatives that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken on the Mauritius mandate. It is critical that there is international co-operation on debt relief, and the United Kingdom Government have already established their leadership in seeking to provide assistance to countries, through not only debt relief but export credit guarantees for the next

    1161
    two years, which will allow those countries to work their way through productive expenditure to growth and sustainable development.

    Comprehensive Spending Review
    Mr. Bill Rammell: When he expects to announce the results of the comprehensive spending review. [46151]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I made clear last June when I announced the comprehensive spending review, its results will be published before the summer recess.
    Mr. Rammell: When the outcome of the comprehensive spending review is announced, will particular attention be paid to the need for increased investment in social housing? The first phase of the release of capital receipts brought about a 33 per cent. increase in investment in one year, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will be aware that that must be viewed in the context of a 62 per cent. cut between 1992 and 1997 under the previous Tory Government. In fact, no area of public expenditure was hit as hard as social housing in 18 years of Conservative government. In the light of that, will the Chief Secretary reassure the House that the need for such investment, which affects some of the poorest people in society, will be a high priority for this Government?
    Mr. Darling: The previous Government paid little attention to the needs of public sector housing. This Government have arranged for some £900 million of additional investment to be made available for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the public housing stock since the election. It is interesting to note that public sector investment fell from 8 per cent. of national income in the 1960s to 2 per cent. in the 1980s and 0.8 per cent. in the 1990s. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in his statement two weeks ago, we are determined to ensure that the fabric of society will benefit from the level of public sector investment being improved prudently, and housing will be able to share in that benefit.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Clause 1 of Labour's contract with the people says that Labour will cut social security spending and transfer the savings into education. Given the huge planned increase in social security spending, will the Chief Secretary now apologise to the British people for breaching that contract?
    Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman ought to be aware, the Government have taken several initiatives to ensure that people get off the dole and back into work. The welfare-to-work programme funded by the windfall tax on the privatised utilities is enabling many young people and long-term unemployed to get off the dole, so that they no longer cost the public money, and into work, where they start to make a contribution for themselves and their families.
    The measures that we have taken to introduce the working families tax credit and reform the tax and benefit system will ensure that work pays, and will enable many
    1162
    more people to work and contribute. The Government have introduced several measures that encourage work and will reduce the number of people who are out of work. That will enable us to redirect resources into the public services that we need.
    On education, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we ended the assisted places scheme, which was a classic example of the few benefiting at the expense of the many. We have arranged for that money to be put into the education system to cut class sizes, which will help thousands of young children whom the previous Government neglected.
    Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Labour Members cannot wait for the spending review to hear further good news for education and health. Is he further aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent far-sighted and shrewd statement on public investment was widely acclaimed in the northern region, because he gave Newcastle airport freedom to invest to underpin its future? I now urge him to go further and give the same full commercial freedom to the Post Office so that it can invest to underpin its global competitiveness.
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are reviewing the position of the Post Office, as we made clear in our manifesto that we would. He is right to say that Newcastle airport, and Manchester airport, are to be given greater commercial freedom. These are profitable corporations, able to trade without having to rely on public funds. We are determined to make changes to the system so that organisations that can trade profitably and independently are given the commercial freedom that they need.
    The Government are certainly committed to increasing investment in health and education. We have already increased the amount available to education by about £2.5 billion since the election, and a further £2 billion has been allocated to the health service. That is all much-needed investment. In the not too distant future, the comprehensive spending review will further set out the Government's spending priorities for the rest of this Parliament and beyond.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Even before the spending review, the Chancellor has already announced that he has abandoned the tight expenditure policies that he so proudly announced last year. Instead, public expenditure will now rise at the fastest rate since the 1960s—by 2.75 per cent. above inflation every year, and by more if all the fiddles and changed definitions are taken into account.
    Does the Chief Secretary agree that this return to tax-and-spend policies will put more pressure on inflation and on the Bank of England to increase interest rates further, thereby pushing the manufacturing and exporting sectors even further into recession? Is the Chief Secretary content to preside over one policy that creates a boom and another that simultaneously creates a bust?
    Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a significant fiscal tightening was announced in my right hon. Friend's Budgets of the past two years, and confirmed again in his recent statement. It is a bit rich of

    1163
    the Tory party to criticise our proposals, when the Conservative Government presided over an economic regime that resulted in interest rates of more than 15 per cent. and inflation of more than 10 per cent.; and when they doubled the national debt in the space of six years, with the result that £25 billion a year is spent servicing that debt when the money could be better spent on public services.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Answer the question.
    Mr. Darling: Conservative Members do not like being reminded of their legacy, which we have had to clear up.
    My right hon. Friend announced that our approach is to ensure stable public finances so that we can increase sustainable spending on public services. We will also ensure that current spending is met by income that we raise, and we will borrow only to invest prudently. That is what the former Government never achieved. We have sorted out the mess that they left us.
    I notice that the shadow Chancellor last night addressed the Carlton club political committee and observed not only that taxes are lower in Britain, that corporation tax is down to 30 per cent. and that our long-term interest rates are lower than ever; he also said:
    "government debt here is likely to be lower than most others."
    If he was willing to endorse us last night, he ought to be willing to do so this afternoon.
    Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that many Labour Members represent rural constituencies because the Tory party neglected their need for financial investment. My part of England is isolated from the national road network and our public transport is the worst imaginable. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the spending review will, for the first time in two decades, take into account the needs of the rural as well as those of the urban economy?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. For 18 years, the previous Government largely neglected rural areas. It is only in the past few weeks that the Tories have taken an interest in them—which is why so many of their former colleagues find themselves out of work: they were not aware of what the Tory Government were doing to rural areas.
    The comprehensive spending review will address those problems. We made a start in the last Budget, recognising some of the problems that people faced with rural transport and the lack of it in many areas. When the Tories start complaining about our prudent spending plans for the next few years, when they accuse of us of going on a spending spree or of having too loose a fiscal policy, they really must tell us, what do they want to cut? Are we spending too much on health, too much on education, too much on transport? They must answer those questions.
    The Government are determined to improve education standards in urban and rural areas throughout the country. We want to increase spending on health. We want to ensure that we have a transport system that is fit for this country as we move into the next millennium. The previous Government could never, ever do that, because of their approach to public spending and their incompetence in economic management.

    Arms Sales
    Mr. David Heath: Under what circumstances he would be advised by Customs and Excise officers of an intention to prosecute for breach of United Nations sanctions, or an Order in Council, on arms sales. [46153]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): Where prospective prosecutions are important and likely to attract parliamentary, public and media attention, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is advised by customs of intention to prosecute. Such advices are copied to the Chancellor's office.
    Advices to Treasury Ministers are for information only—Treasury Ministers have no role in decisions on whether to prosecute a particular case.
    Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that reply. I have now discovered six Departments and their Ministers who seem to have a finger in the pie of arms control. Is it any wonder that we have such a muddled situation—why arms get into the hands of quite improper countries and destinations? Is it not time that we had a clearer, more transparent system, which provided for a committee of scrutiny in the House?
    Dawn Primarolo: I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. Treasury Ministers have no role in decisions on whether to prosecute particular cases.

    Casinos
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the taxation of casinos. [46155]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): Increases in gaming duty were announced in the March Budget. These changes increase the top rate of duty and reduce the gross gaming yield threshold for each band, raising an additional £20 million in 1998–99 and £25 million in 1999–2000.
    Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that, after the Budget announcement on gaming duty, Mr. Alan Goodenough, chief executive of London Clubs International, informed his staff that their pay increases and promotion prospects were under threat, and asked them to write to their Members of Parliament to complain? Is she also aware that, as revealed by the Daily Mirror on 1 June, at the same time Mr. Goodenough was busy awarding himself a 110 per cent. pay increase, taking his earnings to £851,000, and awarding three other directors pay increases of 90 per cent. plus?
    Does the Financial Secretary agree that that example of double standards in the casino industry reveals that it can well afford to pay the modest tax increases that she announced? Does she further agree that staff of London Clubs International would be best advised to say to their chief executive that what is good enough for him is good enough for them, and that the directors, instead of awarding themselves fat-cat pay increases, should look after the interests of their staff?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that those who heard my hon. Friend's words will draw their own conclusions

    1165
    about Mr. Goodenough's pay rise. The Government's decisions to increase gaming duty on casinos were based on the fact that the industry could afford to pay more tax, and there is no reason why it should not pay it.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Has it occurred to Treasury Ministers how closely they now resemble the croupiers in a casino themselves, as they have decided to bet on future movements of interest rates when deciding on their fiscal policies?
    Dawn Primarolo: I have never been in a casino. The Government base their decisions on taxing that industry on the economic evidence that is available to them. It makes a very comfortable profit, and the tax is totally justified.

    Health Service Expenditure
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What the implications are of the proposals set out in his oral statement of 11 June 1998, Official Report, columns 1195–201, for expenditure on health services over the next three years. [46157]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Plans for the health services over the next three years will be set out in the comprehensive spending review. As I said a few minutes ago, the results of that review will be published before the summer recess.
    Mr. Hughes: I thought that the Chief Secretary might give that answer. May I help him by pointing out that there is some money that does not need to wait for the comprehensive spending review? The economic and fiscal report published by the Chancellor on the day of his announcement a few weeks ago revealed that the underspend for the last financial year was £1.5 billion more than expected. Therefore, there is now sitting in reserve, unallocated for this year, between £1 billion and £2 billion. It would be entirely possible both to meet the pay recommendation in full for all those in the health service, instead of its being phased, and to put an extra £1 billion or more into the NHS this year without using any additional revenue, collecting any more money or waiting until the next financial year. Given that the money is available, why has it not been spent?
    Mr. Darling: It is well seen, as one political commentator observed, that the Liberal Democrats have not been near the Treasury for some 80 years. The Liberal Democrats' attitude to public spending is such that, the minute they think they see any money, they believe that it should be spent. They pay no regard to any other claims that might come the Treasury's way during the next financial year.
    The fact is that the Government have invested an additional £2 billion in the health service in our first two years in office. Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats promised to invest only £1.1 billion in the first two years, so we have invested in the health service twice as much as the Liberals planned to do. The comprehensive spending review, which will be published shortly, will set out how much the Government believe that they can invest in the health service over the next three years. The most important factor that the Liberals have yet to grasp is that,
    1166
    unless public spending is built on sustainable foundations and, unless we ensure that we can afford public spending in the future, we shall return to the stop-go funding of public services, under which the health service suffered considerably. The Liberal Democrats know absolutely nothing about that—which is why it is highly likely that it will be at least another 80 years before they have any chance of getting near the Treasury.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Can the Chief Secretary confirm that, from 1979 to 1997, Government spending on the national health service grew by an average of 3.1 per cent. more than inflation? Can the Chief Secretary commit the Government at least to matching that growth in the resources available to the health service? Failing that—more modestly—can he, at the very minimum, commit the Government to ensuring that the share of national income dedicated to the national health service is not allowed to fall? Will he commit himself to maintaining the higher share of national income that the previous Government committed to the national health service, over and above the record that we inherited from our predecessors?
    Mr. Darling: Since this is a day of welcoming, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his unaccustomed place in the Chamber. As a former Health Minister, he will know that one of the mistakes that the previous Government made was certainly to spend more money, but to spend it on health service bureaucracy and not on front-line patient care. The Government took the early step of ending the internal market in the health service, which set hospital against hospital and saw an inordinate amount of money spent on red tape. We are now spending that money on front-line patient care.
    As a former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, because the previous Government mismanaged the economy and misread the economic signals in the late 1980s, in particular, they were not able to ensure that the health service had a sustainable base for future funding. The health service, like every other service, suffered because of the stop-go nature of public spending.
    In his statement a week or so ago, my right hon. Friend laid down a clear and stable foundation for all future public spending. The comprehensive spending review—the results of which will be announced shortly—will make abundantly clear the Government's commitment to the health service, in its 50th anniversary year, for the rest of the Parliament. We set up the national health service, and we shall ensure that it carries on into the next century in a way that the people of this country want.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What steps his Department has taken to resolve the millennium bug computer problem. [46159]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the planned completion date for the Treasury for the year 2000 programme is the end of this year for most IT systems, with the remainder to be completed by the end of March

    1167
    next year. The overall cost of work is £114,000, which will be funded from existing resources through rescheduling work programmes.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that he is the lead Minister in his Department dealing with the millennium bug? Will he say how much of his time is spent each week dealing with the millennium bug problem? How many people in his Department are dealing with the problem full time? Is the right hon. Gentleman happy, following the Audit Commission's report last week, that the Department will be able to meet its time scale?
    Mr. Robinson: I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we shall be able to meet our time scale, unlike the Opposition who, when they were in government, did nothing about the problem. We have a comprehensive range of activities at the Treasury and throughout all central Government Departments. We are committed to ensuring that this very serious problem, in which the hon. Gentleman has an interest and on which he had quite recently an Adjournment debate, is properly handled, which it was not when the Conservative party was in government.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What recent representations he has received on his decision to introduce a working families tax credit. [46160]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The working families tax credit has been welcomed by a wide range of individuals and organisations.
    Ms Winterton: Has my hon. Friend received any representations about the amount of working families tax credit that will be available to 18 to 21-year-olds, who will be on the lower level of the national minimum wage? Will my hon. Friend confirm that anyone with a family who is eligible for the working families tax credit will receive the same overall amount of income whether they are over or under 21?
    Dawn Primarolo: I have not received the representations to which my hon. Friend has referred. However, I can confirm to her that every family working full time will have a guaranteed income of at least £180 per week. No family with earnings of less than £220 a week will pay tax. The new child tax credit, which replaces the failed family credit allowance, will be available to all families.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: When will this wonderful tax credit come in? If it is so good, why is it not already in?
    Dawn Primarolo: It will be introduced in October 1999. It is the democratic process and proper scrutiny by the House that dictate when it will be introduced.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Would the Minister accept that part of the reason why the tax and benefit system for the low-paid is a mess is that it developed
    1168
    piecemeal, with different bits being added at different times rather than a coherent overview being taken? Does the hon. Lady accept that the Government are in danger of making the same mistake again by introducing the working families tax credit without integrating help with housing costs?
    Dawn Primarolo: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. The Government are taking an overview, and are developing a comprehensive system.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: How will the self-employed be able to claim the working families tax credit, given that it will be coming through the wage packet?
    Dawn Primarolo: The self-employed will be able to apply for the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit in the same way as anyone else. Discussions are taking place now between employers and representative organisations and between the Inland Revenue and those organisations with a view to developing the most appropriate way of delivering this mechanism.

    Value Added Tax
    Jackie Ballard: What assessment he has made of the gender impact of the range of goods and services which are subject to VAT; and if he will make a statement. [46161]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): There has been no specific assessment of the impact of VAT on expenditure by gender. However, Treasury officials are looking at how the analysis of Budget measures can be deepened—including by gender.
    Jackie Ballard: Does the Minister agree that, for 15 million British women, sanitary products are as an essential part of the family budget as food or clothing? Is the hon. Lady aware that Britain has one of the highest rates in Europe of valued added tax on sanitary protection? Will she therefore respond positively to the 171 Members, many of whom are her hon. Friends, who signed early-day motion 683, and asked the Government to reduce VAT on sanitary protection to the European Union minimum of 5 per cent?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, and I am well aware of the anxiety that exists not only in the House, but in women's groups; it has been well represented in women's magazines. Value added tax is levied on a wide range of other essential health and hygiene products that affect men or women, or both, and they have to pay VAT. The history of VAT on those products dates back to 1977, and there has been a debate about the matter. At the moment, there is no proposal to reduce VAT on sanitary products.

    Cross-border Shopping
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: If he will make a statement on progress with the review of cross-border shopping and smuggling of alcohol and tobacco announced in his Budget of July 1997. [46162]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): My ministerial colleagues and I have seen and studied the review report, and value greatly the input by members of the trade in particular. However, in view of the possible public spending implications, the Government will announce their proposals as part of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review later in the year.
    Mr. Atkinson: While the report has been gathering dust on the Minister's desk for the past six months, small retailers have been going out of business and criminals have been getting richer. The north-east of England is the bootlegging centre of Britain, and Kent police estimate that more than 1,000 north-easterners are involved in smuggling of one form or another. It is fuelling criminal activity throughout the region. Will she act, and publish the report to bring the problem out into the open?
    Dawn Primarolo: I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative Government did not take any action on this issue. On revenue lost through the smuggling of beer, for example, the Government lose £120 million a year against £3 billion in revenue collected. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to accuse the Government of not taking any measures to counter smuggling when we have announced tougher prosecution policies, substantially increased the charges for returning vehicles and made it absolutely clear that any legitimate business that participates in the trade will have severe sanctions taken against it. We have repeatedly told hon. Members that smuggling is a criminal activity, that Customs and Excise is increasing its activities to prevent smuggling, and that they should all make it clear that smugglers, are taking money out of the back pockets of our schools, our hospitals and our public services.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: May I bring to my hon. Friend's attention The Pipe Shop in Sandwich in my constituency, which is one of many businesses in east Kent that will be driven out of business by the resale of goods bought duty paid in France if we do not do something to curb that trade? Does she agree that, at no cost to the Treasury, customs officers could be allowed to reject the claim that people are bringing goods into the country for family or friends? People should be allowed a personal allowance set at a level appropriate for a normal person's consumption in three months, rather than at a level appropriate for the consumption of a chain-smoking dipsomaniac over 12 months.
    Dawn Primarolo: The limits to which my hon. Friend refers are those to which the previous Government committed us in terms of the legitimate amount of
    1170
    produce that members of the public could bring into this country. That is non-negotiable, and the Government are not able to reopen it. It is a shame that Conservative Members did not think a little more carefully when they agreed those limits. My hon. Friend has made an important point which the Government bear in mind and pursue actively; however, we must not only prevent smuggling, but prevent the legitimate trade from being undermined by such activity. All hon. Members would want to join us in that.

    Taxation
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: How many representations he has received regarding his forecasts for the tax burden. [46165]
    Mr. Richard Spring: If he will make a statement on his Department's forecast for the future tax burden. [46167]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Chancellor receives many representations on issues relating to taxation. The tax to gross domestic product ratio is projected to be constant over the next two years.
    Miss Kirkbride: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is he now prepared to come clean about the true state of the public finances? The working families tax credit will not be properly accounted for in inflationary revenue and spending statistics. Rather than being a public spending commitment, it will be regarded as a tax forgone, and therefore will not be truly affected by public expenditure.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady has misunderstood the position. The way in which we account for the working families tax credit is laid down by international accounting standards, by which this Government, like all Governments, abide.
    Mr. Spring: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the burden on the average family of tax and mortgage increases now amounts to some £1,000? How does he reconcile that with the disgracefully misleading statements about tax before the general election?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall that he supported the previous Government, who imposed 22 tax rises in complete contradiction to everything that they had said at the election. I remind him of two central facts. Measured in whichever way one likes, taxes are lower in Britain than in continental Europe. Corporation tax in the United Kingdom is 30 per cent.—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Members to get upset about that, but I was not the first to say it. The shadow Chancellor said it last night at the Carlton club. If the shadow Chancellor knows that taxes are lower in Britain than elsewhere in Europe, it should be good enough for Conservative Back Benchers.

Energy Review
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's review of energy sources for power generation and the preliminary conclusions on which I am now consulting.
The review was set up following the crisis in the coal industry last autumn, amid claims that the electricity market was rigged against coal. In response, the Government set up a wide-ranging review of electricity generation. The review has looked widely at the issues, with the assistance of independent consultants, about 150 outside representations, and meetings with some 40 parties. It has confirmed that there are, indeed, serious distortions in the electricity market. As a result, prices have been higher than they should have been. New gas stations have entered the market, benefiting from those high prices, displaced coal and failed to bring prices down for consumers. Without action to address those distortions, prices for consumers will continue to be higher than necessary, and diversity and security of supply will suffer.
Some have pressed the Government to go further and guarantee a specific share of the electricity market for UK deep-mined coal. The Government have given careful consideration to those and all other proposals. We do not, however, believe that to identify a defined share of the market, regardless of other considerations, would be the right course to take. Our aim is to put all fuels on a level playing field, and not to give priority to any one. We do not propose to subsidise any part of the UK coal industry. Coal producers themselves have asked for fairness, not favours.
I must therefore make it clear, against a background of speculation in the press, that there is no deal with the generators by which the Government have offered to introduce new policies in return for the generators buying British coal. Nor are the Government's policy conclusions in any way conditional on their doing so. That, and the fact that coal purchase decisions are a matter for them, has been made clear to the generators.
I have asked the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply, and his views are set out in our consultation document. He has identified significant problems both in the electricity pool and in the market structure. Those, and the high prices arising in the market, have been among the factors encouraging the growth of gas in electricity generation at the expense of coal. He has advised me that action is needed to reform the trading arrangements so that all plant plays a full role in competition, and to address the market power of the major generators. He also sees new entry as important. We agree with him that reform of the market is needed.
The review has confirmed that the main objective of our energy policy should be secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. That includes our concern to achieve environmental improvements. Taking account of the advice we have received from the DGES, we intend to achieve that objective by creating a competitive electricity market, founded on diverse fuel sources, providing secure supplies and, into the bargain, delivering significantly lower electricity prices to customers.
1172
The Government are therefore making the following proposals to remedy the market distortions. We shall promote competition by reform of the wholesale electricity trading arrangements, and by pressing forward with competition in electricity supply. We shall seek practical opportunities for divestment of coal-fired plant by the major generators. We shall establish separate licensing of distribution and supply, and ensure fair trade in electricity with our European partners. We shall ensure that all generators are fairly remunerated for the services they provide to the grid. Taken together, those measures should remove the current distortions, which work against coal.
Market distortions disadvantage consumers, but they also have an impact on fuel use. That could put our energy policy at risk from both high prices and the loss of diversity and security that the squeezing out of coal and the consequent loss of coal-fired power stations would produce. Projections by our independent consultants, based on the current operation of the market, suggest that gas-fired generation could rise sharply, accounting for over 75 per cent. of our electricity within 20 years. In our view, a properly functioning market could well produce a different result.
There are also technical issues that arise from the growing use of gas on the grid. Our independent electrical engineering consultants report that the present arrangements have failed to resolve them. The DGES has said that better arrangements are needed. We propose to take that matter forward.
There is a wide reform agenda to pursue. That will take time; our aim is that, once it is achieved, the market will operate in a fully competitive way. However, the risk is that, before market reform is complete, fuel choices will be distorted, and diversity and security of supply will suffer. Therefore, during this period, we propose to apply a stricter energy policy to power station consents. In fact, significant market entry is still likely. Additional gas-fired power stations in various stages of development, equal to about 10 per cent. of system capacity and owned by competitors of the major generators, need no further authorisation.
Although the DGES has reservations about restrictions on consents, he recognises the Government's responsibility for energy policy, including diversity issues. In my view, it is of primary importance to avoid the pre-emptive destruction of our scope for diversity and security while reforms are yet to feed through.
The new consents policy will be in place only while our reform agenda is being addressed. I have asked the DGES to keep me informed of progress in dealing with the competition issues. I would expect the new consents policy to be relaxed when, on the basis of his advice, we conclude that our reforms have been undertaken and the distortions removed.
I turn now to the details of the proposed policy. We propose to approach new and pending applications for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 on the basis that new natural gas-fired generation would normally be inconsistent with our energy policy concerns about diversity and security.
However, combined heat and power projects have environmental and other benefits that may outweigh those concerns. They will do so if the project is properly sized to meet on-site or nearby heat and electricity requirements

1173
and to deliver high efficiency, although each case will be examined on its merits. It will be especially important that the relevant heat and electricity uses are clearly identified.
Other applications likely to support our environmental objectives without compromising energy security or diversity should be consistent with the Government's energy policy aims. They are likely to include renewable energy projects, including energy from waste, in support of the Government's intention to launch a strong drive on renewables, proposals using clean coal technology and the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment.
We shall take the same energy policy approach when considering existing and new notifications under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 relating to the construction of gas-fired power stations. That will apply whether or not consent has been given under the Electricity Act. The consultation document gives further details of our proposals, including those on notifications under section 14(2) of the Energy Act 1976, dual-firing power stations and black start units.
Decisions on individual applications for consents under section 36 of the Electricity Act and notifications under section 14 of the Energy Act will take into account all the circumstances of the particular case. In particular, in applying the new policy to cases that are already before me, I would take care to weigh carefully the impact on the interests of the promoters against the wider public interest.
The policy that I am proposing today should lead to substantially lower electricity prices by promoting genuine competition and efficiency. It will also safeguard diversity and security while we, with the regulator, press on with making the market work. There have been suggestions that, in the absence of restrictions, real falls in wholesale electricity prices of at least 10 per cent. should be possible in the medium term. My hope and expectation are that prices will in fact fall under our proposed policy by even more than that. While the new consents policy is in place, I have asked the DGES to continue to monitor electricity prices and alert me to any further concerns he may have.
As I have said, coal purchase decisions are a matter for the generators. However, if UK coal—including Scottish and Welsh coal—can be competitive on price and other terms of supply, I see no reason why it cannot have a very positive future in the electricity generation market. Achieving that success is a matter for the management and work force of coal producers.
Decisions on any pit closures would also be a matter for coal producers. However, in the event of any closures taking place, the Government are firmly committed to taking early action to put effective regeneration programmes in place. Consideration will be given to establishing a regeneration fund to help affected communities.
My right hon. Friends are reviewing separately the planning policies for opencast coal developments in England, Scotland and Wales in the light of the pre-election 10-point plan, environmental and local concerns and relevant conclusions of this review. They expect to announce proposals following the final outcome of that review.
Safeguarding the environment is a priority for the Government. Sulphur dioxide emissions from the major electricity generators in England and Wales are already programmed to fall to 365 kilotonnes in 2005. That target,
1174
and significant interim reductions, must be achieved. We believe that coal-fired generators should take all reasonable steps to run their plant with flue gas desulphurisation more than their plant without it, and major coal-fired generators should be encouraged to have at least one FGD-equipped plant.
Against that background, the Environment Agency will be discussing with generators its proposals for revision of emission limits. We expect those discussions to encompass the implications of this announcement, such as for the likely lifetime and usage of coal-fired power stations and policy on flue gas desulphurisation.
On climate change, the Government remain committed to achieving our targets. Our policy remains consistent with a decline in carbon emissions from the electricity generating industry. We shall be consulting this summer on meeting our legally binding Kyoto target of a 12·5 per cent. cut in greenhouse gas emissions, and on how we can move beyond that towards our own aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.
The proposals that I have made today are open for consultation until Monday 20 July, and we intend to announce our conclusions shortly thereafter. Until then, I propose to defer decisions on power station consents and notifications. Where decisions are necessary and should not be deferred, I propose to apply the proposals announced today, subject to the circumstances of each particular case. A consultation document, with full details of our proposals, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office.
Mr. John Redwood: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for that statement. We learn that the Government have laboured for a whole year to bring forward an energy policy. Today, they have brought forward a few more soundbites and another round of consultation. We were promised an elephant of a policy, and we have been offered a mouse. Over the past year, they have given us hot air. Today, it is more soothing oil than solid coal or cleaner gas. [Interruption.] Labour Members should not leave the Chamber now, but stay and listen. They know that we have been given no substance or policy, and that it is the mining jobs in their constituencies which are at risk.
In opposition, Labour said that it would save mining jobs with a radical plan for coal. In government, it embarked on the opposite policy—licensing gas power stations; announcing tougher environmental targets; and failing to step up clean coal technology. The Government soon faced the predictable large-scale pit closures and lost mining jobs. So they panicked, and went out to consultation.
The Opposition welcome the pool price review. I suggested such a review months ago. Why has it taken so long to come to conclusions? When will the Government make some decisions about that vital matter? Will they find a way that is fair not only to coal but to gas? How many mining jobs will go regardless?
The Government's proposals are not so much a U-turn as a skid and a spin. How long will it be before clean coal technology is used at more coal power stations? What is the future of the gas industry—which was expanding fast and doing well before the moratorium was imposed? Why is there no statement on the future of the nuclear industry, particularly in the wake of the report by the

1175
Select Committee on Trade and Industry? We have heard a statement from the President which—by trying to face all ways at once—merely creates more confusion.
The Government's energy and environmental policies remain at loggerheads. The Prime Minister pledged the United Kingdom to tougher targets than the challenging ones that the previous Government had set and left in place. To hit them means burning less coal—a lot less coal—and turning to cleaner ways of generating power. Now the President wants us to believe that she will save some of the mining jobs that her own Government were threatening. That means that they will fail to hit their very own environmental targets.
It is no good the President replying that dirtier electricity will mean fewer cars on the road, because the Deputy Prime Minister is briefing to say that he will not be stopping us driving. Nor—I hope—will they force granny to turn down the central heating. Therefore, the Government must do something about power generation.
It has taken so long to produce such a sketchy policy because the Government have been at war over what to do. Those who wish to subsidise mining jobs have clearly been defeated. The Energy Minister has been sidelined once again. The Treasury has intervened liberally, and the President has been left with the unenviable task of playing across the line of the spin from No. 10 Downing street. Cricketers will know what happens next: the batsman gets caught out.
Ministers say different things to different audiences, to get through difficult days. They seem more interested in saving their own jobs than other people's.
Will the President today admit that, on this policy, the UK cannot hit its environmental targets, and that those targets will have to be changed? Will she promise to return to the House when she has made up her mind on all the issues that are so notably missing from the statement? The Government will have to understand that, by trying to be all things to all men, one ends up satisfying no one and closing a lot of pits.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman talked about saving mining jobs. In December 1980, a total of 230,000 people were employed in Britain's coal mines; today, there are 12,000. We do not need any lessons from him about what can happen to mining jobs.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he suggested the review months ago. He spent his first few months as Opposition spokesman complaining that the Government were reviewing too many things, and attacking us for proposing to review any more.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale on clean coal and renewables. Contrary to what he said, the Government have already increased investment in renewables. I am sure that he will be gratified to learn that we already have an application to build a suitable station, which we shall, of course, be considering with great interest.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be torn between wanting to know the future of the coal industry and wanting to know the future of the gas industry. On the future of both industries, we shall unrig the market that the Conservative party left rigged, so that both industries can fairly compete against each other.
1176
Why nothing about nuclear power? Nuclear power currently is not economic—as I think even the right hon. Gentleman will accept—and the Government have no plans to proceed down that route. He further asserts that the Government set tougher targets for the environment. He has alleged that that is behind the problems, and that those targets cannot be hit. He is wrong again; they can be hit.
Finally, I note the right hon. Member's observations about various of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have played an extremely important, worthwhile and supportive role throughout Government, ironing out the implications of those policy issues for a variety of Departments. The right hon. Gentleman seems incapable of taking on board the fact that Government colleagues can co-operate in that way. No doubt, that says more about the record of the Conservative Government than this one.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the President for her statement. This is a complex issue, as my colleagues on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and I found when we started looking into the energy industry. We recognised that it will involve not only Government policy but a degree of consensus throughout the various parts of the industry. Therefore, it is essential that the proposals should be put out for extended consultation. Does she also agree that the problem is not so much one of the existing owners of power stations not buying coal, but of getting people into ownership who are prepared to buy it? Therein lies the strength of the proposal for a divestment of ownership of some of the stations.
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us will welcome the flexible approach that she is prepared to take towards the moratorium? The blunt instrument that has been wielded for the past six months has not won any friends anywhere in the energy business. Those who want instant action today should not forget that coal is never bought in substantial amounts between June and September, and that there is time to get a proper deal to put the energy market on a proper footing so that the long-term security of miners' jobs can be guaranteed.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and for the important work of the Committee that he chairs. He is entirely right to say that it takes time to thrash out those issues. As he will have seen, we have allowed a further period of consultation so that people can take account of the Government's proposals. Of course, many people have already given us the benefit of their views during the review that has already been undertaken.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about divestment and the flexible approach to a stricter deferment policy on gas consents. The Government believe that all that offers a constructive way forward, and I appreciate his observations.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I thank the right hon. Lady for making the statement and for many of the things in it, although I must say something about those that, unfortunately, are not? We welcome the restraint on generation capacity and the removal of price distortion, although we will be interested to see precisely how that is to be achieved. Also, we welcome the reprieve for combined heat and power schemes, and the more flexible approach for the future.

1177
There were many sweet words in a rather long statement, but not too much action. For instance, there is still no clear overall energy policy for the nation or the Government. When can we expect that? There is no clear support for declining coalfield communities, which must clearly face substantial economic problems in the next five years as a result of the statement. No clear help is set out for renewables, there are no proposals on fuel efficiency or energy conservation, and what of the subsidiary issues, such as opencast mining? There were many unanswered questions in a long statement, and I hope that the right hon. Lady can provide some supplementary information now.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming some issues, although slightly surprised that, having welcomed a number of proposals, he said that there was nothing in the statement—he managed to find at least three things. He suggested that there was no clear overall policy. I said repeatedly throughout the statement that Government policy is to obtain diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies at competitive prices. That is very much our underlying approach.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to say more about the detail of coal communities support. I do not share the view that he seems to take about the extent to which such support is likely to be needed, but he will appreciate that, if a regeneration scheme in the coalfields is required, that would be a matter for my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is not a matter to which I would be referring today.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about proposals for, among other things, fuel efficiency. Again, those issues are addressed elsewhere, but we have issued proposals on such matters in, for example, our Green Paper on utility regulation. As I said, we are increasing support for renewables.
Mr. Tony Benn: In hoping that the President will disregard the totally hypocritical comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whose party consciously, deliberately and politically destroyed the coal industry throughout its period of government; and in thanking her for providing some alleviation to the short-term crisis afflicting the industry may I ask whether she recognises that any serious, long-term energy policy for Britain must take account of the fact that there is 1,000 years of coal under our territory, which is mined by some of the most highly skilled engineers in the world? It must also take account of the fact that nuclear power is much more expensive than coal, that opencast coal mining inflicts terrible environmental damage on mining areas—where people lose their jobs and their environment—and that up to 40,000 jobs in the mining manufacturing industry could be endangered if the domestic mining industry is allowed to collapse. Does she recognise that competitiveness, level playing fields and market forces are not the basis on which a nation can preserve its long-term policy, as the oil crisis of 1973 should have taught us all?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his recognition of the ludicrous attitude of the Conservative party. He talks about a serious, long-term policy, the coal reserves that may be available and his concern about the mining manufacturing industry, and I
1178
completely understand that those issues arise. However, I do not share his view that the serious, long-term and sustainable energy policy that we have outlined today will not leave a place for coal. We inherited a market in which coal had no future—that was, indeed, a measure of the Conservative party's hypocrisy—but, in these proposals, the Government are creating the space within which the coal industry has a chance to make its case.
Mr. William Cash: Does the President recall that a few Conservative Members, including me, voted against the pit closure programme, and that, shortly after the general election, I had an Adjournment debate which, some may reasonably say, stimulated discussion on this subject?
I congratulate the Government on their intentions as set out in the review, but I deeply regret the fact that no decisions have yet been taken. The right hon. Lady speaks about competition and a fair deal, but what specific action will the Government take to deal with the disgraceful distortion whereby, in the context of European coal, the German coal mining industry receives £5 billion a year in subsidy, but there is no equivalent redress for the British coal mining industry? I congratulate the Government on their intentions, but the review is very short on specifics.
Mrs. Beckett: I remember and respect the hon. Gentleman's stance on the previous Government's proposals, which resulted in so many pit closures. However, I say—with respect—that, if he had taken his opposition further and opposed some of the other actions of the Conservative Government, he might not have needed to oppose those closures. The previous Government's programme did nothing to redress the distortions in the marketplace on which we are taking action. Today's proposals, our review and the pressure we are applying over subsidies in the European Union—on which we share the view of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and on which my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has again been in touch with the Commission today—are issues on which the Government have taken a stance, unlike the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. We believe that our actions will create the fair market for coal that did not exist under the Conservative party.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Will my right hon. Friend take no notice of the comments by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? He is a classic case of Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, because he did one thing and says another. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, during the period when the discussion document is out for consultation, she will apply the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to protect men in the industry?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am not altogether sure I can even say cognitive dissonance without thinking hard. I recognise the importance of his point, but he will realise that TUPE conditions are a matter for the industry.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I heard the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry announce the Government's policy on the radio this morning, and I have listened to

1179
the President expand on the details. However, I must confess that I am none the wiser about what the statement was all about. As I understand it, the President will restrict development of gas-fired power generation, albeit on a temporary basis, and will allow coal-fired generators to purchase as much coal as they like, wherever they like and at whatever price.
To compete, however, the generators will have to buy coal at world prices. There is an awful lot of coal in the far east at the moment, and to get British coal prices down to world price levels, we would need more opencast-mined coal that we could blend with deep-mined coal. Yet the President says that there will be a further restriction on opencast mining, which makes no sense under the logic of what she is proposing. She must explain more fully for the benefit of the miners in my constituency exactly what she is proposing to do.
Mrs. Beckett: One thing is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said: he has not understood the degree to which we inherited a market rigged by the incompetence of his party. Currently, gas and nuclear power have privileged access to the market. Coal was simply not able to compete fairly, and that is the source of the coal industry's difficulties. There are competition issues which the coal industry itself must address, but contracts have been signed for British coal in recent months, and it is clearly possible for UK coal to be competitive. That was not possible in a market that was deliberately rigged against the coal industry by the Conservative party.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the President aware that pit closures in areas of high unemployment would be a dangerous step, now that unemployment is possibly beginning to rise? Will she assure me that there will be no pit closures until proper conclusions have been reached from the holding review? Will she take into account necessary measures such as cutting imports, opencast mining and the French electricity link? If those actions cannot do the job, will she remember that our coalfield area is tiny, containing only 20 large pits at the most after the disastrous Tory years? There is, of course, one easy way to ensure the industry's stability, and that is to take it back into public ownership.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that that is, and always has been, my hon. Friend's view, but he knows that it is not the Government's policy. He asked about potential pit closures. His expertise on the subject is such that he knows that I cannot give that assurance. Apart from anything else, matters of geology can arise at any time. I cannot give the assurance that he seeks, but I can say that I do not anticipate that we will, in the aftermath of today's statement, see anything other than a coal industry that is able to find its competitive feet and to make its way fairly in the marketplace. He knows that that is what the industry has sought.
My hon. Friend asked for a statement on opencast mining. He knows that that is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. They will make a statement when the further review that I announced today is concluded in a few weeks. He also mentioned the French interconnector. I assure him that, just as we are continuing to press the
1180
issue of subsidies elsewhere in the European Union, we are considering how we can tackle this issue. We hope that the electricity liberalisation directive will offer an opportunity for coal-generated electricity when it is in place.
Mr. John Gummer: I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows that her statement will have been received with disbelief by the environmental community. Can she explain who among the plethora of advisers and specialist consultants were her environmental consultants? How much extra CO2 will go into the atmosphere as a result of her policies? In what specific ways is she going to reduce CO2 elsewhere? How is she going to produce a 20 per cent. cut in CO2 when every Government policy has increased emissions, despite what they have said?
Mrs. Beckett: The Government are absolutely clear that what we are announcing today is consistent with the targets that we have set. The right hon. Gentleman himself has a contradiction to sort out. I understand that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has said that the reason why coal mining jobs are at risk is because we have tightened environmental targets more than the Conservatives would have done. I suggest that they come back when they have sorted out their difficulties.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the two pits in my constituency, Welbeck and Harworth, the miners have made fantastic increases in productivity of up to 250 per cent. in the past few years, but still find their jobs in jeopardy? The harder they work, the more it seems that the EC imposes restrictions on their industry and favours cheap imports from north Africa and Russia. Why should the Germans be able to subsidise their coal and the French dump on us? Why should our miners always have to face supposedly fair competition that actually works against them? Can she not stop opencast mining, which destroys the environment? Can she set at rest the minds of miners now that the extra redundancy pay period has expired? If their jobs are going because of EC decisions, we should restore the redundancy pay that they were getting only a few years ago.
Mrs. Beckett: I respect my hon. Friend's long-standing expertise on this matter. We are continuing to press on subsidies, whether in Germany or elsewhere in the European Union, and on the French interconnector. A statement on opencast mining will be made later. He knows as well as anyone in the House that there are circumstances in which some opencast coal is needed to sweeten the use of deep-mined coal. It is not an altogether straightforward issue. I have taken on board his point about the miners in his constituency continuing to deliver higher productivity but still finding their jobs at risk. The simple reason, as he well understands, is that the market left by the Conservative party was deliberately rigged against them. It will not be in future.
Mr. John Butterfill: The right hon. Lady says that she will conduct a price review. She knows that the problem is the structure of the pool and how it operates, and that gas is much more appropriate for interruptible supply than for base load, where it is largely used now. How will we deal with that problem?

1181
She also said that she wants diversity and security of supply, and that she will reduce emissions by 2010, by which time virtually all, if not all, of the Magnox stations will have closed. They do not produce any emissions at all. How does she intend to replace those stations if, as she has said today, she does not propose to take any initiatives on new nuclear stations?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the structure of the pool. That has been the nature and source of the problem, although I do not recall his saying so when his party was in government, but never mind.
Mr. Butterfill: Yes, I did.
Mrs. Beckett: He did. In that case, I take that back. I beg his pardon.
We are very well aware that the structure of the pool is the difficulty. That is the issue which we intend to tackle. One of the things that the hon. Gentleman will find when he has a chance to study the consultative document—I recognise that he cannot have done so yet—is that there are a number of issues surrounding the use of gas. He is right to say that it gives a more readily interruptible supply, but there are a number of issues related precisely to diversity and security of supply, and technical issues related to the way in which the market operates at present as a result of the operation of far more gas-powered stations, where there used to be a greater role for coal. The Government have received preliminary reports from consultants, and we shall continue to consider the issues.
Yvette Cooper: The 1,200 miners and 33,000 electricity customers in my constituency will have a strong interest in my right hon. Friend's statement today. I welcome her recognition that the Conservatives did not merely shut pits but outrageously rigged the market against the coal from the pits that were left. Will she give an assurance that the pool will be radically restructured? It lies at the heart of many of our problems with coal. What does my right hon. Friend believe would have happened to the coal industry if we had continued with the policy of the previous Government?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I recognise the importance of the mining industry to my hon. Friend's constituency and the wider concerns of her constituents. She is right about the rigged market. I certainly assure her that it is very much the Government's intention that the pool review will produce proposals that allow for radical restructuring. She will probably recall that we announced the pool review as long ago as October, if my memory is correct. It is our intention that it should proceed.
My hon. Friend asked what would have happened to the coal industry had the Conservative party remained in power. There is no doubt about it. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has made the point that the Conservatives would have taken a different attitude to some of these issues, but none of us has any doubt that, had the policy that the Conservatives left in place continued to operate, the coal industry in Britain would have simply disappeared. I doubt whether more than one or two Conservative Members would have cared tuppence.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In welcoming the right hon. Lady's statement and recognising that there has
1182
to be considered examination of the consultation document, may I ask what overall assessment has been made of the impact on employment? Reports are circulating in the Scottish press that the proposals could cause the loss of several hundred jobs in the gas industry in Scotland and beyond. Does the right hon. Lady believe that she has produced a sustainable policy that will reduce dependency on the nuclear industry?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her recognition. These are complex issues, and the impact on employment is not easy to assess. I am aware of some of the stories in the Scottish press. To be honest, we find it rather hard to understand the basis for them. It is not our expectation that those stories will prove to be soundly based. On the overall aspects of energy policy, it is the Government's intention to pursue diverse, secure and sustainable sources of electricity at competitive prices. Within that, there is a role for a variety of sources. That, we believe, could be one of the strengths of energy policy as a whole.
Mr. Kevin Barron: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome her statement, which is the first bit of good news the deep-mined coal industry in this country has had for more than a decade? Does she agree that nobody on the Labour Benches argued that the coal industry ought to be subsidised? We said that it ought to have a fair chance—a level playing field in a market that had been rigged by the Conservatives when they were in office.
I am sure that many people in coal mining communities will thank my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government, who have been working for many months to give a bit of pride and honesty back to those communities. I am sure that they will deliver a sustainable deep-mined coal industry for many years to come, from which all the people of this country will benefit, not least electricity consumers, who will derive immediate benefit from the decisions that my right hon. Friend is taking.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The proposals in the review stem deliberately from our proposals for energy supply, but he is right to say that they will also have a beneficial effect in creating, for the first time in many years, a reasonable and fair market for coal. I am grateful for his recognition of that. As he reminded us, it is ironic that, because of their desperate efforts to rig the market against coal no matter what the cost, the Conservatives left us in a position where all customers—every family and every industrial consumer in this country—have been paying a higher price for electricity than they need to. That was the price of rigging the market against coal.
Mr. Eric Forth: What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the adverse environmental impact of her regime for coal-fired power stations? In giving that estimate, can she tell us how she proposes to meet the Kyoto targets, given the effect that coal-fired power stations will have; and in which areas other compensating reductions will take place?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have been paying attention to recent statements by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I assure him that

1183
we have looked carefully at the issue and that we are clear that there is nothing in my statement that will prevent the Government from reaching the targets we have set ourselves—which are, of course, rather firmer targets than those set by the Conservatives.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will my right hon. Friend accept that her statement will be widely welcomed in coalfield communities, because it provides a framework that gives to coal fairness but no favours? Will not her announcements on the review of the pool and on tighter consent for gas stations give the opportunity for both coal producers and generators to come to new contract arrangements? Although that is a matter for them, is it not possible that a contract for, say, 25 million tonnes might be achievable? If that were achieved, there could be no question of any pit closures or job losses.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on this issue, and that, with the Coalfield Communities Campaign, he has always argued for fairness rather than favours. He has recognised the impact of the proposals announced today.
My hon. Friend asked me whether there are specific tonnage implications in the statement, but he also said, correctly, that the contracts to be made between generators and coal producers are a matter for them, so he will understand why it is for them and not for us to come to that judgment. All I can say is that I am in no doubt at all that the proposals we have announced today and the way in which we are unrigging the market, which was biased against coal, give a real space for coal in this country, which has not been present for many years.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having represented a coal mining area in local government some years ago, I have long had a loyalty to the industry and those wonderful men who work in it. Having said that, and appreciating its long-term role in energy in this country—picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said that there is 1,000 years of indigenous energy sourcing under our very earth—may I ask what specific measures the right hon. Lady has announced this afternoon to give the mining industry confidence that there will not be further coal mine closures and redundancies in an industry which I believe is of essential importance to this country? I was one of the few Conservative Members who voted against the decimation of the industry by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the coal industry and those who work in it. I hope that I will not harm his career by saying that I recognise his loyalty not only to that industry but to British manufacturing.
Mr. Winterton: It is too late.
Mrs. Beckett: That may be true.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we believe that today's statement will create confidence in the mining industry. 1 believe that it will. I remind him that, as several
1184
of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the industry has not asked for subsidy. It has asked for a fair, unrigged marketplace within which it can compete. That is what we are delivering in the statement. That, and the understanding that we shall remove the bias against the industry—against which it has fought, although, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, many Conservative Members denied that it existed—is doing more to create confidence than anything else that we could do.
Caroline Flint: I very much welcome the statement, and I am sure that the miners at Rossington pit in my constituency will also welcome it. We now have a Government who say that there is a future for coal.
Will my right hon. Friend's Department promote the image of the new coal mines in this country? During the past year, there has been a portrayal of an old industry with old skills, and new industries such as gas have been promoted against that. The pit in my constituency has some of the finest technology and engineering skills in the world which are not only used to produce coal in this country, but are marketable abroad where they create jobs for British people. I hope that her Department will ensure that that image of coal is conveyed, rather than the images of the past.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I welcome her words. As she says, coal is in many senses a new industry, as is mining support. There are technologies of the future for which there is a potential substantial market elsewhere in the world. We would have been unable to take advantage of that if we had followed the policies pursued by the Conservative party and allowed our own industry to disappear. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point that the industry has a future in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and I shall bear it in mind.
Mr. Michael Jack: The President may be aware that, in my constituency, British Nuclear Fuels plc manufactures all the fuel for Britain's nuclear power stations and operates the Magnox stations that provide electricity at the lowest marginal cost. Her statement was silent on the effect of her proposals on the nuclear industry. Many of my constituents would like to know what estimate she has made or received about the impact of her proposals on the market for nuclear-generated electricity.
Mrs. Beckett: Our proposals are for competition in the market that is fair between nuclear and other fuels, so there was no need for further comment on that. We inherited a market that was rigged against coal. Steps to advantage the nuclear industry have already been taken. This is not the first action that the Government have taken on the energy market; we have taken a series of actions since we came to power, and my statement does not change the basic position of the nuclear industry.
Mr. John Grogan: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), does my right hon. Friend agree that coal is now a modern, flexible, high-tech industry with a highly skilled and highly productive labour force? In many ways, it is a new Labour dream and is well able to compete on the level playing field to which my right hon. Friend referred.

1185
Does she agree that there is not only an opportunity but a responsibility for RJB Mining and the electricity generators to make use of the breathing space that the Government have given them and to invest for the future, particularly in clean coal technology?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I am grateful to him for his observations. He is right to say not only that the industry is modern, flexible, high-tech and able to compete, but that the market in this country has been given opportunities and a responsibility to seize them. In addition, given that coal will now have a level playing field in the UK, there are opportunities in overseas markets which, having a sound domestic basis, the industry will be in a better position to seize.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The President has said several times this afternoon that energy prices are higher than they need be. Will she be so kind as to place in the Library the evidence supporting that assertion, and give it to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? It is slightly surprising, in that all the electricity consumer organisations, the CBI, the Select Committee and others are concerned that Government interference in the energy market will put up prices, to the detriment of consumers.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been following what has been going on. There is no dispute that energy prices are higher than they need be. The Director General of Electricity Supply and the major energy users agree with that. The hon. Gentleman will find some supporting material in the consultation document that I have already placed in the Library—but I can assure him that the assertion is not contested, even by those who have benefited from the fact that energy prices are indeed higher than they need be. They have just kept quiet, but they do not dispute the fact.
Some people may have assumed—perhaps even hoped—that the Government would interfere in a way that raised prices. I stress that the Government are interfering to unrig the market that the Conservatives left. That will lower prices, because the rigging was keeping prices up.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. As a miner who worked underground for 30 years, I welcome transparent and open statements from Ministers. We have heard it accepted that there has been a serious distortion in the energy market in favour of gas; I welcome the fact that we now have a Government who are being honest.
I consider that the regulator and the Environment Agency have played a part in the distortion of the energy market. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that cannot happen again, to show that fairness and honesty in the energy market are the Government's intentions for the future?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose long experience in the industry I know of, for his observations and his welcome to the background of the
1186
Government's proposals. It is clearly not altogether understood—if it were, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) would not have said what he did—that the review and the study done by the consultants have clearly exposed the fact that everything said by the coal industry and the coalfield communities down the years about how the market was unfairly and deliberately rigged against coal, resulting in higher prices for customers, was absolutely true.
The Director General of Electricity Supply has himself recognised that the way the market now operates has resulted in higher prices, and he is seized of the need to take action to redress that.
Mr. John Bercow: Does the President accept industry estimates that about £3 billion of investment in new gas-fired power stations is at risk from an extended moratorium? If she does not accept those estimates, will she tell the House what hers are, and on what they are based?
Mrs. Beckett: There have been a lot of estimates based on a lot of rather wild rumours about what policy the Government might pursue. The Government are now putting these proposals in the public domain for consultation. No doubt people will have the chance to respond, and we will have the chance to assess their responses. We are determined that the coal industry should get a fair place in the market, and that consumers and the coal industry should both be fairly treated. That does require a deferment policy on consents, if justified.
As I have made clear—it will certainly be pursued over the weeks ahead—we shall look carefully, case by case, at any of these issues, should they need to be raised.
Ms Joan Walley: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome what she and her ministerial team have done in taking this important step toward a sustainable energy policy? However, there are major concerns from coalfields such as that in my constituency, where, because of what the previous Government did, it is already too late to safeguard coal mining. People are anxious that there should be no confusion between the concerns about a level playing field for deep-pit coal and those about opencast, and a licence should not be given to opencast. Will she meet anti-opencast campaigners, to ensure that concerns get fed into the review for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend. I well recall the circumstances in her area and constituency—the implications for what were quite modern pits there, and the stance that she and her colleagues in the city took on the matter. I also thank her for her words about the ministerial team. One of the rewarding features of this whole consideration of policy has been the way in which Ministers within my departmental team and across Departments have worked so constructively and well together. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General and to the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, and others, for the way in which everyone has worked co-operatively together.

1187
My hon. Friend asked me a question about opencast mining. As I have said, there will be a subsequent statement about opencast in the light of the outcome of the further review. I am always willing to hold meetings or discussions where an issue is directly relevant to my own portfolio and concerns. The issue that she raises may be a matter for my colleagues, but no doubt that will become apparent in due course.

Business of the House
4.31 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the business for next week.
The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 29 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day).
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate which the Opposition have called "The Government's mishandling of the economy", followed by a debate which they are calling "The Government's broken pledges on class sizes". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 30 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 1 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Completion of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 2 JULY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 3 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 6 JULY—Estimates Day (1st allotted day).
There will be a debate on further education, followed by a debate on the Government's proposal for a freedom of information Act.
The question will be put on the relevant estimates at 10 pm.
TUESDAY 7 JULY—Opposition Day (16th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Competition Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 9 JULY—Debate on the national health service, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 10 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 8 July there will be a debate on the 1999 preliminary draft budget in European Standing Committee B.
[Wednesday 8 July: European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: SEC(98)800, 1999 Preliminary Draft Budget. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-xxx (1997–98).]
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving the House next week's business and for indicating the business for the week thereafter.

1189
The right hon. Lady has not found time for a debate on the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and I make no apologies for returning to this subject in light of the publication this morning of its second special report. The right hon. Lady will know that today's special report criticises the Executive for imposing restrictions on the release of information properly sought by a Select Committee. That can frustrate the work of the House in its primary role of holding the Executive to account.
Yet again, the Select Committee seeks the views of the House at an early date. I hope that the right hon. Lady will end her boycott of those requests and listen to what the Chairman of the Select Committee, the highly respected hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), said when he called for a debate to be held as soon as possible, and warned that the issue was reaching a "high noon" between Ministers and Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said at this morning's press conference that not only should there be a debate in Government time but there should be a free vote on the matter. Will the right hon. Lady respond to the all-party requests for a debate, which goes to the heart of our role as Members of Parliament?
The need for that debate on holding the Executive to account has been made more urgent by the use by one of the right hon. Lady's supporters on the Select Committee of a device, which has not been used for 60 years, that can guillotine any line of questioning by any witness or any member of the Select Committee on any subject. That is simply unacceptable. I hope that the right hon. Lady will support the representations being made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee seeking to end the device.
Also on foreign affairs, the right hon. Lady may have seen that, in another place on 19 June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons, reaffirmed the commitment to debate NATO enlargement, which was first given nearly a year ago. When might we have that long-overdue debate?
The right hon. Lady has not announced time in the next two weeks for a debate on a Bill to ratify the Ottawa treaty on land mines. We have given a commitment to assist that legislation, contrary to the assertion yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence. Legislation could have been introduced earlier in the Session, so is it not a sign of panic that the Government have introduced it so late in the session? The right hon. Lady has said that she will not invite the House to sit on a Saturday in order to consider normal business. As the ratification of an international treaty such as this constitutes normal business, I suggest that we consider it instead on a non-sitting Friday.
Finally, the right hon. Lady would not expect me to sit down without asking her, in the interests of all those who work in the building, about her latest plans for the summer recess.
Mrs. Taylor: I shall go through the right hon. Gentleman's points in order. He asked me about the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He will know that, following the publication of that report, further discussions between the Committee Chairman and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary led to some progress on the matter, which is acknowledged in today's report.
1190
I know that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has issued a report today, but I have not yet been able to go through it with the Foreign Secretary. However, I am aware that it contains some praise for the Foreign Secretary's actions. We shall examine that report carefully, but I remind the House that the Legg inquiry is well under way, and we do not want to do anything that might prejudice its outcome.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has announced his commitment to publishing that report and to making more information available at that stage if necessary. In those circumstances, I am not sure that it is unreasonable to ask the Committee to contain its impatience a little longer. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in the ground rules regarding information to Select Committees. On that basis, I am slightly surprised that he should ask me to comment on the actions of a member of a Select Committee, because if I did so, he would accuse me of interfering in the activities of that Committee.
I would still like to find time for a debate on NATO enlargement before the summer recess, and I have not ruled that out absolutely. However, it is difficult to have such debates when we are providing time for other matters.
Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to do that again when he mentioned the land mines issue. As he knows, although the commitment predates his position as shadow Leader of the House, we have been saying all along that we would like to find time to ratify the Ottawa convention as soon as possible. It has been difficult to find time, not least because of the important progress which has been made on Northern Ireland, which I think we all welcome.
The Bill on land mines has not yet been introduced. It is being drafted, and I expect that it will be ready for introduction in the near future. We have heard very recently that the Leader of the Opposition has said that his party would be willing to help with the progress of that legislation. We are asking all parties if they are willing to do that, and we shall be seeking assurances on exactly what that means in terms of the progress of legislation in the House and in another place.
The question of the summer recess depends on the progress of business. All the requests that we receive for extra debates make the start date of the recess more likely to be later than earlier.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I for once unequivocally congratulate my right hon. Friend and other members of the Modernisation Committee on its recently published excellent report on the scrutiny of European legislation? If the Committee's recommendations are fully implemented, the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation coming from Brussels will be greatly enhanced. However, we need speedy implementation. When does my right hon. Friend propose to have a debate on these matters that will enable the House to vote on the recommendations?
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I think that I can say on behalf of the Modernisation Committee that I am grateful for the work that has been done by the European Legislation Committee. We are glad that it has been so supportive of our recommendations.

1191
I should like to find time for an early debate on the report and on the changes that are proposed. I know that some of the changes can be introduced without any alterations to Standing Orders. I know also that there has been at least one pre-Council meeting of my hon. Friend's Committee, where the Minister involved talked through the issues that would be coming up. I understand that that was very successful. I hope that we can continue to make progress, and that it will not be too long before we can make progress on other matters. We shall be discussing them further through the usual channels.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recall that, on behalf of my party, I offered our fullest co-operation to achieve ratification of the Ottawa convention some weeks ago, so that it could be achieved before the anniversary of the Princess of Wales's death? The right hon. Lady may recall that I suggested that, if necessary, we should meet on a Saturday. I believe that the matter is uncontroversial, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will find time for it. Can she confirm the briefing, following the Cabinet meeting this morning, that that is what the Cabinet has in mind?
Turning to the vexed question of the way in which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has been treated, may I invite the right hon. Lady to take off her hat as a member of the Government and put on her hat as Leader of the House? May I remind her that both the Committee's first report and the second report, which has been published today, seek not the views of the Government but those of the House? It is the House that is being asked to express a view. By preventing the House from having a view, I believe that the right hon. Lady is not doing her duty to the House as Leader.
I remind the right hon. Lady that there is a Government majority on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and that we are not talking of a partisan matter. The majority of the Committee believes that it is an extremely important issue. I invite the right hon. Lady to comment on the relationship between the Select Committee and the House. Complaints have already been made to the Procedure Committee about the way in which the Government are treating the views of Select Committees.
Finally, I remind the right hon. Lady that, in the business that she has announced for Monday 6 July, there is an opportunity for a debate on the Select Committee's report. I ask her to ensure that that debate takes place.
Mrs. Taylor: I know that the Select Committee has asked for the views of the House. I know also that there are guidelines, which have been laid out for some time, about the obligations on Government to provide information to Select Committees. As far as I can see from the examination that I have carried out so far—as I have said, I have not read in detail the report that came out today—there has been no departure from the guidelines. I would have to be convinced that there was some need to debate the issue further. There is a code of practice, and I believe that it has been followed.
I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of land mines with me at business questions in the past, as have a number of my hon. Friends.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend has been in the House long enough to
1192
know that all Governments manage to give themselves legislative indigestion from time to time. It will not come as a surprise to her that there is a lot to be done. Will my right hon. Friend accept that the easiest way out is not to keep suggesting that there is some magic way round the difficulty, but simply to abandon non-sitting Fridays and do what previous Governments have done, which is to take Government business on those days?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that non-sitting Fridays are much appreciated by Members who want to plan constituency engagements. I said that I had no plans to take the normal business of the House—the programme that we outlined in the Queen's Speech—on days other than those when we would normally be sitting. I think it is appropriate to consider the possibility of sitting on days other than those that are already scheduled for matters that have come up recently, such as the land mines issue.
No decisions on that have been made. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the Leader of the Opposition, and other parties are being consulted. We shall make decisions through the usual channels so that we can make best use of what time may be available for new issues that have arisen.
Sir John Stanley: Does the Leader of the House agree that the resurrection this week of the antique objections procedure, last used in the House in the 1937–38 Session, is incompatible with the proper functioning of modern Select Committees? Does the right hon. Lady further agree that this is a matter that she, as both Leader of the House and Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, should be supporting for reference immediately to the Procedure Committee? I shall be copying to her this afternoon my formal reference, which I trust she will support.
Mrs. Taylor: I shall look at the right hon. Gentleman's letter when I receive it.
Mr. Ernie Ross: As the person who invoked this procedure, Madam Speaker, I hope you will allow me just for the record to say that I was asked at the press conference—
Hon. Members: What is this?
Madam Speaker: Just a moment. I cannot hear the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). Is the hon. Gentleman putting a question to the Leader of the House?
Mr. Ross: I am indeed.
I was saying that in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs there are major disagreements. Those major disagreements involve the obsessional look of some members of the Committee. As on all Select Committees, when there are differences, those who are in disagreement have to use the methods that are open to them. The method I used was not intended by me to stop discussion in Committee.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a statement, and this is not the time for statements. If he is putting a question to the Leader of the House about next week's business, I ask him to do so precisely.
Mr. Ross: My point to the my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is that she should encourage the

1193
Select Committee to take up the offers made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to carry out an investigation when all the information is available.
Mrs. Taylor: I will certainly bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend has raised when I receive the letter from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). I know that it is true to say that both reports are split reports, and that there have been differences of opinion in the Committee. I think that it would be wrong for me to go into too much detail in terms of how any Select Committee works in practice. Obviously, if the Modernisation Committee were to turn its mind to these matters, they could all be examined.
Mr. David Davis: Will the Leader of the House reconsider her answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and to the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? The actions taken on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, particularly the use of an internal inquiry to fend off information being sought by the Committee, have implications for all Select Committees, and as a result undermine the ability of the House to hold the Executive to account.
Mrs. Taylor: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. The inquiry is independent, and the Government have not said that information cannot be available—it is a question of timing.
Mr. John Cryer: It is about time that we had a debate on the coal industry in Government time, in the light of today's statement.
May I request a debate on the relationship between the European Union and third-world countries? The EU is trying to foist on third-world nations trade treaties which are deeply exploitative and detrimental to their economies. It is also trying to force third-world nations into groups in which there will be big free market areas that could be exploited. It is about time that that sort of practice was exposed. If we do not have time for a debate in July, we should run into August, and perhaps stop the grouse shooting.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot possibly comment on the summer recess any further than I have done. I agree that a debate on the coal industry is a good idea, but my hon. Friend knows that there is a shortage of time. He also knows that the Government have been active in seeking to protect third-world countries, and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister of Agriculture have been working hard to co-ordinate the Government's approach on these matters—with some success, I hope. I cannot offer a debate in the near future, but International Development questions are on Wednesday.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I direct the attention of the Leader of the House to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was published last weekend, on what can only be described as the disgraceful fiasco surrounding the private finance initiative forerunner—the Skye bridge toll
1194
contract.? The report says some damning things about previous Ministers and people who continue to be civil servants.
There will obviously be a response from the Scottish Office in due course and an opportunity for a debate, but may I none the less draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that I prayed against the toll order—the Invergarry-Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Toll Order (Variation) Order 1997? To be fair, the Government introduced it in good faith, although it has not yet been possible to secure a debate on the Floor of the House or in Committee on the issue.
Given the damning nature of the PAC report, does the Leader of the House agree that we should debate the order with alacrity, so that Ministers can rehearse the background to what is an extremely sorry situation for my constituents?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I realise that he understands the problems that the Government have—that was the situation we inherited. As he acknowledges, the Government will study the PAC report carefully and put out a formal response. The lessons from the Skye bridge have already informed our best practice guidance for subsequent public-private partnerships, but there is certainly no room for complacency. I shall consider the specific matter of the order, without any promise of a debate, and I shall be back in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Clive Efford: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the timing of the debate on the national health service, especially as this year is its 50th anniversary? Furthermore, the debate will take place a day before an important 40th anniversary—my birthday—and the Department of Health is to produce a document stating that life begins at 40. We should celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS on the Floor of the House, because it is one of the important issues that underline the difference between Labour Members and Conservative Members. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on allowing time for the NHS to be debated on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed this debate. It is important that we recognise the 50th anniversary of the NHS, and, as he points out, there is a great difference in approach between the parties. We should never forget that the creation of the NHS was opposed by the Conservative party, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking forward to the debate, and to getting a few facts on the record.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the urgency of the matter of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the procedure used by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)? Regardless of the merits of the subject that was being inquired into, it has raised profound areas of importance for the operation of Select Committees—indeed, all Committees in this House. Surely it cannot be appropriate for a procedure that is more than 60 years old to be used in respect of Select Committees which were set up fewer than 20 years ago.

1195
As the right hon. Lady is hiding behind Sir Thomas Legg's inquiry, will she ask the Prime Minister to reply to my written question, which I tabled more than six weeks ago, asking whether he would extend the scope and terms of reference of the inquiry to include intelligence reports sent to No. 10 Downing street and copies of telegrams sent from Sierra Leone to the Foreign Office, which were copied to 10 Downing street? [HON. MEMBERS: "Line to take."] The Prime Minister has not confirmed that that will fall within the terms of reference of the inquiry.
Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add on the hon. Gentleman's first, specific point. In terms of his written question, it was made clear from the beginning that it would be perfectly possible for there to be an extension of the terms of reference, if the Legg inquiry wanted that to happen.
Conservative Members made a sedentary intervention about whether the line to take was being put on my pager; I can tell the House that Holland and Mexico are through, and that Belgium is out of the world cup.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Leader of the House said that she would be having discussions with the Foreign Secretary about this morning's report. Will she urge the Foreign Secretary to make available forthwith the information sought by the Select Committee? We are meeting next Tuesday at 9.30 am, and it would be in the mutual interests of the House and the Government if such documents were made available.
Will my right hon, Friend reflect on the fact that there is a void in our procedures? There should be a fast-track way for Select Committees, when faced with an impasse, to be able to report such matters to the House. I remind her that, because Legg is independent, we have no way of knowing when he will be able to report. The summer recess is coming up, and it would be wholly unsatisfactory for the matter to be put off until the autumn.
Mrs. Taylor: Again, I have nothing further to add, except that my understanding of the timing of the Legg committee is that we are hoping that the report will be available next month.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Leader of the House aware that, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I was gravely concerned to learn what transpired at the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on Tuesday 23 June? Does she agree that the archaic procedure which was used could negate and frustrate all the work of the Select Committees of the House of Commons? Select Committees are not independent of the House; they represent the House, and their valuable work could be frustrated on many occasions if an individual member of a Committee chose to use that procedure.
I shall ensure that my Committee gives the matter consideration at the earliest possible date, but does not the Leader of the House believe that it is of such importance that it might be the subject of a special debate on the Floor of the House—before the Procedure Committee considers it?
Mrs. Taylor: If the Procedure Committee chooses to look at the matter, I shall consider its report with great
1196
interest. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about procedures being somewhat ancient, but he is usually the first to defend our traditional procedures.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Despite the tight timetable, will my right hon. Friend consider squeezing in a debate on occupational health and safety, so that we might discuss the implications of the health and safety report published today by Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines? The report shows that accidents in mines have been under-reported to a substantial degree–52 per cent. If that is the case in the mining industry, which is extremely tightly regulated, it could be much worse in other industries.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We should all be concerned about occupational health and safety. I was not aware that there has been under-reporting of 52 per cent. That is very alarming. Given that my hon. Friend represents a mining constituency, I understand why he is extremely concerned by that, as we all should be. I cannot promise a debate in the near future, but perhaps my hon. Friend and colleagues with a particular interest in the matter could apply for an Adjournment debate, which would be one way of taking the matter further.
Sir Patrick Cormack: First, may I make it quite plain that the Opposition's support for the Ottawa agreement has never been in doubt? My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made that clear to the Minister of State many months ago.
May I return the right hon. Lady to the subject of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs? Will she, in her capacity as Leader of this House, take on board the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? It is crucial that Select Committee reports are debated. There is no more important Select Committee, nor a more respected Chairman than the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He has asked the House to give its views. It is the right hon. Lady's duty to find time for a debate, even if we sacrifice a second non-sitting Friday, to ascertain the views of the House. Will she make sure that that is done?
The rather arcane procedure was perfectly legitimately used, but it nevertheless raises many important questions, given that departmental Select Committees were not established until 1979 and that procedure was last used in 1937. Will right hon. Lady, at the very least, give an unequivocal assurance, in her capacity as both Leader of the House and Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, that she will have immediate discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to decide how the matter can best be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, on the Ottawa convention, we look forward to receiving more details about what the Opposition's offer of co-operation means. Obviously it must apply to both Houses, and must not prejudice the hard work on legislation in which Members of this House have been involved over the past year. That is why I said that we needed greater clarification, and why the Prime Minister has written to the Leader of the Opposition.
I have nothing further to say on the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made it plain that the

1197
Procedure Committee intended to look at one aspect of the issue. Obviously I look at every Select Committee report, and I always consider what I should be doing. However, when it comes to debates on Select Committee reports, it would normally be for the Liaison Committee to decide. Governments respond to Select Committees. The Select Committee is entitled to make any recommendation it wishes, but, as Leader of the House, I must make a judgment about what business should be conducted on the Floor of the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am going to move on now, because I have the minority party interest to consider in this House.

Points of Order
5.3 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you are more than aware, there has been much comment in the House on the Government's policy of financially discriminating against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland when they seek to attend universities in Scotland. You are also aware, from what the Leader of the House has said, that the issue will shortly come back before this House.
In the House on 23 June, in column 821 of Hansard,the Scottish Minister responsible said that the number of applicants to Scottish universities from the rest of the UK was down to 33,081. The following day, the Prime Minister said:
"the number of English students applying to Scottish universities is up, not down. It is actually 33,000."—[Official Report, 24 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 1047.]
Even in this Government, "down" cannot mean "up". This matter is very important, and I wonder whether you have had any requests for a statement from the Scottish Office or No.10 to clarify it. If not, is it not reasonable for the House to expect clarification before we attend to this important matter next week?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am not responsible for policy matters or for comments made by various Ministers. If he believes that there is a discrepancy, he can pursue the matter by raising it with the Ministers concerned, but he should raise no further points of order. I am not responsible for Ministers' comments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find a way to raise the matter with the two Ministers concerned or via the Order Paper.
Mr. Damian Green: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek guidance on a related issue. I have received a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), which says that the Government do not collect the statistics on which the statements by the Prime Minister and the Scottish Office Minister were based. Thus, other parts of the Government say that they do not collect the figures that allow them to decide whether the figure is up or down. Which should I take as a more authoritative statement: a written answer from a Minister in the relevant Department; or an oral answer from the Prime Minister to the House?
Madam Speaker: Why does not the hon. Gentleman have an Adjournment debate and get the Minister at the Dispatch Box to sort it out?

Opposition Day
  14TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Private Members' Bills (3 July)
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment the name of the Prime Minister.
    5.5 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move,
    That this House supports the Energy Efficiency Bill and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, as amended and properly scrutinised in Standing Committee; trusts that they can now complete all remaining stages on Friday 3rd July; and urges the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to re-examine the procedure for Private Members' Bills.
    This is an opportunity briefly to look at how we handle private Members' legislation. The Leader of the House will agree that there is a widespread view in the House that we need to think about the issue carefully. I hope that, in what will be a comparatively brief debate, we can do just that. Naturally, I look forward to taking the discussions further in the Modernisation Committee. As the Leader of the House will know, I have said in the past that this issue would be high on our priority list, and representations have been made to her from other quarters that that should be the case.
    I make no apology for spotlighting two particular Bills that have received considerable cross-party support in the House. One has only to look at the early-day motions signed by Members of all parties in support of those Bills, and at the letters received by organisations supporting the Bills, not least from the Prime Minister in the case of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, sponsored by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
    Both Bills are extremely important, and because they have received such considerable support, we make no apology for drawing special attention to them this afternoon. Some may ask, "Why not look at other Bills in that context?" We would answer that, having looked carefully at the Bills at the top of the list, no two others have all the criteria that we consider important.
    First, those Bills are totally uncontroversial, as far as we can detect. Secondly, they have received all-party support, including ministerial support. I would be the first to acknowledge the assistance that has been given in both cases by the Government Departments concerned.
    Thirdly, and extremely importantly, the Bills have been fully considered in Committee. However, the big change that has taken place—I pay tribute to the Government in a spirit of amicable co-operation, which is my hallmark—is that the Government responded to the motion when we first tabled it by immediately moving to get the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill into Committee.
    Moreover, with unprecedented speed—unique in my experience—they tabled a sittings motion to ensure that rapid progress was made in Committee on Tuesday this week, with the result that the Bill has completed its Committee stage. That is a direct result of our initiative, and I am delighted by it. It is extremely valuable. It immediately disposes of the view that had been expressed in one or two isolated quarters in the House that such Bills, particularly that Bill, had not received proper scrutiny in Committee. It has.
    1200
    In addition, we set two further criteria. There is strong public support outside the House for progress on those two Bills, because it is recognised that they would have real benefits. There is an urgent need to make progress on the Energy Efficiency Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill. It is obvious that we shall not be able to complete the process for all
    private Member's Bills, but we believe that those two Bills deserve the special attention that we have given them, because they meet all those criteria.
    In the past, the Government have argued that, if we were to improve or accelerate the process for private Member's Bills, it would set a precedent. I understand that argument: it is often used in the House. I suggest that on this occasion that fear is misguided and misconceived. Everyone agrees—the Government make reference to this in their amendment—that the Modernisation Committee should examine this issue. We cannot have a temporary precedent: that is absurd. Clearly, as soon as the Modernisation Committee was able to turn its attention to this matter, such a precedent would swiftly go. I emphasise the point that hon. Members on both sides of the House and on both sides of the Committee want to make progress on this front.
    It has been suggested that this debate is a waste of time because these Bills will get stuck in the other place. If that is so, what was the point of taking the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill in Committee on Tuesday? That was a charade, a farce: the Government were just playing to the gallery. Either it is possible for those Bills to complete their passage through Parliament in the current Session or that was a waste of time.
    Moreover, what is the point of having a discussion on Friday 3 July if these Bills are doomed to failure because of some absurd Machiavellian plot in the other place. I believe that the process can and should be speeded up, and that that argument is not valid. There is a real chance of progress in the other place. I am assured by people who have a greater knowledge of these matters than I that there are no fundamental objections either to these two Bills or to most of the other private Member's Bills at the top of the list for Friday 3 July.
    Our revised motion does not seek to push the House into taking a view that it may find difficult. It does not impose some new mandatory timetable on the consideration of Bills on 3 July. I was surprised by the Government's reaction to our initial rather more forthright motion. It was as if the Government thought that they were the arbiters of how the House should handle its business. The House decides how it should handle its business. The so-called business managers have an extremely important function to play, as do the usual channels, of which I am but a minor part. The House must decide how it wants to make progress on legislation and on other matters. There was a hidden hint of amour propre and false pride in the Government's apparent reaction to the idea that anyone else should come up with suggestions about accelerating important business.
    I hope that during this short debate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak briefly about the merits of the Bill of which he is the promoter, so I do not propose to enter into that discussion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) will have an opportunity to wind up the debate.

    1201
    All hon. Members—of any party and of no party—have a responsibility to reflect public concern about the way in which we handle our business, including private Member's Bills. There is considerable anxiety among the public, the press and viable and effective organisations. They have a perfect right to express their views on how we handle our business.
    Those concerned with the business of Parliament at present feel that the process by which we consider extremely important proposals is inadequate, and that it is our business to improve it. We all need to reflect that anxiety and concern. I hope that the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is here in her capacity, not only as Leader of the House, but as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, will also reflect those concerns in her response to the debate.
    5.14 pm
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I welcome this relatively short debate. In view of the changed motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats, I shall not move the amendment that we had thought necessary. We have no difficulty reaffirming our support for the Energy Efficiency Bill and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, as amended. We think that the whole House should be able to agree with the terms of the motion. Unfortunately, one or two hon. Members may still intend to object to those Bills on 3 July, but it is important that they should be aware of the strength of feeling in the rest of the House.
    The Government are happy to be associated with the Energy Efficiency Bill and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, not least because we have given the hon. Members involved assistance with drafting, and we are anxious that those Bills should make progress. I see no reason why they cannot make progress if people examine the issues in the cold light of day rather than seek to make themselves noticed through some maverick activity.
    I was somewhat concerned, as were some of my hon. Friends, that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has chosen to highlight two specific Bills, and has not mentioned any of the other significant measures on the agenda for 3 July. For reasons that will be obvious to the hon. Gentleman, I must mention the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, which he might well have included in the motion. I am keen to see that Bill on the statute book. I receive many welcome letters about it, regardless of any indirect lobbying from other quarters on that issue. Other important Bills will be coming up on 3 July. If hon. Members co-operated, there would be time for several of them to complete their passage through the House on that day. I hope that several Bills will proceed to the House of Lords.
    It is difficult to achieve a correct balance of rights on a range of issues. The vast majority of hon. Members are supportive and want private Member's Bills to go through, but one or two hon. Members are able to prevent that and to frustrate the will of the majority. We often have to balance rights. Past attempts to change the procedures for private Member's Bills have often been driven by one particular Bill and one particular interest. If we are to consider changing the procedures for private Member's Bills, we should not take as our starting point what has happened to one particular Bill. Far too often, people's views about changing procedures are prejudiced according to whether they support the Bill in question.
    1202
    When we get round to discussing procedures for private Member's Bills, we must all remember that the rules for the Bill that we support must be the same as the rules for the Bill that we oppose. We cannot have different rules: we cannot cherry-pick or deal with certain Bills in certain ways. We must establish rules that apply in all circumstances.
    The motion mentions the Modernisation Committee, and I am happy—both as Leader of the House and as Chairman of the Committee—to acknowledge that the Committee should look at private Members' legislation in the future. We are involved in other inquiries at the moment, and it will not be possible for us to make progress this side of the summer recess.
    The Committee made clear on previous occasions—not least in our first report on the legislative process—that we would want to return to the issue of private Members' legislation at some point. It is appropriate that we should revisit the issue through that Committee, and I hope that we can consult other hon. Members. However, we must have consistent rules for all private Members' Bills; otherwise, we will create more difficulties than we solve.
    I hope that we can make progress on many of the Bills on 3 July. The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that some may get stuck in the House of Lords. It is virtually impossible to predict what will happen to any of the Bills, but a good number—which have a high level of support in the House—have merit and would make the law better in a range of different aspects. Private Members' Bills have an important role, but hon. Members can be over-ambitious in what they seek to achieve through them. It is always possible for the Government to help in drafting or providing advice on these matters.
    I wish the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) well with his Bill on 3 July, and we will have to see what happens. It is too late to change the rules before then. It would be unwise to change any rules hastily—and, in particular, because of our personal views of any Bill. I hope that the two Bills highlighted by the Liberal Democrats make progress, as I do about a good number of other Bills—such as the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, the Local Authority Tenders Bill and the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall, when tabling the motion, used the two Bills as examples, not as an exhaustive list of the Bills he wanted to make progress on 3 July. We will have to see what happens then. We must come back to the issue of private Members' legislation, and it is appropriate that the debate should take place within the Modernisation Committee. After that, the House will have some time to consider any alterations we might wish to make.
    5.22 pm
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In this wonderful spirit of cross-party accord, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and the Leader of the House on the admirable lucidity and brevity of their speeches, which I shall try to emulate.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall has done the House a service in moving the motion—although I was somewhat wryly amused, on looking at my Order Paper

    1203
    today, to see that the motion that appeared upon it was decidedly different from that which had appeared earlier in the week. I can understand why the Leader of the House said that she had no difficulty in accepting the motion and that she would not be pushing her amendment. I certainly have no intention of seeking to divide the House, and I am equally happy to accept the terms of the motion.
    It is important that the Modernisation Committee looks at the matters. It would be quite absurd if the Committee, having decided to look at Government legislation, did not turn its attention to private Members' legislation. I sincerely hope that the Committee will do so at a reasonably early date and will come forward with a unanimous report—as it did last year on Government legislation—which commends itself to the House.
    I endorse what the Leader of the House said. We cannot have cherry-picking, and we need rules that apply to all Bills. We must remember the rights of minorities also. I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) well with his Bill. I very much hope to see it on the statute book because it would be to the advantage of many people. I wish success also to some of the other Bills mentioned by the Leader of the House.
    There is no reason why those Bills should not go through on 3 July, as the right hon. Lady said. All it requires is an economy of words on the part of those who speak and a generosity of spirit on the part of those who attend. If both those qualities are in evidence, the Bills should see their way on to the statute book without greater delay.
    Whenever we debate this subject, I should declare an interest. In the 27 years that I sat on the Back Benches, I promoted something like 15 private Members' Bills. I have suffered, as others have done, from having "Object" shouted when I had a measure of enormous importance for the welfare of the nation. A couple of years ago, I co-operated to allow the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to have an airing. I then had one of my Front-Bench colleagues shout, 'Object,' to a Bill that the then Government were most anxious to see on the statute book. In the end, it got there, but other Bills of mine have been delayed.
    If only the House, and the Government of the day, had accepted the Bill on criminal records that I proposed on the one occasion when I drew a place in the ballot, 10 years ago, we would have had a paedophiles register for a long time. We all suffer the rough with the smooth, and sometimes the rough with the rough. Sometimes in this place, as one door closes, another shuts in your face. I have found that on a number of occasions.
    It is important that we have brief speeches today—again, that could be a trend-setter. I entirely endorse the remarks of the Leader of the House, and I accept the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall in the spirit in which they were made. It is important that the Modernisation Committee should look at those procedures. It must do so in the round and come forward with proposals which commend themselves to the whole House. The proposals should be so framed as to make the maximum use of time for private Members' Bills.
    The Government should consider a self-denying ordinance, and restrict the number of Bills that they bring forward so that private Members have a little more time
    1204
    at their disposal. I see from the frown by the Leader of the House that that might not entirely appeal to her. It is important that proposals are well thought out and that they protect the rights of majorities and minorities. Above all, we must give those truly non-controversial measures—of which the Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire is a shining example—a better chance to get on the statute book. With those words, I am delighted to add my commendation of the motion.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. John Burnett: I understand that one of the keys of this debate is brevity, and I shall gallop through the advantages and provisions of my Bill as swiftly as I can.
    The Energy Efficiency Bill proposes that every purchaser, or mortgagor, is told how energy-efficient their property is when they have a survey. The Bill proposes that a rating be made of the property, which is that measure. When one buys a car, one knows how many miles per gallon one can get out of it. The Bill proposes that when one buys a house, one knows how energy-efficient it is. The Bill would inform purchasers or mortgagors of what steps they could take to make their property more energy-efficient. The Bill proposes that the approximate cost of taking those steps, and the approximate pay-back time, be provided.
    The Bill has had a lengthy airing in the House—one morning for its Second Reading debate and an hour or two in Committee—and has widespread support. Some 266 hon. Members signed the early-day motion in support of the Bill. If one deducts the payroll vote and those persons who do not customarily sign early-day motions, it can be seen that a significant majority support the Bill. I am grateful to hon. Members for their support, not just for the early-day motion but throughout the passage of the Bill so far.
    The Government have supported my Bill. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) and her officials, who have taken considerable time in ensuring that the Bill's drafting is correct. We have also had the time of parliamentary counsel as well as of ordinary officials in the Minister's Department.
    I have received many letters supporting my Bill from the public, local authorities and the private sector. There has been much consultation on it, and the Council of Mortgage Lenders has signified to me on many occasions—and as recently as this morning—its support for the Bill.
    I should like to give only one, quick example of the benign effects that my Bill would have. Last month, I opened a housing estate at Burwash Common, in Sussex. The developer, Millwood Homes, makes every endeavour to construct energy-efficient homes. Some of its competitors are not so scrupulous or conscientious.
    My Bill would highlight the advantages of buying and investing in energy-efficient homes, and it will sort out the wheat from the chaff—homes that have that benefit and have had that investment from those that do not. My Bill is supported by many people in the construction industry.

    1205
    My Bill has the twin advantages of saving individuals money in the medium and long term and of helping to reduce the use of fossil fuels and to save our environment. I hope that time will eventually be found for my Bill to be passed.
    5.30 pm
    Jackie Ballard: I have only just finished writing my speech—as you may have seen, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but, as I am supposed to be replying to the debate, perhaps that is not such a bad thing.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, we have deliberately chosen in our motion to highlight the two Bills that have genuine cross-party support and have had no credible opposition—except for the reaction of a single hon. Member, who I notice is not in his place today.
    Although both Bills would very significantly affect the lives of millions of people for the better, I shall speak only to the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, which has been supported by hon. Members of all parties, both Front Benches and a wide variety of organisations representing cabbies and their passengers, not to mention the many hon. Members who signed an early-day motion in support of it. Moreover, before the general election, the Conservatives in another place announced their intention of introducing similar measures if they were to form the next Government.
    I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on his efforts to keep the Bill moving through Parliament. I am pleased that, at long last, it has finished its Committee stage, when helpful amendments—which were supported by the Minister for Transport in London—were made to it.
    In the Bill's Second Reading debate, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire seemed to sum up the mood of the House when he spoke of his
    "opportunity to return to some unfinished business"
    in his former Department. There was almost universal support for the Bill in that debate. However, in his speech, he noted with some foresight:
    "It is always possible that, as this Bill tries to cross the legislative bridge, a parliamentary troll will appear from underneath and gobble it up".—[Official Report, 23 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1253.]
    I did say "foresight", not "Forth" sight—as I should not for one moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
    The Bill is a measure of considerable importance to many people, not only in London, but nationwide. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)—who would have liked to be in the Chamber for this debate—has presented to the House a petition bearing the signatures of 8,000 people who support the Bill. Furthermore, as I said, an early-day motion supporting the Bill has been signed by many hon. Members.
    In a letter to the Suzy Lamplugh trust, the Under-Secretary of State for Women said that the Bill's provisions would
    "increase the safety of women passengers".
    The Suzy Lamplugh trust, among many other bodies, has been working hard to ensure that progress is made on the issue. I pay tribute to Paul and Diana Lamplugh for their
    1206
    extraordinary energy and effectiveness in working on the matter. They have done much to ensure that it remains high on the agenda.
    The Government's position on the issue has been confused. On Second Reading, they announced their support for the Bill. Ministers have spoken out in favour of legislation, but failed to come up with any clearer commitment than the classic fudge about "when parliamentary time permits". We have heard that many times before. Although the Government announced their intention to set up a Standing Committee to consider the Bill, that did not happen immediately. It has now happened—in response to the Liberal Democrat motion that we are debating—and the Bill was passed by the Standing Committee, after two sittings.
    The Bill will remove the anomaly whereby London's minicabs are left out of legislation covering all other cabs in the United Kingdom, and it addresses an urgent matter of public safety. Last year, 67 people were assaulted and 18 people were raped in minicabs in London. I am told that the figures are even higher this year. Tragically, only last night, a young woman was abducted and sexually assaulted in a minicab in London.
    The Bill would greatly increase the security of many Londoners, not to mention the millions of visitors to our capital city.
    Today's debate is not only about two vital pieces of legislation. It is about the urgent need to change the way in which this place works. Perhaps because I have been an hon. Member for only a short time, I do not have the patience of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. I share the public's feeling that this place is surrounded in mystery. The public wonder why the Government are reluctant to let hon. Members have time to pass a Bill that has such widespread support, both in this place and elsewhere. They wonder what that says about the Government.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The hon. Lady said that she has not been an hon. Member for long. Perhaps I could presume to remind her that the Government do not decide how much time is allowed for consideration of private Member's Bills. At the beginning of each Session, the House decides how much time will be available.
    Jackie Ballard: I thank the right hon. Lady for pointing that out to me. Nevertheless, in my short time here I have found it difficult to see how the Government have always pursued the House's interests.
    What message does preventing the passage of such Bills send to the public about the Government's commitment to modernisation or their commitment to parliamentary democracy? The Government have managed to find time to legislate on matters that were not in their manifesto—such as imposing tuition fees on university students, and taking benefits away from single mothers—but, after 13 months, say that they cannot change the system, to allow the will of the House to be done on private Member's Bills.
    Our democracy will not be valued or respected unless the House finds ways to do its business more sensibly. Liberal Democrat Members are pleased to be able today to devote some our time to debate the subject.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: In the spirit of being non-controversial—as the hon. Lady said—will she tell us

    1207
    why the original Liberal Democrat motion mentioned two specific private Members' Bills but did not mention the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate a motion that has not been put before the House.
    Jackie Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I did not need help to get out of that situation. As the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) knows, I am a strong supporter of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. However, even I would have to admit that that Bill has attracted controversy and has not received the widespread support that the two Bills that we are debating have had. I would have wished it to be otherwise.
    As I said, we are pleased to have given some of our time for today's debate. I am also delighted that the Government will not oppose our motion. I hope that, from 3 July, people in London will be able to travel more safely, and that history will record today as the one on which Parliament changed from being the Government's poodle and the filibusterer's paradise to being the home of common sense and genuine plural democracy.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House supports the Energy Efficiency Bill and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, as amended and properly scrutinised in Standing Committee; trusts that they can now complete all remaining stages on Friday 3rd July; and urges the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to re-examine the procedure for Private Members' Bills.

  Social Welfare
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I should point out to the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that Britain spends less on welfare as a percentage of GDP than many of its European partners; believes that economic growth and enterprise must be matched by policies designed to promote equality and social justice, and in this light expresses concern over the Government's recent actions in respect of benefits for single parents and claimants of disability living allowance; and calls on the Government to ensure that any further reform of the welfare system focuses on the needs of the most vulnerable in society rather than the demands of the Treasury and is neither discriminatory, economically inept, morally repugnant or spiritually bereft.
  I have to thank the Liberal Democrats for rapidly accelerating the time scale for today's debates. The Government Whips Office told our Whips Office that the Minister for Welfare Reform would reply to this debate, but, because of the accelerated time scale, he has not yet arrived. [Interruption.] I was going to say—I hope that my comments are appropriate—that no debate on welfare reform would be complete without the Minister for Welfare Reform, and I see him arriving excellently on cue. My longer-serving colleagues advised me that it is unusual for a Minister in a Department other than the Scottish Office to reply to a Scottish National party Supply day debate, so we are particularly grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is here. I hope that he can catch his breath as quickly as I have had to catch mine.
  I shall cover four areas: the reality of Labour's welfare actions since May last year; the proposals in the welfare reform Green Paper; the vision that the SNP offers for improved social welfare through the Scottish Parliament, when the Scotland Bill has finished its passage; and, finally, the outlook for meaningful improvements to the welfare system in an independent Scotland.
  My colleagues will pick up on part of the detailed critique of existing Government welfare priorities and offer some advice on the fine tuning, which Ministers may wish to take into account. As Labour Members will be aware—some of them may not be quite as aware as they are about to be—the Government have some problems in Scotland just now, not merely in the opinion polls but in local authority by-elections.
  Some Scottish electors who voted handsomely for the Labour party in Scotland in May last year are beginning to find that what they got was not exactly what they were expecting. Ministers may want to listen and learn from criticisms made on the doorsteps of central Scotland, where seats have been changing hands—from the Labour party to the SNP—in by-elections. The Government should start to listen to some of those criticisms, because the more they continue down their present road of welfare reform, the more out of step they will become with what many of us would acknowledge to be the accepted values of the mainstream community in Scotland.
  Perhaps more than in any other area, in welfare the Labour Government have pursued a definitive direction since the general election, but that direction has put them at odds with their grass roots in Scotland. When they

  1209
  came to power last year, they did so with upbeat political support behind them. People expected things to get better. They are now realising that, in so many respects, things have not got that much better in respect of welfare. For that matter, things have not been much different from the policy that the previous Government were intending to pursue.
  There was general surprise that one of the first actions of the Labour Government on welfare was to pursue a Social Security Bill that tampered with entitlement to back payments of housing and council tax benefits, leaving the most vulnerable worse off. The new Government even took the previous Tory Government's proposals one damaging step further. Who would have thought that the centrepiece of that legislation would have been cuts to benefits for lone parents? At the time, the Government justified their decision by talking up limited packages of welfare to work for lone parents and child care, but the Government ignored the warnings from both sides of the House that their schemes did not protect all the losers.
  The Government emphasised that the benefit changes would not affect those already on benefit. What about those who go into work through the new deal and then, unfortunately, return to the dole queue? What about those who find the opportunities for child care inadequate—with levels of financial support well below what is required, especially for parents with more than one child—and who are forced to choose to concentrate on their No. 1 priority, which is looking after the children? Those mothers and fathers find themselves losing out as a result of their efforts to get back into the workplace. When the Department of Social Security publishes the figures for that area later in the year, I am confident that our assertion will be supported by hard evidence.
  Welfare to work for lone parents is undoubtedly a step forward, and the measure has received a general cross-party welcome, but it does not match the damage caused by the reduction of single parent support. I hope that the scheme will develop through improved support for child care and wider options, including for study or training. In itself, however, it does not recognise the reality that not all parents are or will be in a position to enter the workplace. That group—often the most vulnerable single parents—is the one that has been and will be most damagingly affected by the lone-parent benefit cuts.
  The Government cannot run from that reality, and it is the most powerful indictment of the philosophy that runs through their welfare reform efforts, which seem intent on creating a division between the so-called deserving and undeserving poor. The Government's philosophy is increasingly that of sink or swim. Unfortunately, the cuts in single-parent benefit mean that some people are undoubtedly sinking.
  The other main area of welfare reform on which there has been Government action rather than the preliminary work of proposals, as we have seen in the Green Paper, is the benefit integrity project review of those on disability living allowance. That is where we see the clearest evidence in the Government's approach of the use of budgetary controls as a means of deciding welfare priorities.
  Most of the criticisms surrounding the benefit integrity project to date have been of the administrative failings, the inadequacy of procedures and the rather cruel
  1210
  abruptness of the review process. I am glad to say that, after sustained pressure from both sides of the House, some of those technical failings in the procedure are slowly being ironed out. The Select Committee on Social Security applied pressure with a particularly well-produced report, and I am glad to see the Chairman of that Committee here tonight. I hope that he will contribute to the debate. I hope that he is much recovered from his sore back, which we all read about in Hansard. We hope that mobility will still be extended to him, if to no one else—it certainly has returned to him, at least.
  The report highlighted the advantages of the Select Committee process in looking into an issue that has caused genuine concern to all our constituents, regardless of our party. The fact that Labour Members of the Select Committee, with all the pressures involved in being on the Government side, were prepared to associate themselves with a report so critical of the benefit integrity project was particularly helpful in forcing action over the weaknesses of the project.
  Interestingly, many of the criticisms made and questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in her Adjournment debate on the benefit integrity project some months ago were repeated in last week's debate. My hon. Friend's debate revolved around whether the project should be suspended temporarily, pending a review, or amended as we went along. The debate last week did not appear to have moved much further forward, although the desire for a cessation of the project was certainly as vociferous on both sides of the House then as in our earlier discussions.
  There has been movement in the Government's response to some of the details of the project. In February, the Secretary of State for Social Security confirmed in a written answer to me that new evidence requirements were to be introduced to ensure that no claimants lost benefit purely on the basis of information supplied by them in their assessment forms. In recent months, there have been further concessions. In a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, the Government confirmed that disability groups would be more closely involved in the preparation of the letters and forms used in the project, and that there would be improved training for visiting and assessment officers and improved access for disabled groups to the departmental decision-making process. Those are all welcome steps.
  However, I think that the Government have accepted that that still leaves many questions as to how a project of that seriousness and sensitivity was allowed to wreak such havoc within our community without the process of government drawing it to account and delivering a more soundly based initiative.
  I accept that there is some uncertainty about who has ownership of the benefit integrity project. I suspect that more of it lies with the previous than with the present Government; we could take until 10 pm to debate that, so I shall leave it there. The project was first mooted under the previous Government, but the present Administration have continued with the scheme because of a flawed analysis of the problem. The Government have asserted that the review will ensure that claimants receive the benefits to which they are entitled, but even a cursory examination of the categories covered by the review process shows that that is not the whole story.

  1211
  The benefit integrity project focuses on those disability living allowance claimants who receive the higher rates of care and mobility allowance. If the process examines only those who receive the most money, there is likely to be a disproportionate number of cases in which benefit is reduced. If one genuinely wants to ensure that all people receive the benefit to which they are entitled, the process must look at those on the lower rates, so that their assistance can be increased if necessary.
  The one-sided nature of the benefit integrity project gives the public the perception that it is, more than anything else, about cost saving. From listening to the individuals who come to my constituency surgeries to tell me about their difficulties with the disability living allowance, I believe—I am no medical practitioner—that mistaken judgments have been made, based on a desire to contain expenditure of DLA rather than pay that benefit to the people who are entitled to it.
  The Conservatives triggered the benefit integrity project on the flawed assumption that fraud was widespread among those claiming DLA. The results of the project so far clearly disprove that theory, but the mechanisms employed are still those negative procedures of a drive to root out cheats in the benefits system. That approach insults the vast majority of honest recipients; it is designed to erect hurdles to claimants and to put unnecessary and unjustifiable fear and stress on vulnerable people. The lesson is that benefit fraud should be tackled as an administrative problem, rather than as a structural problem in some benefits.
  If the project is an example of the thrust of future welfare reform, many people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom will be left with a nasty taste in their mouths—they will believe that there is real reason for concern about the development of welfare reform and its implications for our citizens. With cost saving at its core, and with claimants having to jump through administrative hoops before they receive what they are entitled to, the reform means that we are moving away from one of the basic requirements of a decent society.
  The values of such an approach are divisive; they are not the values of that modern, progressive, social democratic society that we should all seek to create. That approach belongs to a party and Government whose strategy on welfare is founded not on the need to establish the support structures of a comprehensive welfare state, but on two glaring misconceptions.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise to him and to the House for not being present at the start of the debate—it took me somewhat by surprise.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about a strategy for welfare benefits reform; in anticipation of this debate, I took the trouble to try to research the welfare benefits strategy of the Scottish National party. Unfortunately, the only information that the SNP website provides is that all policies are currently under review, so the only available document is the SNP's manifesto for last year's general election. Having studied it carefully, however, I cannot see one word in it about welfare benefits reform or about
  1212
  an overall strategy for welfare benefits. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to explain his party's strategy.
  Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman apologises for being absent from the Chamber at the start of my remarks. If he had been here, he would have heard me having to apologise for the fact that I, too, was almost absent because of the speed with which the previous debate collapsed. I welcome his presence and his intervention—I am sure that there will be many more such interventions. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear me say that I shall deal with my party's priorities on welfare reform strategy later in my speech, so perhaps he will allow me to make progress—if I do not deal with his point, I am sure that I shall hear from him again.
  The Government are pursuing a strategy that is, I believe, based on two misconceptions: first, that the United Kingdom spends too much on welfare support; and, secondly, that we face a demographic time bomb. The Government must explain how a nation that spends less per head on welfare support than 12 of our European Union partners can be deemed to be spending at an unsustainable level.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for very generously giving way again. The hon. Gentleman's statistics were in The Scotsman this morning, although they were not directly attributed to him. Again, in anticipation of this debate, I researched those statistics, and found that they were wrong. The hon. Gentleman's office told me that the basis for the figures was a document published by the Scottish Association for Mental Health. I have a copy of the document, which, indeed, cites those statistics, but does not give their provenance. Perhaps, before he moves on, he could tell us where they come from.
  Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman digs into some of the background to the debate, which I am about to fill in.
  The figures show, for example, that the United Kingdom spends on social security £2,000 less per head than France and £4,000 less per head than the small independent nation of Denmark, and that, in terms of percentage of gross domestic product, the United Kingdom spends less than many western nations.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Swinney: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman twice, and I want to make progress on what is a substantial speech.
  The Government's priorities have led them to make choices about the level of welfare expenditure and to insist that the welfare budget is out of control, but, in comparative terms, we do not spend nearly as much as other countries, despite the fact that we can find resources to spend on defence—indeed, we are third from the top of the European league in terms of defence spending as a percentage of national wealth.
  The Government frequently state that we face a demographic time bomb, with a rapidly increasing elderly population draining the national wealth. That ignores the important contribution that our elderly population make to the generation of wealth. For many years, people have

  1213
  argued that there is a demographic time bomb and that we face a looming crisis, yet they ignore the fact that, according the Office for National Statistics, we spend a smaller proportion of our welfare budget on the elderly than we did in the early 1950s. They should ask why spending for social security for the elderly has remained static—at about 5 per cent. of GDP—for the past 20 years. Indeed, spending on the elderly is far lower in this country than in many European Union nations. We need to ask why the Government have not made moves to improve the financial support to ensure, for example, that the basic state pension is increased in line with earnings rather than with prices.
  Ms Sandra Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that up to 1 million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled, and that welfare reform should focus on how financial support can be given in a more practical way?
  Mr. Swinney: I am happy to associate myself with what the hon. Lady says. From our constituency contacts, we all know about people's lack of awareness of the benefits to which they are entitled.
  The perceptions that we allow people to have about claiming benefits are important to the welfare reform debate. If claiming benefits is stigmatised, and we all know that it can be, people will be put off claiming their benefits. I do not want a single person to receive anything that he or she is not entitled to, but I want those who are entitled to benefits to have them. We must not create a climate in which people believe that they are not entitled to claim certain benefits because of our attitudes to them.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman will hear no dispute from us over those remarks, but the starting point for any debate on welfare benefit should be the Government's Green Paper. Why has he not yet mentioned the principles set out in the Green Paper?
  Mr. Swinney: This Supply day debate is the first time since I became a Member of Parliament that the Scottish National party has had parliamentary time in which to pursue its own argument. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish what I am saying, he will be satisfied by my comprehensive coverage of the anxieties that trouble him.
  Choices must be made about priorities within the Government's choice of public expenditure priorities. They have chosen to continue with substantial expenditure on, for example, Trident nuclear missiles. They have failed to adopt a sufficiently progressive taxation strategy; abolishing the ceiling on employees' national insurance contributions, for example, would return some progressiveness to the system. They have made their choices, but, if they were prepared to make different choices, we could divert some of what are described as the burgeoning public finances into a social security system that could end the dependency of the means test and guarantee a basic income for everyone. That is the basic question hanging over the Government's welfare reform agenda.
  As we have seen, the Government's actions create unease among those on the receiving end of benefits. The Government's strategy in the Green Paper—can the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) hear
  1214
  me?—seems to be built around the notion of a welfare contract under which the state accepts certain obligations, mainly the provision of access to opportunities for work, while the citizen accepts the obligation to seek work.
  However, the concept of a contract implies that, if one party breaks its terms, the other party's obligations cease or are radically abridged. That does not lie easily with traditional notions of social obligation, drawn from family, religious and non-religious backgrounds in our civic society. It has been assumed that society has an unconditional obligation to support its weakest members, an assumption fundamental to any discussion of welfare reform.
  Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is reaching the part of his motion that refers to the Government's policy being "spiritually bereft", which is an intriguing phrase. I do not think that the Minister for Welfare Reform can be described as spiritually bereft. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the phrase?
  Mr. Swinney: The source of that remark was a motion put to the Labour party's Scottish conference in March, which reflected on the Government's position on lone-parent benefits.
  Mr. James Wallace: The motion was carried.
  Mr. Swinney: The hon. and learned Member is right. The motion brought an uncharacteristically ferocious reaction from the Secretary of State for Scotland; perhaps each of us would be angry to have our own party say that about us.
  I have two main criticisms of the agenda set out in the Government's Green Paper. Where their actions are not misplaced, they are mis-focused. I want to discuss welfare-to-work initiatives, the integration of the tax and benefits systems, the focus on fraud, welfare in 2020, and the proposals for a stakeholder pension.
  Many of us have often accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being a one-club golfer whose economic policy rests solely on the interest rate decisions of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. The Government's social security policy appears to take a similar tack in its dependence on welfare to work. Only 25 per cent. of benefit goes to those who may be able, economic climate permitting, to transfer from benefits to employment. Welfare to work is not a big idea, but a small part of what should be a broader reform strategy. Many people who receive benefits will never be able to work, and there is a danger that welfare to work will structure the Government's alternative to a well-funded benefits system.
  The strategy is limited in detail, and in what it ignores. There are clearly identified weaknesses in the various schemes on offer, the details of which my hon. Friends will develop. Perhaps most seriously, the strategy of getting people back to work is trumpeted and pursued, almost to the detriment of any other aspect of reform. That sidelines the equally important idea of keeping people in work. When key support benefits for the disabled can be accessed by the unemployed only to help them back into work, rather than by the employed to keep them in work, something does not quite work. Early reports on the

  1215
  success, or otherwise, of welfare-to-work schemes suggest that the rate of access to jobs is increasing. We shall be in a better position to judge that following a full economic cycle.
  My main criticism focuses on the philosophy underlying the scheme. Everyone agrees that it is important to maximise access to work, and to remove barriers created by high marginal tax rates caused by means-testing and the sudden removal of benefits such as free school meals and assistance with council tax or housing costs. Such moves are steps in the right direction, but the Government must not demonise those who are unable to return to work, whether or not that inability results from disability, caring or parenting. To promote paid work as virtuous, and dependence on benefits as morally suspect, is to stigmatise those who must, for good reasons, depend on benefits. The current effort focuses assistance on those who can move back to the workplace, but the rhetoric sets apart those who, through no fault of their own, cannot do so.
  The Government's proposals for linking the benefits and tax systems to encourage people back to work are welcome as far as they go. However, they offer little to those who are not in a position to return to the workplace. The Government's approach is unbalanced; they offer tax incentives for those on low incomes, through packages such as the working families tax credit, but they do not refocus their spending policy on extending the tax responsibilities of those with high incomes who receive universal state benefits.
  Much more should be done. The closer integration of the tax and benefits systems should provide an opportunity to provide a minimum guarantee for our citizens that is tied into greater redistribution of the resources available in the welfare pot. We should give more to those at the bottom, and less to those at the top. There should be more streamlined and efficient administration and distribution systems for benefits. The Government seem to fall between two stools: they are unable fully to grasp the thistle of their initial steps into a more co-ordinated welfare and taxation system because of their electoral dependence on voters who are perceived not to be prepared to pay for the system.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Don't give way to him. He has just come in.
  Mr. Swinney: I am well into my speech, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East has just arrived, so I will not give way to him.
  We must not forget that 75 per cent. of those who receive benefits do so because of age or some degree of disability. Welfare support cannot, and should not, be avoided. That group feels increasingly marginalised and threatened by the rhetoric of the Government's welfare strategy, which implies that people are getting something for nothing, or claiming more than they are entitled to.
  Miss Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government should focus on the
  1216
  needs of the most vulnerable in society. How are the Government to do that without getting people back to work, giving people a minimum wage and making savings in other parts of the welfare system to spend more money on the very group that the hon. Gentleman describes as the most vulnerable? Does the Scottish National party propose means testing to make sure that vulnerable people get the benefits that they deserve? If not, how would the SNP do it? The hon. Gentleman cannot merely criticise the Government without telling us what the SNP would do.
  Mr. Swinney: I shall advance our solution in due course. The hon. Lady must say what parts of the welfare budget she is prepared to cut. We delude ourselves if we believe that the welfare budget is at an appropriate level. We must recognise our society's difficulties, and ensure that resources are applied appropriately for individuals.
  The Green Paper contains much that should concern people. Much of that is encapsulated in the Government's vision for welfare in 2020. It is a statement of intent that does not show a clear and positive vision of the future of our welfare state. The Government state that, by 2020, they hope:
  "Welfare will be provided by three channels: our Active Modern Service, based on a single work-focused gateway into the benefit system; mutual organisations and private providers, delivering a substantial share of welfare provision, particularly for pensioners; and high quality health, education and other welfare services."
  Cut through the language, and that means that the poor will be justified only by work, and private provision will be at the heart of welfare provision. The Government give the sense that their social obligation to the weakest in our society is not as great as it has been in the past. [Interruption.] That child's cry shows that my argument about the dangerous future for welfare reform if left in the custody of the Labour party was far too compelling.
  Let us consider the welfare reform agenda as it relates to the dimension created by the Scottish Parliament. I want to set out what could be delivered by a Scottish Parliament, with its limited powers, and under independence, the preferred policy of my party. The Government had the opportunity earlier this year to join welfare rights organisations across Scotland in supporting amendments to the Scotland Bill to allow devolution of the administration of social security to Holyrood. That would have allowed the Scottish Parliament more flexibility and the chance to reform and streamline the structure of benefit delivery. The Government opposed those measures. It is left to individuals and the Scottish Parliament to find a meaningful role for the Parliament in assisting in the provision of welfare support.
  Over the past few months, the SNP has been preparing our proposals for the Scottish parliamentary elections. One of the policies that I shall outline today would have a direct and immediate impact on the most vulnerable sections of Scottish society. It has always been our central philosophy that the interests of the people of Scotland come first. In the Scottish Parliament, we want to develop a best deal department that has as its core the identification of measures that will get the best deal for Scotland from the framework set out in the Scotland Bill. It would find opportunities in Westminster legislation and European directives to secure the best deal for the people of Scotland. The team will interpret directives and legislation in the best interests of groups in Scotland. Welfare reform offers an important focus for it.

  1217
  It has been estimated in parliamentary answers that more than £300 million of social security benefits remain unclaimed in Scotland. A few years ago, the SNP-controlled Grampian and Tayside councils vigorously promoted measures to help pensioners with their fuel bills that resulted in substantially increased uptake of benefits.
  Miss Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Swinney: I have spoken for some time. I want to allow other hon. Members to say their piece.
  An SNP Administration would conduct a programme of benefit-boosting reviews nationwide. It would be the team's job to seek additional money for Scotland's pensioners, single parents and disabled people.
  Miss Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Swinney: No, I want to make progress.
  Unlike the Department of Social Security's reviews, ours would focus only on those who are entitled to claim more benefits. For a small investment, the door is open to a financial boost of potentially hundreds of millions of pounds for the poorest sections of Scottish society, with the burden borne by the Treasury rather than the already limited Scottish budget.
  That is only one way in which the Scottish Parliament can advance the social welfare agenda in Scotland. There is little doubt that any strategy for pushing forward welfare frontiers must include efforts to co-ordinate our work through improved availability of social housing and better community health care. Initiatives in residential care, care in the community and so on should also play a part. For the first time, Scotland will have a scrutinising, investigating, legislating, innovating Parliament which can pull together the threads of reform and co-ordinate our activities to ensure that the best possible support is given to the people of Scotland.
  The radical welfare provision changes that I believe are required will come only when the people of Scotland have the ability to use all their own resources and have powers on all aspects of policy making at their disposal. Under independence, the SNP would pursue priorities that would improve the delivery of the benefit system. The first step would be much closer integration of the tax and benefit system, going further down the road tentatively embarked on by the Chancellor in his most recent Budget. That would partly involve returning the progression removed from the taxation system by the Conservatives. That strategy is based on the underlying philosophy that the waste in the system does not lie in welfare support to people. We must ensure that we have a fair and progressive system that applies to all groups.
  Mr. Ian Davidson rose—
  Mr. Swinney: To be fair to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who was formerly one of my constituents, I shall not take any more interventions.
  I have three further points on our proposals. First, welfare strategy must seek simplification of the tax and benefits system. There is much more room for linking the operations of the Inland Revenue and the various benefits agencies, and integrating administration and delivery to cut the bureaucratic jungle of 12 different agencies and
  1218
  numerous forms, procedures and access points. Integrating those systems is essential to allow improved assessment of benefit needs based on existing tax liabilities.
  Secondly, our approach must allow more effective targeting of benefit fraud without the excesses of schemes such as the benefit integrity project. Designing tighter schemes should remove the room for abuse. Thirdly, closer integration of benefit payments and taxation would open the door to more efficient targeting of resources, diverting them away from those at the upper end of the income scale towards those on the lowest incomes. The money in the system should be focused on those with the greatest need, but not through the crude mechanisms of means or affluence tests. There should be a general calculation of tax liability that pays out benefit and pays in tax as required. That is the substance of progressive taxation.
  The focus of any welfare strategy in Scotland, or the UK, should be on the faults in the system, rather than on the faults of those who claim. The debate must avoid, at all costs, stigmatising and deterring the poor and focus on opportunities for more sensible solutions. Regrettably, the Government's welfare strategy is a new Labour fix based on Tory foundations. It is little wonder that the words read out by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) were used by the Labour party's Scottish conference. The Minister for Welfare Reform is a fair-minded man. He knows that the words came from his political friends, not his political enemies. They are words of warning that the Government should heed.
  As we look at the future economic development of our society, it is clear that we shall be part of a highly competitive international economy. Some individuals in our society will be able to prosper in that economy; others will not. As that pattern emerges, we must be prepared to distribute resources to those who cannot prosper. It is far from clear in the Government's thinking that they recognise the consequences of that economic inequality. The reforms proposed by the Government and the thinking that they display suggest that there will be a diminishing role for the state, rather than a continuing and demanding role, which is what we perceive. The Government appear to be moving in the opposite direction to that which the public require.
  6.20 pm
  The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  welcomes the Government's comprehensive approach to welfare reform around the principle of work for those who can, security for those who cannot, which was set out in the Welfare Reform Green Paper; notes the Government's commitment to consultation with organisations of, and for, disabled people, and the substantial safeguards included in the Benefit Integrity Project; notes the Government's commitment to helping today's and tomorrow's pensioners and welcomes the establishment of the Pensions Review and the action taken already to help today's pensioners through cutting VAT on fuel and paying winter fuel payments to all pensioners, notes that the new Deals for Lone Parents, for the Young and Long-Term Unemployed and for Disabled People are the largest assault on worklessness and social exclusion ever undertaken in Britain; and welcomes the action taken by the Government in the Budget to support families and children through increasing child benefit and the family premium in income support and by the proposals to introduce a working family tax credit and a disabled person's tax credit .'.

  1219
  As a fair-minded person, I pay compliments to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) for opening the debate. This is the first debate that we have had on welfare reform in the round. The official Opposition have not chosen to use any of their time to stage such a debate, so this is the first opportunity that I have had to come to the Dispatch Box to set out the Government's views. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
  As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Opposition day debates usually allow Back Benchers to participate fully both in criticism and in the development of policy. In the previous Parliament, the then Secretary of State for Social Security was the then right hon. Member for St. Albans. He has moved to another seat, which shows that on this topic he had certain judgment, which one respects. The right hon. Gentleman built up a reputation for taking almost an hour to open such debates on behalf of the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for North Tayside, in his enthusiasm to engage us in a debate on welfare reform, almost broke that record. I shall be as brief as I can.
  The structure of the Scottish National party motion is clear, although it was not always followed in the opening speech. The hon. Gentleman was at liberty not to do so. I wish to take each of the main ideas and comment on them, and then move to the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other right hon. Friends. I shall comment on each of the main points in our amendment. Before I do so, perhaps I may say a word about the Green Paper.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside, no doubt being a fair-minded person like me, failed to mention the Government's approach to welfare reform. The Green Paper is not a shopping list of ideas that we brought into office and intend to ram through irrespective of the comments and views that people hold. It is not a laundry list that we have gathered up from somewhere and which we think can be commended to the House and the nation without the most careful thought. It is understandable that some people have not immediately understood what we are about in the Green Paper.
  For the first time ever, the Government have laid down the principles that should govern welfare reform. Likewise, the Green Paper has listed 32 success measurements so that the Government can audit their affairs internally and stand accountable to the electorate as the Parliament unfolds for our success in achieving those objectives. The Government have not waited, as some parties might have done, until near an election date to name the success measurements. We have laid them down at the beginning of the Parliament so that we can turn them into clear measurements to guide our policy and be held accountable for it.
  When the period for consultation is over, we shall introduce more detailed policies within the framework of the principles of reform to help fulfil the success measurements that we have outlined.
  While I welcome the motion, I checked before I came here whether the welfare reform unit had received the comments of the Scottish National party on the Green Paper. They have not yet arrived. I await them anxiously.
  1220
  No doubt the hon. Gentleman can rightly say that he has begun that contribution in this debate, but, if he wants to add anything, I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Swinney: I can assure the Minister that he will have a submission from the SNP before his deadline.
  Mr. Field: I am immensely grateful for that undertaking.
  There are five main assertions in the motion. The first is that the country and the Government should move to spending on welfare something similar to the proportion of gross domestic product that other countries spend. I take issue with such a simplistic view of what welfare expenditure should be about. The previous Administration could boast that they increased welfare expenditure by double the rate of increase in GDP. If we look at the consequences, we find that there was a doubling of the number of people living in households drawing means-tested assistance. Merely to spend more is not necessarily better, and does not necessarily achieve the objectives that we want to achieve.
  The United States spends double the proportion of GDP that we spend on health. Does anyone think that Americans are twice as healthy as people in Britain? Surely this debate is about what the money is spent on and the objectives of welfare expenditure in the round.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the subject. His record speaks for itself. I seek from him clarification of the definition of expenditure on the welfare system. Is it household income, family income or individual income? That comes into the general debate, and it would be helpful if we could have that guidance.
  Mr. Field: I have spent many Parliaments debating these issues with the hon. Lady, and she knows perfectly well the answer to that question. It depends which aspect of welfare spending one is looking at.
  Of course the Government are spending more, but we are concerned with why we are spending what we are on welfare and what the outcome of such expenditure will be.
  The second assertion in the motion is:
  "economic growth and enterprise must be matched by policies designed to promote equality and social justice".
  That is one aspect of the motion to which we fully subscribe. If we look at the Government's record to date, we see that there is a growing insistence on, for example, equality of the respect that should be accorded to individuals. Similarly, there is a massive concern in the Government about equality of opportunity—not just one opportunity but a renewal of opportunity through individual lives. The hon. Member for North Tayside alluded to that.
  While we do not sign up to the view that there should be equality of outcome—that is not achievable this side of paradise—there is a duty endlessly to re-offer opportunities to those of our fellow citizens who have not been able to make the most of opportunities that occurred early in life. I hope that one of the great themes of this Government is the extension of social justice. When I discuss our amendment, I shall try to persuade doubters—if there are any in the House—of our intent on that score.

  1221
  The third assertion in the motion is an expression of
  "concern over the Government's recent actions in respect of benefits for single parents".
  The hon. Member for North Tayside, being a fair person, listed at least some of the opportunities that the Government have offered and are continuing to offer to single parents who are currently on benefit. However, I wish to affirm today, from the Dispatch Box, that the Government believe that the stance we have taken on lone-parent benefit is right. It is a policy with which I agreed when I was in opposition; I spoke in favour of it then—there are hon. Members here who were present in the Chamber when I did so—and the hon. Gentleman could hardly expect me to do otherwise now that I sit on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Simon Burns: I respect what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but will he confirm to the House that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and other Ministers in the Labour Government changed their minds from their pre-election rhetoric, in which they utterly condemned the policy that they have now implemented?
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is clearly running a campaign to present himself to the House and the country as a non-serious person. I knew that I should not give way, as he cannot resist saying things like that. We all have a job on our hands to protect his image and prevent his views from gaining wider currency. The answer is simple: the Government's intention is clear and if Ministers change their minds to the point where one agrees with them, one should stand up and say, "Well done," instead of nitpicking and trying to undermine them. Our objective is to equalise support for children. I advanced that view in the previous Parliament, and it is now being advanced by the Labour Government.
  Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: I shall not give way again—I have to try to protect the hon. Gentleman from himself. If he behaves himself, he might be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The motion also expresses concern about claimants of disability living allowance, but the hon. Member for North Tayside found it hard to disagree with the Government's stance. The DLA was one of the elements of the benefit integrity project, which was introduced by the previous Administration. We had been concerned about the operation of the project, we listened to the House, and we made changes. I was not sure what other changes the hon. Gentleman wanted us to make, other than scrapping it and starting again.
  Mr. Webb: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Swinney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Field: I shall happily give way to both hon. Gentlemen in a moment.
  The crucial fact that the House has to face is that the benefit integrity project is being run in respect of all the major benefits. The Public Accounts Committee wishes us to carry out those reviews, because it is concerned
  1222
  about the delivery and accuracy of our benefits. If hon. Members think that the Government should be doing other things and ignoring what the Public Accounts Committee requires us to do, they should say so.
  Mr. Webb: Is not the scandal about the benefit integrity project not so much that the Government knew nothing about it until the infamous phone call at Preston station, but that when they did find out about it, it took them the best part of a year to sort it out? The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) had an Adjournment debate and Sunday newspaper headlines pushed them on a bit, but the Government had to be forced, inch by inch, to introduce a halfway decent system. Should they not have acted last summer and not taken so long to listen?
  Mr. Field: The answer to that is no.
  Mr. Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman asked what more I should like to be done. One issue that has been continually raised is that all those who had their DLA reduced before the 9 February changes in the rules should have their cases reviewed on a mandatory basis. I believe that the Government are moving in that direction, but if the Minister would take this opportunity to confirm that, no one would be happier than I.
  Mr. Field: If the hon. Gentleman had read the debate that we had not so long ago in the House, he would already know the answer to that. The Government are as concerned as he is about that matter, and we have acted.
  The last of the assertions, facts, beliefs, opinions—whatever one wishes to call them—in the motion is that
  "the Government should ensure that any further reform of the welfare system focuses on the needs of the most vulnerable in society rather than the demands of the Treasury"—
  which is a euphemism for cuts. I remind the House of what I said when announcing the Green Paper, with the authority of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the whole of the Government: this is a reform of welfare that is not cuts-led. I made it clear at that time what was negotiable and what was not negotiable in respect of the reform programme. We said that our historic commitment to the poor was not negotiable. We said that our wish to reform was also not negotiable, but that how we reform was negotiable. That is why I am so anxious to receive the SNP's comments on our Green Paper, because they will help to inform the next stage of our debate.
  Referring to the Government amendment, I shall merely draw the attention of the House to the main actions that we have already taken to fulfil our election commitments. In doing so, I want to emphasise—it is right that our amendment does so—that we say that we shall consult at each stage of the reform programme, not because we think that it is an easy option, but because, no matter how much one thinks one knows, no matter how clever one thinks one's civil servants are, no matter how much expertise one might think one brings into government, a reform programme that is open and inclusive, and which listens and learns, will clearly be a more effective programme than one that reforms by ambush. The Government's commitment to consult is real, and it will continue throughout the whole of our reform programme.
  I am disappointed that, despite the brevity with which the hon. Member for North Tayside spoke when commending his motion to the House, he did not find time

  1223
  to highlight the actions that the Government have already taken to fulfil our election promises and to carry out the wishes of the House. No mention was made of our review of pensioners' income, which is to be used as the foundation both for deciding what action we take to help today's pensioners and for ensuring that we have in place policies to prevent many of today's workers from becoming poor, as did their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents.
  The hon. Gentleman made no mention of our action on VAT on fuel, of our winter fuel payments, which were universally given and designed to help the poorest pensioner households most. No mention was made of the Government's determination to take seriously our responsibility to counter fraud, and our equal determination, unlike the previous Administration, diligently to seek out those who are eligible for benefit but not claiming it. There was little about that in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mrs. Ewing: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have pursued the issue of fuel poverty over many years in the House and, while I do not want to detract from the action that has been taken, does he admit that there were serious flaws in the implementation of that scheme this winter? Many pensioners became extremely confused, as some were paid twice, while others were not paid at all. There is still a need for further action on ensuring automatic payments to those vulnerable people during the cold winter months.
  Mr. Field: Of course there is. The Government are learning and we want to learn from that huge initiative, which no other Government had undertaken. There was no machinery in place—we had to start from scratch. If the hon. Lady is trying to tell the House that many of her pensioners were confused, I have to say that, happily, that confusion was not shared by Birkenhead pensioners, at least not by those I have met.
  There was some mention of the opportunities now being offered to lone parents. The hon. Member for North Tayside said that that was undoubtedly a step forward, but he made little mention of our efforts, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, to ensure that our proposals are successful.
  There was little talk, other than negative, carping criticism, of the opportunities that are being offered to young people through our welfare-to-work proposals. There was no mention of the medley of measures that we have unveiled for the long-term unemployed. I may have missed it, but I heard no mention of the pilot projects for which we have sought bids to extend employment opportunities to the long-term sick and disabled.
  It was as if, for the Scottish National party, there had been no Budget. There was no talk about the Chancellor's announcement of the biggest ever increase in child benefit or the increase in the scale rates of income support for younger children. There was no mention of next year's change in the family premium or of the minimum wage, which was mentioned by one of my hon. Friends. There was no talk about the working families tax credit proposals, which will ensure that people with children will be better off in work than on benefit.
  1224
  As I said before, the motion refers to a policy that is
  "neither discriminatory, economically inept, morally repugnant or spiritually bereft."
  I shall deal with each of those points. We plead guilty to having a discriminatory policy. Almost all the measures that we have introduced discriminate in favour of the poor and those who are excluded from the labour market. If we are charged with discriminating in favour of the poor and ensuring that, in spending taxpayers' money, we most favour those who have least, we plead guilty.
  We are told that our proposals have been economically inept. Those words are on the Order Paper; they may have been used elsewhere, but I am happy to answer them. The Government have introduced the biggest ever programme to extend opportunities and access to the labour market. If that is economically inept, we plead guilty to that charge. Our programme will continue to be guilty of that.
  We are told that our policies are morally repugnant. The Chancellor has levied more than £5 billion from the privatised utilities to offer opportunities to individuals who, under the previous regime, faced, at best, a blighted future. The Chancellor has significantly reshaped national insurance contributions to make it more advantageous to employ those who earn least rather than those who earn most. If that is morally repugnant, we plead guilty.
  We are told that our policies are spiritually bereft. If a Government who begin the biggest ever crusade to combat social exclusion are spiritually bereft, we plead guilty. If it is spiritually bereft to initiate the most significant ever crusade to offer hope to people who had blighted lives, we happily plead guilty to that charge. If it is spiritually bereft for the Government to begin the most determined ever crusade to raise educational standards in all our schools, we want to plead guilty. If it is spiritually bereft for the Government to initiate the most fundamental ever crusade to extend lifetime opportunities, we want to plead guilty.
  If the Scottish National party wants to go into the election for the Scottish Assembly or any other election on that ticket, claiming that we discriminate in favour of the poor, that we are so economically inept that we have offered the unemployed the most ever opportunities and the most access to the labour market, that we are morally repugnant by significantly redistributing wealth through the Chancellor's two Budgets and that we are spiritually bereft, the fight is on. Many of us will greatly enjoy the battle ahead.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on securing the debate. However, as I listened to his fairly long speech, I began to think that even some Labour Members might be thinking, "Come back, Bill, all is forgiven."
  I welcome a debate on the strategy for social welfare in this country, even if, at times, the strategy is somewhat blurred and difficult. I shall begin by stating some basic principles that I suspect do not divide the House in any way.
  I believe, as I suspect does every Member, that the state has a fundamental duty to provide a safety net to help those in our society who are genuinely less well-off. In any civilised and decent society, it is the duty of those

  1225
  who are more fortunate and successful to make a contribution to ensure that those who fall on hard times for part of their life or who have difficulties throughout their life are provided with help through the state to enhance their standards of living.
  I believe also that it is crucial that any Government, regardless of their political complexion, do all that they can to minimise the evils of unemployment. There is nothing more disastrous than people who desperately want to work, but who, though no fault of their own, are unable to do so. The concept that is abroad in far too many parts of this country, that people on welfare are simply scroungers, is obscene, and it would help if we could educate people out of the ignorance of making such trite comments, which are bandied around far too often in our pubs and on our highways and byways.
  Mr. Field: There is more rejoicing in heaven over the repentance of one sinner.
  Mr. Burns: I deliberately hesitated for that intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but, if he had read more of my speeches over the past 11 years—sadly, I know that that is low on his list of priorities—he would understand that I have not once changed that original view.
  Mr. Field: I have read all the hon. Gentleman's speeches. I notice that he was promoted only after a period of silence.
  Mr. Burns: I am confused by that remark, because I was not promoted from being a Trappist monk straight to this position; I had a job in between, and it certainly did not require me to be silent.
  I suspect that the motion tabled by Scottish National Members is part of their war with the Labour party which will continue until the Scottish Assembly elections next year. Their motion will obviously be attractive to many Labour voters in Scotland—and, indeed, in England—because many of them believe that, after Labour has been in power for one year, they have been betrayed. Nothing shows the starkness of that betrayal more than the rhetoric on lone parents before and after the general election.
  The Minister for Welfare Reform's speech, particularly the second half of it, was eloquent—not to say impassioned. But however clever and endearing the speech was, I have to say it was long on soundbites and short on substance. Indeed, the Government amendment is the same, tending to gloss over—we would expect this of any Government—some of the glaring failures of Government policy.
  Take, for instance, the new deal for lone mothers. Of course its aim is laudable: no one in his right mind would criticise an initiative to help lone parents, by means of advice and so on, back into work, thereby enhancing their standard of living and that of their children. What has marred the new deal is the soundbite politics that has accompanied it. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman of that charge, but there have been too many grandiose claims of success during the early stages of the new deal.
  Last October, the Secretary of State got into terrible trouble on the "Today" programme and on "Newsnight", because she was too eager to claim success after the first three months of the new deal, trying to use figures cleverly to portray a triumph that was not all it was
  1226
  cracked up to be. That is regrettable; it brings the whole process into disrepute and causes problems for the Secretary of State's credibility and the credibility of her policy.
  We face the same problem now. Government statistics show that a monthly average of 75 per cent. of the 22,402 letters being sent out are not responded to—
  Mr. Field: What changes would the hon. Gentleman make to the scheme?
  Mr. Burns: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman asked me tha—I had anticipated it. I shall come to the answer shortly.
  Of all the people who have received letters, about 7.5 per cent.—on the latest monthly figures—have got into work, but, at the same time, there has been a 15 per cent. drop-out rate among the lone parents who have found work. If the Government stick to their original budget for the new deal, some 6,000 lone parents will get back into work, at a cost of just under £30,000 a job. Ironically, that works out at about £15 an hour—just over three times the national minimum wage which the right hon. Gentleman's party plans to bring in.
  I have been asked what changes I would make if I had the power to make them. I would make two variations to the scheme. First, I would make it compulsory for lone parents in receipt of an invitation to attend a first interview. I would not make the whole scheme, like Wisconsin's, compulsory: that would be wrong and draconian. A compulsory first interview, however, would enable lone parents to learn more at first hand from a personal adviser exactly what the new deal is, what it may have to offer them, and how it can help them into work. At present, some of them may cynically dismiss this as just another unhelpful Government scheme.
  Secondly, I would carry out more research into the 75 per cent. who are not replying to their letters, by chasing them up and finding out more about why they think the scheme is not relevant to them. Taken together, those two changes would advance the aims and aspirations of the policy.
  Mr. Webb: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is making a measured and constructive contribution. He criticises the new deal for lone parents for the low response rate, but he must know that it was modelled on Parent Plus, initiated by the Conservatives, who budgeted for an even lower rate of response than the Government have achieved. So how can the hon. Gentleman criticise the Government scheme?
  Mr. Burns: We monitored the Parent Plus pilot schemes with a view to detecting the problems and weaknesses in them so as to be able later to enhance the performance of the plan. I hope that, as the new deal progresses, the Government will also try to learn from some of the problems that have emerged, and will work out some of the reasons why the new deal does not attract more people into work. That would enable them to fine-tune the scheme.
  The benefit integrity project is mentioned in laudatory terms in the Government amendment, as one would expect—but what has been going on behind the scenes? Throughout the second half of last year and early this

  1227
  year, there were the problems with the disability living allowance. Recipients of that allowance were petrified and confused by the rumours and counter-rumours, the briefings and counter-briefings, about what was to happen. Would it be means-tested; would it be taxed?
  Then the benefit integrity project gave rise to even greater concern and hardship. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There is a general buzz of conversation in the Chamber. I ask hon. Members to listen to the Member who is speaking.
  Mr. Burns: A significant number of the appeals heard before 25 March were successful. That shows that the decision to go ahead with the project was wrong and taken in haste. I cannot yet put my finger on exactly what happened, because I have not yet had an answer to my questions on the subject—I have been waiting for a week but have received only a holding answer from the DSS. No doubt I will get a proper answer shortly.
  I find it extraordinary that, two days before polling day, following pilots, but without a ministerial decision, civil servants could decide to launch such a scheme nationwide. It is even more extraordinary that, for 26 or 28 days after coming to office, Ministers seemed oblivious of the benefit integrity project. It is particularly odd that the junior Minister in the other place, who has close links with disability lobby groups, was oblivious of the scheme until that extraordinary phone call on Preston station on 29 May.
  I look forward to answers to my questions. I should like to know the extent and content of the briefings Ministers were given by civil servants on first entering the Department last year. It seems incredible to me that such briefings did not mention the project—a massive project which, as many people now know to their cost, had a significant impact on their lives. How could it have been unknown to Ministers; how could it proceed without their direct authority?
  As has been said, it seems extraordinary that, as the problems became greater as the number of people affected increased, nothing was done until the Secretary of State for Social Security took action in February 1998. As I said in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in February, and again in last week's debate on the Social Security Select Committee report, I do not believe that the Select Committee's approach—to put the scheme on probation until 31 July—is the best one. We shall go into recess shortly after—or, if we are lucky, shortly before—that date, which effectively means that no action will be taken to assess that probationary period until we return to Westminster in the autumn. The Government should have accepted that there was a serious problem, and that more fundamental things were needed than those that the Secretary of State had done, and suspended the project until they had ironed out the difficulties.
  Behind the words of the Government's amendment is the inescapable fact that the Government have, in the minds of many of their supporters in many parts of the country, broken their election promises and done things—especially on child benefit—that supporters who, in good faith, voted for Labour candidates on 1 May 1997, never believed that a Labour Government would do.
  1228
  I exonerate the Minister for Welfare Reform, because, as he said, he always took the view that the way that the previous Government were proceeding on equalisation of child benefit, in particular, was the right way to proceed, even if it was politically unpalatable to some. I also think that we have been witnessing the confused emergence of a policy that is still emerging, because so many things have been kicked into the long grass through reviews—and, in some cases, reviews of reviews. We have the extraordinary situation regarding pensions—which, to the best of my knowledge, no one has discussed in detail tonight—where the Prime Minister stepped in, a month or so ago, and told everyone to get together and come up with a policy in the autumn, when we had been expecting one in the first half of the year.
  There is confusion, there are reviews and there have been broken promises. On the fundamental issue, however, I cannot believe that anyone in the House would disagree that the state has a duty to enhance the quality of life of those less well off in society, although we may disagree on some of the avenues of approach and the fine detail of how to achieve it.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wish to make a short speech—[Interruption.]—unless I am provoked, in which case I might speak for a long while.
  It is important to have prime time debates on social security issues. I want to spend 10 minutes reflecting on some of the problems north of the border. The Government have broken new ground in some areas and in some of the approaches that they have adopted in exchanges across the Chamber. My position on some of those approaches is clear: the Government should be encouraged in the main thrust of their strategies. Some of the ideas in the Green Paper are well worth considering and promoting. Nevertheless, there are peculiar problems, some of which are found north of the border.
  I want to put one or two ideas into the head of the Minister for Welfare Reform; the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), might address some of them when he replies to the debate.
  I was a wee bit disappointed earlier in the debate. I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), the Scottish National party spokesman who opened the debate, who I know thinks about these matters a lot—although perhaps not for the style and approach of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who was pushing his luck with interventions—but it is difficult to know what the shape of Scottish National party policy would be were there ever to be an independent Scotland.
  I would never want to promote an independent Scotland—I will die in the ditches arguing against it—but it is a perfectly honourable political position. We, north of the border, will be hungry for high-quality debates about social security and other matters that introduce into the debate some better statistics and better arguments. I look forward to crossing swords with the hon. Member for North Tayside in the coming months to discover what the Scottish National party has in store for the people of Scotland—and I shall express my point of view as well.
  The most important thing that I have to say to Ministers is that I have inquired into not only Scottish National party policy, but the availability of statistical data about

  1229
  the disaggregation of the amounts that are spent on benefits in Scotland, and I believe that it is extremely difficult to mount the properly informed debate that is essential. I hope, above all, that Ministers will try to identify ways of finding out how the system works now and how it might work in an independent Scotland. There are important questions to be asked about that, which I shall discuss later.
  I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I believe that we need a strategy with a slightly different perspective north of the border. The best way to illustrate that is to consider what has been happening in the Republic of Ireland, which has a national anti-poverty strategy. We could learn many important lessons from that.
  The Republic of Ireland has taken the United Nations 1995 Copenhagen resolution and set out a strategy in cold print. Annual reports of the strategy are produced; the first is a model of its kind. Scotland could adopt such a strategy. It could even be done within the integrity and the coherence of a United Kingdom social security-based system. Although, for reasons I shall explain, I am absolutely committed to keeping the coherence of a United Kingdom system, I believe that it would be possible for Scotland to adopt such a strategy.
  The Under-Secretary might take the Irish example as a model and produce an annual anti-poverty report for Scotland, containing the same elements, showing how well—or otherwise—benefits were meeting modest but adequate needs. He might try to formulate plans. In the Green Paper, the Minister is bringing forward success measures. Some of those success measures are very difficult to quantify, but those in the Irish national anti-poverty strategy are very easily quantified.
  The Irish are brave enough to determine what they believe to be a poverty line below which people should not fall. People do fall below it—sometimes that is inevitable. Hon. Members may spend too much time considering absolute numbers and snapshots, whereas some of the more important poverty problems start to emerge only when people have been in poverty for a long time. People who fall into poverty briefly should not concern us as much as those in long-term poverty. The statistics must be interpreted properly, correctly and sensitively, but at the moment there are next to no statistics for poverty north of the border to inform what will be a crucial debate, especially in Scottish terms, during the next 12 months.
  I am especially disappointed by the progress made by the social exclusion unit north of the border. It has taken a little lottery money—£15 million to £20 million—and spent some of it on considering anti-truancy programmes; nothing else has happened. We were told that some great conference would take place in the summer. Lord Sewel, the Minister responsible for that, cannot answer for himself here tonight, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what is planned. I am repeatedly told that the conference will take place next week or next month—it keeps being delayed. There is no coherent action in Scotland that builds on the work of the social exclusion unit. It is disappointing that more has not been done.
  There are very peculiar perspectives that we need to address in peculiar and special ways north of border. I need not tell the Under-Secretary that peripheral estates are a special problem; but there are also problems in rural
  1230
  areas. Rural deprivation is a real issue, and it exists in Scotland not just in the highlands and islands, but in south-east and south-west Scotland. Many innovative project-based approaches are available which, used in a decentralised way through the social exclusion unit, with a little public finance—it would not break the bank in public expenditure terms—could make a real difference to real communities. People living in straitened financial circumstances in multiple deprivation in some housing estates would benefit from their deployment. I do not see any evidence that that is happening in Scotland today.
  I support the Government's welfare-to-work programme, but I invite the Minister to examine the work of David Webster in Glasgow. He has deployed a plausible analysis of the situation. The problem is not skilling people so that they can participate in the labour market, but creating more jobs. In places such as Glasgow, there are simply not enough jobs. I know that there are special employment areas—although I do not know what will happen in them. It is early days, and we must be patient as the Government have been in office for only a year, but I think that David Webster is correct to point out that, despite all the up-skilling in the world, we will not achieve long-term progress if we simply see more and more people competing for a diminishing number of jobs.
  Mr. Field: We have invited David Webster to visit the Department and give a seminar. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an invitation to that event.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Another invitation. I wish that the Minister would stop acting as though he were in charge of the Social Security Committee: he gives me so many things to do that I do not have time to do things for myself—and I have a sore back. I welcome the Minister's announcement; it is very good news. I look forward to seeing the results of that seminar.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say, correctly, that the Government have invested £5 billion in the process—that is welcome—but what will happen when the money runs out? I do not believe that the problem of joblessness and the other difficulties that welfare to work seeks to address will be solved before the money is spent. What will happen in phase 2? If the Government are returned for another term, how will they finance phases 2 and 3 of the programme? We must view such things in the longer term.
  The Government must address three other points in relation to Scotland. First, housing benefit is a key problem. The Government are still considering that issue, and we await their conclusion with bated breath. According to a recent newspaper article, about 80 per cent. of households in Glasgow receive some level of housing benefit. That is a terrible position to be in, and we must do something about it. I believe that the biggest hurdle to getting people off benefit and into work is housing benefit; it has a huge impact on preventing people from taking jobs.
  Secondly, I urge the Government to examine the capital disregard thresholds for residential accommodation and, more important, means-tested benefits. The figure has been £3,000 for years. I cannot understand why the Government do not accept the need to uprate it. It is unfair and it impacts dramatically in Scotland. I hope that that issue is on the ministerial agenda.

  1231
  Thirdly—and most important in Scottish terms—poor, elderly, single pensioners are the most deprived group in the country and require urgent attention. I do not mean that those pensioners are waiting for stakeholder pensions, tier 3 pensions, compulsory pensions or any future plans that must be addressed in the long term. This problem may exist in other parts of the world—I know that the Minister's constituency is not short of difficulties—but that generation of pensioners needs assistance.
  I say openly to Scottish National party Members that we need better statistical information regarding the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and how social security will operate in that Parliament. If we were to increase taxation using existing powers, we would immediately affect incapacity benefit and the other six benefits that are taxable at present. We must be very careful about how we use existing taxation powers. As the hon. Member for North Tayside readily admitted, taxation and benefits are closely related. The hon. Gentleman called for greater integration. We must ensure that we take into account the social security aspects of any increase in taxation.
  I ask the hon. Member for North Tayside to examine carefully the likely Scottish share of administrative costs and back-up if there were an independent Scotland. I have referred to the departmental report for this year, and figure 25 on page 39 reveals the Department's running costs as £3 billion. The social security Benefits Agency running costs are £2.6 billion, the Child Support Agency costs are £202 million, the Contributions Agency costs are £204 million, the War Pensions Agency costs are £32 million and the Information Technology Services Agency costs are £282 million. Without those services, benefits could not be paid.
  If we add those sums together—as I did on the bus this morning—we get a total of £6 billion. If we divide that figure by 10 for a tenth of the population—this is fag packet economics with a vengeance—we can see that we must find £600 million-ish to run a free-standing benefit system north of the border. That does not take account of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the independent tribunal system for appeals and a whole raft of other bodies. One page of the departmental report reveals £600 million in costs. If we spend money on those services north of the border, we shall have a lot less money with which to pay benefits. I think that the situation is even worse than that.
  Mr. Swinney rose—
  Mr. Kirkwood: I shall give way in a minute—I am not finished yet.
  The Scottish National party must tell us how it would disaggregate the national insurance fund. Independence will create all sorts of problems; what mechanism will be used to disaggregate the national insurance fund? We all know that pensions are paid on a pay-as-you-go basis and that the Government of the day accept liabilities for the future on the basis of previous contributions. How will a Scottish Government in an independent Scotland begin to put together a programme that gives them the responsibility for future liabilities?
  We must then ask ourselves: where are the contributions measured? Contributions are measured and collected by the national insurance computer. We are
  1232
  involved in a private finance initiative arrangement—which is known as NIRS2—with Andersen International. That company has the international copyright for the system, so it is not just the Government with whom the Scottish National party will have to negotiate on the day independence dawns.
  I wish that the Government Whip would not gesticulate at me—it is a bit obvious. I am enjoying myself; leave me alone.
  Mr. Wallace: We are enjoying it, too.
  Mr. Kirkwood: And I have a sore back.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not only do I think that we should return to the subject of the debate; we are in danger of straying again into a debate on devolution—and I would not want hon. Members to do that.
  Mr. Kirkwood: They are all against me. I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I give fair warning to the hon. Member for North Tayside: more work must be done in all those areas. If there is an independent jurisdiction north of the border, the operation of the Child Support Agency will create more problems. For example, people in the United States of America avoid parental liability by jumping states. People can travel from Newcastle to Edinburgh more easily than they can cross state boundaries in America. Furthermore, big differential rates of benefit will encourage people to migrate in order to receive more benefits. Having been engaged in that slight tirade for the past 10 minutes, I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Swinney: I shall interrupt the hon. Gentleman's tirade briefly. He referred to the costs involved in running the social security department, the Benefits Agency, the Contributions Agency and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Scotland already pay a proportion of those costs through their contributions to the national Exchequer? The hon. Gentleman has raised many important issues that must be part of the independence debate. I look forward to engaging him in that discussion.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is fine. We shall leave it at that. It is fair to say that we look forward to future debates. Certainly we must consider the sharing of costs. Potentially, we shall lose economies of scale.
  Mr. Wallace: Does not my hon. Friend think that he is being too reasonable? Even taking one tenth is not an accurate estimate of what is involved, which is not only running costs. We shall have to duplicate capital costs. The figure will be greater than one tenth.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed.
  Mr. Swinney: There are computer centres in Scotland.
  Mr. Kirkwood: There are also two large computer centres at Blackpool and Newcastle. It is—[Interruption.]

  1233
  I am being provoked. Cumbernauld is a bad example because it is not a mainframe computer. Livingston would be a better example. These arguments will continue.
  We need a social security system that is based on the United Kingdom as a unit. There can be elements of decentralisation within that in a way that I do not think is in the Government's contemplation. I hope that the Government will examine the issues and the costs carefully so that the argument can proceed. I shall continue to support the Government on the basis of the principles that they have adopted and because they are engaging in an inclusive debate. That is important, but I do not think that the Government can congratulate themselves on having all the answers. There is a long way to go before we can say that.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in what has been a useful and, I hope, constructive debate. This is the first general debate on welfare reform, as the Minister fairly acknowledged. I intend to develop some of the points touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), with a particular focus on the concerns of disabled groups about the development of government welfare policy and some of the detailed problems arising from the various new deals.
  First, I wish to focus on the concerns of the disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside has examined in some depth the problems surrounding the benefit integrity project. The arguments have been well rehearsed. I shall focus on the problems and opportunities facing individuals as a result of the new deal for the disabled and for the claimants of incapacity benefit.
  Even the limited resources available for the new deal are welcome, but I would be interested to hear the Government's justification for spending 15 times less per head on the new deal for the disabled than on the new deal for the young. I ask the Minister to give a detailed commitment that the budget for the new deal for the disabled will be extended to a more reasonable level if these schemes prove to be successful, which we all hope they will be.
  The focus on helping disabled people back into work is welcome, but only as far as it goes. In the run-up to the debate, I was provided with some briefing material from Disability Alliance. It makes the rather obvious point that many of the problems facing disabled people are not those of returning to the workplace but of staying in work when their condition first develops or when their health starts to deteriorate. Disability Alliance's briefing reads:
  "Every disabled person currently on Incapacity Benefit once had a job (IB being a contributory benefit). If some of these people had been provided with the appropriate support—financial and practical—when they first developed health or impairment problems they might have been able to remain in work."
  That is something that we should all support. I should like to see the Government giving the maximum possible practical help to allow that to happen. The benefit system could be fine-tuned to help such people remain in work, by allowing them to move to part-time work, to a more limited job description or to additional training.
  The mechanism employed by the new deal to bring people back into the workplace could and should be redeployed to help keep them in work. It seems ridiculous
  1234
  that help is available only when people have fallen out of the job market or are struggling to get back into employment. I would appreciate it if the Minister, in replying to the debate, would expand on these important and practical points. It is more difficult to return to work after a period of unemployment than to redefine one's working capabilities when still employed.
  Many of the criticisms of the new deal that focus on its concentration on people who are out of work rather than on those still in employment apply also to the assistance offered through the disabled persons tax credit, which I suggest could be amended to become a mechanism for job retention, as well as offer a route back into work. It would seem logical to apply the benefits of the disabled persons tax credit to those who become disabled while still working rather than allowing them to fall out of work and out of the workplace before they can receive assistance to re-enter it.
  I know that the Government have been discussing the way forward with disability groups, but it might be useful for the Minister publicly to address concerns about the future of the disability living allowance and the possibility that an affluence test may apply or that disability benefits may be taxed. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the real concerns that are being expressed. These are big issues that, with the impact of the benefit integrity project, are causing much concern in the community.
  There are areas where fine tuning and minor reform would be widely welcomed and fit into the Government's strategy of encouraging disabled people back into work. The previous Government altered the definition of therapeutic work in such a way as effectively to exclude any disabled person whose condition was unalterable—for example, a blind person. The Tories also set a 16-hour limit on therapeutic work for those in receipt of incapacity benefit. Both changes need to be re-examined, and I call on the Government to return to the previous arrangement, which would allow more disabled people to take part in work which although not directly improving their condition would play a positive part in bolstering their self-confidence or improving the quality of their lives. These are practical steps that could be taken, which would be of immense benefit to the people involved.
  As the Minister will be aware, my region of Scotland—Tayside—was one of the pilot regions for the new deal. The data on the initial success of these schemes are just beginning to appear and it is now too early in the day to judge whether the limited initial successes will be turned into something more sustainable. Future sustainability is the goal that we are all seeking.
  Take-up rates among lone parents in pilot areas were disappointingly low. Only 10 per cent. took up interviews, and only 3 per cent. found work. I ask the Minister specifically to address those take-up rates, which we must all be dissatisfied with and concerned about. However, there are factors that may explain lone parents' reluctance to commit themselves to the new deal. First, the Government's decision to reduce lone parent benefits must have acted as a disincentive, and there was genuine fear that a temporary return to the workplace could result in a longer-term loss of benefit assistance.
  The Minister must know the realities of the workplace today. There is no such thing as a job for life, so any government scheme must tackle the genuine fear that it is too great a risk to abandon the relative security of welfare support for the insecurity of the jobs market.

  1235
  There are steps that could be taken, such as extending beyond the 12-week link period the time during which the benefit rights of lone parents—for the higher rate premium, for example—who do not return to welfare are protected. There could also be a phasing in of the removal of passport benefits, especially items such as free school meals. Such confidence-building measures may cost a little more in the short term but would produce a clear longer-term saving if they gave lone parents the confidence and support to enable them to make a successful transition back into employment.
  Education and training is another route for lone parents that has been closed off to some extent under the current new deal proposals. Why do the Government not extend to lone parents the benefits offered under the education option of the new deal for young people? The extension of the travel and child care assistance rights to lone parents entering further education or embarking on a training course would allow them to develop the skills necessary to compete effectively in the jobs market and, obviously, to improve their chances of securing long-term employment.
  My final comments on the detail of the Government's new deal proposals concern the new deal for young people and the difficulties that have suddenly been created for young people who are keen to remain in employment by the decision to set a two-rate minimum wage. There is little doubt that the greatest challenge for young people who find work through the new deal will come at 21, when their employers may face a 20 per cent. rise in the cost of employing them. The obvious danger is that employers will find it easier to replace 21-year-olds with 18-year-olds so that they can continue to pay lower wages. The new deal will be of limited worth if the minimum wage creates an unemployment black hole for young people as soon as they reach 22.
  I have focused on the detail of specific welfare packages rather than on the broader sweep of welfare strategy. Although there have been successes in Government policy, there is still room for improvement. I hope that my remarks will be taken as constructive criticisms and positive suggestions. There is little doubt, however, that far more has to be done in respect of the bigger picture than a tweaking here or an extension there. The Government have to decide who the beneficiaries of their welfare reform strategy are supposed to be—the taxpayers of middle England or the vulnerable in society.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): Oh, come on.
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister may say that, but the Government will have to face up to that decision when they seek re-election on the votes of middle England. They have adopted plenty of the previous Government's policies to do exactly that. It is a fair question, and I look forward to the Minister responding to it instead of scoffing from a sedentary position.
  I put a specific question to the Minister. Who can afford to lose a few extra pennies a month—the higher rate taxpayer or the lone parent, the disabled person or the pensioner? I know what my answers would be and I know how the majority of Scots would answer. In a Scottish context, the Government have got their political
  1236
  calculations wrong. Mrs. Thatcher put tax cuts before social cohesion, and look what happened to her popularity in Scotland. The Government's welfare strategy clashes with many of the dearly held principles of mainstream Scotland, which is why the people of Scotland are turning away in increasing numbers from new Labour's old Tory-style attacks on the social fabric of our nation. I simply say to the Minister: the Government have been warned.
  7.32 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although I am in danger of sounding like an elder statesperson in the House—I am in my fourth parliamentary term—I am amazed that Labour Back Benchers have not participated in the debate, other than to try to harass my hon. Friends the Members for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) and for Angus (Mr. Welsh) during their speeches on a fundamentally important issue, which should be addressed with sincerity.
  The Minister for Welfare Reform, whom I may have promoted to Secretary of State in an intervention, mentioned figures for expenditure on the mentally handicapped during the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). We said that Scotland is third from bottom in terms of spending per head, but the Library has suggested that Scotland is fourth from bottom, and we have used its figures. The Minister will accept, however, that comparing different systems is difficult. Whether we are third or fourth from bottom is not an aspect that the Society for the Mentally Handicapped would want to hear about. Mental handicap and mental illness are often the forgotten aspects of social welfare, and they should be addressed much more seriously.
  I assure the Minister for Welfare Reform that he will receive a comprehensive response from the Scottish National party by 31 July. I have participated in previous responses on issues pertaining to social welfare reviews, including the Fowler report. He, too, was involved in responses on that subject back in the 1980s. I hope that all responses, whether from political parties, voluntary organisations or statutory organisations, are taken on board. I find it distressing that people who are working in the forefront of the welfare system often think that their knowledge is ignored. I hope that the Government's responses will be constructive.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside has opened up the debate. The SNP is given limited time to initiate debates in the House, but, if they studied our record, people would see that we have carefully chosen matters of genuine concern to the public. We have not made cheap political points, but have opened up spheres of interest so that the public know that people are working on the public interest.
  The SNP initiated debate on the benefits integrity project when people did not realise exactly what was happening in that sphere. Concessions have been made because we initiated that debate, and they have been welcomed by parties in all parts of the House. I do not understand the difficulty in accepting that the SNP, which has independence as its goal, opens up such matters for genuine discussion in the House. I wish that some of the interventions had not been quite so petty.
  The issue is what the public think is happening in the review of social welfare. The words in our motion were coined not by me or by my hon. Friends, but by supporters

  1237
  of the governing party. They reflect a concern in society that has to be addressed. At one point, the Minister for Welfare Reform left his usual gentlemanly style behind and read a brief from one of the spin doctors, because he clearly thought that we had coined those words. That was unlike him, because he is usually courteous.
  I should like to think that we shall have high-quality debates on this subject, especially when the responses have come in, and I presume that we will go into it in greater detail during the next Session. Unfortunately, no SNP Members serve on the Social Security Committee, although we hope to be allocated a place on it in the interests of consensus, and hope to submit oral and written evidence.
  One of the difficulties that the Minister for Welfare Reform faces is that he is too genuine a person—it is almost a curse when everyone says that they respect him. When the rumour went around the House that No. 10 had said that a new Beveridge was needed to think the unthinkable, the response was, "Coffee or tea?" He would not take such a facetious approach to this political issue, because he has taken on board the changes in our society and the need for new approaches. He has had difficulties in his party and in his constituency association because of the strong stances he has taken.
  Like the Minister for Welfare Reform, I recognise that there are no simple solutions to the welfare issues that society faces. If there were, there would be a unanimous vote in the House—we would all walk into the same Lobby if we could immediately resolve those problems. I hope that we can join together and argue for a sensible approach to the problems that have been outlined by my hon. Friend and other participants in this debate.
  I wish to pick up on an issue that is dear to my heart—the demographic time bomb that faces our society because of the growing number of elderly people. When I worked as an social services administrator, we referred to the problem in the Strathclyde and Dumfries Galloway area as a "sleeping elephant". Most Members of Parliament realise from their constituency postbags and surgeries that it is a serious problem. The problems experienced by elderly people are vast. Points have been made about the elderly single pensioner, and the problems of housing, benefit, warmth and heating, and a variety of health matters.
  I recently read an article, which I would recommend to the Minister and to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who may already have read it. On 13 June, the Herald magazine published a review of a book by Linda Grant, in which she speaks about the problems that she and her family faced with their elderly mother who suffered from dementia. The book is entitled "Remind Me Of Who I Am, Again".
  Some of us have experienced the same problems with elderly parents or elderly members of our families, and I am sure that nearly every Member of Parliament has experienced problems with constituents who face the same difficulties. Linda Grant speaks about the guilt that is felt, about the decisions that have to be made, and about choosing between permanent and residential care. I recommend that hon. Members at least read extracts from the book. This is not a commercial for the book; the subject is close to my heart.
  1238
  The review was followed by an article by Reg McKay in the same weekend magazine. The figures he quoted came essentially from the Association of Directors of Social Work—I think that the Scottish Office Minister was present at the relevant conference. He said:
  "Constant, 24-hour support at home from the cheapest provider will cost at least £50,000 per person per year and as much as £80,000 in rural areas."
  That is if we hope to keep elderly people within the community. He went on:
  "It is estimated that Scotland has 340,000 elderly living in the community, who need care or support … There are 125,000 people in Scotland who are practically full-time carers."
  Those carers sacrifice their careers, relationships, education and leisure.
  The Association of Directors of Social Work has advised that it should be
  "a central aim of social policy … to support and to complement the long-term care given by carers"
  and that there should be
  "a simultaneous development of community services".
  That aspect can be considered within the Scottish Parliament, because local government, health and community care will come within its auspices.
  The Minister asked earlier whether we could make recommendations. Obviously we shall make our own recommendations in our response to the Government's paper, but during the conference, the ADSW made 16 firm recommendations in the context of the elderly, and I would certainly recommend them to the Ministers present today, because I very much agree with them.
  One of the greatest problems faced by elected Members is that our constituents approach us with fears of uncertainty about what the welfare programme holds. When the benefits integrity project was introduced, many worried disabled people asked us whether they would be reviewed and would lose money. I have a substantial file on the difficulties that those people faced. Without the work that was done by the citizens advice bureaux in my area and the Benefits Agency, many people would have been even more deeply worried. Indeed, I still receive letters on that subject.
  The Government must ensure that no action is ever taken which worries an individual who feels vulnerable. It is easy for Ministers to say that they recognise that, but let us ensure that the legislation we introduce is sensible and comprehensible to all those involved. Let us have genuine proposals, not just circulated thoughts that cause unnecessary and unwarranted concern.
  The subject of pensions is extremely complex. The Minister and I have worked together, on all-party and other groups, on that subject. I do not want to malign other hon. Members, but I suspect that most of those in the Chamber today are roughly of the same generation as me. Various options were open to us, but no options were open to the older generation. They assumed that, by paying their national insurance contributions, they would be guaranteed security until the end of their days.
  I am always impressed when we interview young people who come forward for employment opportunities. At the age of 20 or 21, one of the first questions they ask is, "What are your pension provisions?" Thus there is a generation gap. I recognise the difficulty of drawing lines

  1239
  at any point, but we owe a debt to our older generation, who assumed that in the post-war period they would be looked after until the end of their days.
  In opening up this debate, which I know will be continued, we have put forward our motion in a genuine desire for a constructive debate. It is incumbent on all of us, as representatives of the electorate, to do so. We should not attempt to make party political points on the matter, as some hon. Members tried to do earlier. It deserves genuine and serious consideration. The Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to consider welfare, health and community issues. In the meantime, we must address those matters with all seriousness.
  7.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): You will be delighted to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, not being an aficionado on this subject—indeed, it is unusual for me to speak on it—I shall not take long in replying. However, I have enjoyed listening to the various aficionados speak so briefly on the issues before us, and I shall try to deal with one or two of the points raised.
  The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) asked about the disabled. He has a long and reputable history of support for, and of speaking in the House on, the disabled, which he continued tonight. He asked whether we would spend more on the disabled in the new deal. The answer is yes; we have only made a start, and are waiting for other projects and proposals. Should they prove useful and beneficial, that will be done.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked what we can do for people who are in work. We shall consider how we can retain them in projects under the new deal. We are looking into anti-discrimination legislation to ensure that it is easier for them to retain their jobs.
  The hon. Gentleman made other points, and I hope that he will include them in his party's submissions on the Green Paper. He spoiled his speech at the end by referring yet again to middle England, as if it was a headed monster that is different from middle Scotland. I realise that he cannot throw off the habits of a lifetime—his bad political practices, and his usual whinges and cringes. Apart from that, it was a reasonable performance.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member—is it Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles? Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Middle borders.
  Mr. Galbraith: Middle borders, thank you. The House was grateful for his very short speech. It lasted about 18 minutes, but for him that was a short speech. He asked for better data. We have begun a project that will enable us to disaggregate and collect much better data. That is important, particularly in the context of the new assembly.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to investigate the Irish anti-poverty strategy, and referred to the social exclusion unit. We already have an anti-poverty strategy: it is to deal with social exclusion. Perhaps he has not heard us talk about the new deal, but I cannot believe that. Our strategy is to do with rural inequalities in health, priority partnership areas, urban programmes, the new deal for
  1240
  schools, and child care. We do not want more money pumped into research and theoretical arguments about what is or is not poverty: we want action. The social exclusion unit met for the first time on Monday, and it is considering all the data.
  I waited with great anticipation to hear the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), who introduced the debate. He is generally considered to be one of the more thinking members of the Scottish National party. [Interruption.] That does not say much for the rest of them. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech, although it was rambling and vacuous at times. I say that as a friend of his: I am not being awkward. He fell into the trap of bandying around nebulous statistics. The statistics produced by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends usually have no firm basis, and are only used to effect. The hon. Gentleman said in The Scotsman today:
  "statistics analysed by the SNP"—
  we now know that they were not analysed by the SNP, but were given to him by the Library—
  "showed that the UK was already spending less per head on welfare support than 12 of its partners in the European Union."
  My right hon. Friend the Minister made the point that total expenditure is not the main measure of social welfare—it is what we do with it that counts. As my right hon. Friend said, the United States spends more than 10 per cent. of its gross domestic product on health, yet it has a worse, not a better, service, because it wastes a large proportion of that expenditure.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside should not indulge in silly notions of spending per head. It is extremely difficult to make statistical comparisons across nations. The populations being compared must be the same, and they usually vary from area to area. However, the method accepted in Europe is called social protection expenditure. The latest figures—
  Mr. Welsh: "It says here."
  Mr. Galbraith: Yes, I have done a bit of research on this as well. It is interesting, because I realise how much rubbish is talked.
  The social protection expenditure figures show that we are not bottom of the league. In fact, we are average. Many countries are below us, including Belgium, Greece, Ireland, which the Scottish National party is always keen to mention, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. We should take all these figures with a little pinch of salt. Every time we analyse figures produced by the Scottish National party, the only thing we can be sure about is that they are wrong.
  I was also disappointed with the Scottish nationalists' big new ideas. They have been thinking about this issue for a long time, and wanted a full debate. What were their big new ideas? More bureaucracy. They suggested another welfare rights officer for Scotland, which would duplicate what we already do UK-wide to promote

  1241
  benefits. We have many pilot projects: the Secretary of State for Social Security was in Paisley only yesterday at one of these projects. Never mind duplicating the work of local authority welfare rights officers: let us have more bureaucracy. The Scottish National party's only suggestion for the social security system in Scotland is more and more bureaucracy.
  The Scottish nationalists' argument was full of straw men. They say that they want a social security system that concentrates on the needy. Was anyone arguing about that? They just kept repeating their argument. I was slightly disappointed that no reference was made to what has been done. The new deal and its various facets were briefly mentioned, but that was all. The hon. Member for North Tayside did not talk about the minimum wage. The hon. Member for Angus mentioned it, but only to deride it. There were no thanks for introducing a minimum wage for the first time ever in this country. He just whinged about it as usual.
  Nothing was said about the new deal for schools or child care. How can we talk about a social strategy for the country and never mention child care? The hon. Gentlemen never mentioned the proposals in our Green Paper, and they did not make a proposal of their own. Nothing was said about what we have done to improve the tax and benefits system. Family tax credits will give working families £180 a week, which is equivalent to a national minimum wage of £5 an hour. The hon. Gentleman did not mention any of those proposals.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside did not deal with this issue in the round. There is no one solution to this problem. We must consider the whole structure: the health service, housing and education. Above all, we must provide jobs. A job is the key that unlocks the door to everything. We have provided not only a safety net, which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) asked for, but a springboard to the future, and a stake in society.
  Many of our problems result from unemployment. If people are unemployed, they have no future and no stake in society. They need a job to have a future, to have a stake and to have the economic means to make choices. That is why our social strategy is based on giving people a job. If we give them a job, we give them integrity, decency, a stake in society and a future. That is what a Labour Government will give them.
  Question, That the original words stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's comprehensive approach to welfare reform around the principle of work for those who can, security for those who cannot, which was set out in the Welfare Reform Green Paper; notes the Government's commitment to consultation with organisations of, and for, disabled people, and the substantial safeguards included in the Benefit Integrity Project; notes the Government's commitment to helping today's and tomorrow's pensioners and welcomes the establishment of the Pensions Review and the action taken already to help today's pensioners through cutting VAT on fuel and paying winter fuel payments to all pensioners; notes that the New Deals for Lone Parents, for the Young and Long-Term Unemployed and for Disabled People are the largest assault on worklessness and social
  1242
  exclusion ever undertaken in Britain; and welcomes the action taken by the Government in the Budget to support families and children through increasing child benefit and the family premium in income support and by the proposals to introduce a working family tax credit and a disabled person's tax credit.'.

  Forest of Dean
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  7.58 pm
  Mrs. Diana Organ: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity of bringing the issue of the environmental protection of the forest of Dean to the Floor of the House of Commons.
  When I secured the debate, I suspected that perhaps only I and the Minister would be here on a Thursday evening, with no Friday sitting. I am pleased to realise that, with the debate starting at this earlier hour, I have the opportunity to press my case for two and a half hours. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is always happy to listen to representations on the issue. However, I reassure him that I will take far less time, as I know that he will be able to respond to my questions in less than two and a half hours.
  I thank the hon. Members who are in the Chamber for showing their support in an issue which is of wider interest than just my constituency. It concerns protecting a part of Britain which is valuable to the whole nation, since it is a landscape treasured by many—both local and visitor. The forest of Dean sits between the rivers Severn and Wye. It has long been known as a great area of beauty. Daniel Defoe, in his travels around Britain in the 18th century, commented on the spectacular views and towering oaks.
  Successive Governments in this century have looked at protecting the area. It was one of the first areas to be considered by the national parks committee in 1929 and by Ramsay MacDonald's Government. In 1938, it was designated a national forest park, predating consideration given to the New forest. In 1947, the Hobhouse committee looked at granting national park status to the forest of Dean, but decided against it, and against the lesser status of area of outstanding natural beauty. Each time, the forest did not gain protection, which was deemed unnecessary on the ground that, as an ancient royal hunting forest, it would be protected by the Forestry Commission.
  In 1974, there were investigations into making the forest an area of outstanding natural beauty, but again it was left out—principally for the same reason that applied in 1929, 1938 and 1947. However, changes made to the Forestry Commission under the previous Administration mean that this body alone can in no way be considered as a guardian or protector of our area.
  The area, which is vulnerable and demands environmental protection, is much wider than those administered by Forest Enterprise. The limited guardianship offered by Forest Enterprise to only parts of our environment is not enough—it is not, nor is it intended to be, the custodian of this wooded limestone escarpment.
  Times have changed. Over the past 50 years, the pressures and demands on land use and the scale and effect of intrusive and invasive development mean that we must act now to protect the area before it is too late. The valued area of the Forest of Dean is particularly vulnerable to those demands and pressures. Areas of wilderness, forest, moor and marsh are scarce in our densely populated island. Those that remain need to be recognised and protected by the Government for the whole nation and for future generations.
  1244
  The Government are committed to greater access to the countryside for all people and are actively working to improve access for many, recognising that, by being in such a wonderful environment and taking pleasures in the landscape, town and rural dwellers alike can relax and restore their spirits. In the forest of Dean, we welcome warmly the opportunity for as many as possible to share our beautiful landscape. It is our greatest asset, and a vital component of our rural economy.
  The forest of Dean attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists every year. They come to relax, walk, ramble, climb, ride, cycle and fish, and to learn about our arts, crafts and industrial heritage. We need them to come and enjoy themselves. We need them, of course, to spend their money. They are important contributors to the rural economy. The revenue and jobs created by tourists helps our economy to remain vibrant, and are a force in the regeneration of our area. They come to see Dennis Potter's "Blue Remembered Hills"—the breathtaking vistas which only limestone escarpments cut through by rivers can offer. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to refresh his weary spirit and take a little time to relax in the summer recess by coming to enjoy the beauty and splendour of the forest of Dean.
  Increased access to a landscape which is despoiled, degraded, diminished and damaged offers nothing. Visitors will not come to see spoil heaps or gaping scars in the view. They come to escape noise, dust, pollution and congestion. The very aspects that the tourists come to see are those which are vulnerable to large-scale invasive activity.
  We have no environmental protection in the forest of Dean against the growth of that kind of activity. There is no regime to protect the area for the nation. We do not even have the protection that the Labour Government of 1945 believed would be there. The forest of Dean does not even have recognition of its valuable landscape.
  The spectacular landscape wraps itself around small towns and villages which reflect our industrial heritage. We do not have chocolate-box villages. They are instead industrial working settlements. The forest of Dean has a long, proud industrial heritage based on iron ore, limestone quarrying and deep coal mining. Its skills are those of engineering and manufacturing. Our economy is heavily based on industry. The forest, therefore, would not seek, or want, blanket protection that national park status would give. It would stifle the economic regeneration which is desperately needed to revitalise our market towns.
  The status of an area of outstanding natural beauty may be sufficient for areas such as the Cotswolds, but we feel that it would be insufficient to ensure that large-scale intrusive developments could be prevented in the Dean. That is another of our dilemmas. The future economic vibrancy of the forest of Dean is dependent on mutually beneficial planning regimes which enable appropriate and sympathetic development but protect and preserve the valuable environment and vistas. The beautiful landscape is increasingly vulnerable, and that is recognised by many of my constituents and local authorities.
  The landscape is vulnerable to opencast mining and inappropriate large-scale leisure developments. At present, it is most threatened by extensions to quarrying activity—a common threat in limestone areas. Areas of great beauty, such as the Mendips and the Peak district,

  1245
  are subject to large-scale quarrying, as limestone is the gift of God—providing not only good-quality rock that is easy and cheap to extract, but beautiful scenery.
  Gloucestershire county council, for instance, has identified new areas of search on the limestone escarpment as part of their local minerals plan. It was suggested that the forest of Dean would have to accommodate new quarries along the splendid ridge. Although quarrying activity has been carried out in the area for centuries—there is quarrying for aggregates by both large-scale and small-scale operators—at present that is more or less accommodated within our landscape.
  Indeed, companies such as Tarmac at Stowefield and Arc at Drybrook work hard to give good-quality environmental screening and take measures to minimise dust and noise pollution. They work and liaise with the local community. I received a letter from Drybrook parish council, which is next to the Arc quarry. The council wrote to me in response to an article in The Mail on Sunday to say that the quarry in the parish provided jobs, but did not pollute or disrupt the environment.
  The proposed major expansion of quarrying highlights the vulnerability of the limestone area and has focused my constituents' minds with legitimate concerns. They have formed a campaign group to raise the issue and to alert both local and central Government to the potential problems. They have been shouting loudly for some time.
  I must make clear that this is not a case of "not in my back yard" or of whingeing locals who are concerned only with their house's value. They have genuine concerns that the large-scale invasive activity that the proposed new quarry would bring will irrevocably damage the asset of this exquisite environment; not just for themselves—they are not that kind of campaigner. They are concerned about our tourist economy and the whole nation.
  In spring 1997, in response to the campaign, the then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment—now the Secretary of State for Health—my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) visited the forest of Dean and took on board the unique needs of the area. He pledged that an incoming Labour Government would provide the environmental protection that the area required. They would recognise the value of the landscape, and seek to protect its vulnerability. However, they would also knowledge the dilemma of having to protect beautiful scenery while not stifling necessary economic regeneration of towns and villages.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning for all the efforts that he and his Department have made in realising that pledge; for his time in meeting two delegations from the forest of Dean; for answering all my numerous letters and inquiries; and for always giving me his time and attention when I raised the issue with him in the Tea Room, the Lobby and the Corridor, and at all the meetings that we happen to be at together. Most of all, I want to thank him for supplying us with the avenue for the process, so that we can evaluate and quantify the situation, and allow consultation through the democratic planning process.
  I thank the Minister also for pressing Gloucestershire county council to complete speedily its draft minerals plan, so that the matter can move on to public inquiry.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate. The next time
  1246
  that she meets the Minister in the Tea Room or Lobby, will she perhaps raise with him an issue that concerns not only the forest of Dean but south Herefordshire? As tolls on the old Severn bridge are imposed on traffic going only in one direction, very many heavy goods vehicles going in that direction use instead Gloucestershire's and south Herefordshire's roads, byways and even B roads to avoid paying a toll. It is about time that tolls on that bridge were imposed on traffic going in both directions—between England and Wales—or not at all. Significant environmental damage is being caused, in south Herefordshire, to the forest of Dean because of that situation.
  Mrs. Organ: I should like to deal with one campaign at a time, with one Minister at a time. I really do not want to overburden the Minister by being on his back about all the issues. However, I should say that I have already written to the Minister of Transport about that very issue, which concerns both my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).
  It is crucial that we undergo a public consultation process, as our pre-election pledge of environmental protection did not detail its parameters—its remit or the areas to be included. In the pledge, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was quite clear that all of those issues would have to be put out to public consultation. He did not say—neither was it ever agreed—that the matters would have to be settled later. What areas were to be covered—the old royal hunting forest, all of the district council area, all of my constituency, or only the St. Briavels hundred?
  Some people may have thought that, after the general election, the pledge could simply be slotted into place without public consultation. However, there was no mapping out of which areas were to be included, or explanation of which types of development the forest required protection from. All those issues must be resolved using the democratic process—by public consultation, through the planning process.
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning is a driving force in the Government's determination to modernise the planning process—a system that was established by the 1945 Labour Government and has generally served us well. His policy statement, "Modernising Planning", makes the Government's policy clear—that all future development must be sustainable, both economically and environmentally.
  I welcome the Minister's commitment, but the issue is broader than quarrying control. This debate is not only about limestone quarrying. The pledge was made, and it must have a wider remit—to cover any large-scale, invasive activity that could detract from the area's natural beauty. Such activity was encompassed in the pledge given in spring 1997.
  It is important that the Government are seen to be delivering on the commitment that they made. The pledge therefore has a wider political significance, which concerns not only the people of my constituency but others. The new Labour Government must be seen to be building trust between the electorate and Government; and we are doing that. We are delivering on what we said we would do—for example, on modernising Britain, and on reforming the constitution. Only this week in the House, we have been working on Bills to incorporate the

  1247
  European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law; and, in our Crime and Disorder Bill, we are delivering the fast track for young offenders. Those are pledges that are being fulfilled. We have to continue that work, to deliver on all our pledges.
  In proceeding with the consultation offered as part of the minerals plan, the county council chairman of the minerals panel, Councillor David Gayler, would like to be assured that the inspector holding the inquiry will be able to include in his or her brief the proposal for a custom-built status for the forest of Dean, and that the inquiry will have the wide remit that we seek. The county council is currently preparing a paper on the issue.
  I and many other people wish a public consultation with a wider remit to be established—similar to that which was conducted on the New forest, which recommended that "bespoke" planning conditions should be applied to that area. The forest of Dean has many similarities to the New forest. The New forest, too, is an ancient royal forest that was initially protected by the Forestry Commission. It, too, is controlled by a single local authority, and has a very beautiful landscape, which is under threat and did not have any protection.
  The public inquiry for the New forest was particularly lengthy, taking many years. I know that the Minister is keen, as part of the modernisation process, to shorten the time that is sometimes required to reach planning decisions. The policy document states:
  "There can be no justification in a modern planning system for procedures which take years to produce".
  I ask the Minister to ensure that we in the forest of Dean do not have to wait years for that protection, and that the matter is dealt with at all stages as speedily as possible. The issue is not a local one—neither politically nor environmentally.
  As a Government, we have a responsibility to deliver on our pledges, to keep trust with people, to plan wisely, to protect our valuable areas and to ensure that development is sustainable and for the mutual benefit of all.
  8.15 pm
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) for not taking two and a half hours to explain her case to the House. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased about that, as we were expecting to get extremely late trains tonight. It is pleasant that we may be able to get home a little earlier than we had planned.
  I am pleased also that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of the proper protection of the forest of Dean. As she said, I have twice met her and delegations of her constituents, including local councillors, to discuss the potential problems in the forest of Dean and the best way forward in resolving their concerns. I therefore feel that I have a reasonable grasp of the specific worries of those campaigning for greater protection of the forest of Dean. I also continue to believe that—as she said—we identified early in our discussions, in October 1997, the most effective and realistic way forward.
  I recognise the fears of many of my hon. Friend's constituents over their vision of large-scale new quarrying in the forest of Dean. As has been clearly explained in
  1248
  this debate, the forest of Dean is a beautiful part of our countryside. However, traditionally, it has also been a hard-working area in which mining has been an important local industry. The concerns of my hon. Friend and her constituents have centred, although not exclusively, on the quarrying industry.
  We have an established and long-standing system in Britain for regulating the activities of the quarrying industry. The system balances modern society's need for the industry's products with careful planning of the industry's location and activities and regard for its environmental impact.
  The mechanisms for considering the industry's impact at the local level is the minerals local plan. Such plans are the mechanism against which the granting of minerals permissions is assessed across the country, and the mechanism that must be used in the forest of Dean.
  I believe that the fears that have grown in the forest of Dean because of possible development of new quarries are a result of the early work of Gloucestershire county council on the minerals local plan for Gloucestershire. Last year, Gloucestershire county council's officials identified certain areas in the forest that would be capable of meeting the county's sub-regional apportionment of aggregates provision. That early exploratory work did not constitute an invitation to the quarrying industry to submit applications for new quarries; nor did it necessarily mean that the areas that the officials were considering would appear in the final version of the Gloucestershire minerals local plan.
  As I have often made clear to campaigners from the forest of Dean, the way of resolving those matters is for Gloucestershire county council to produce the minerals local plan for public scrutiny. As my hon. Friend said, I have written to Gloucestershire county council to remind it of the importance of producing its plan. Forest of Dean campaigners asked me to do that, and I did so very soon after our meeting.
  All future quarrying planning applications will be considered with reference to that plan, and it is crucial, therefore, that it is debated and agreed at the local level as quickly as possible. That debate can properly include a public inquiry, if that turns out to be appropriate. The debate will not only eventually resolve the question of any possible new quarrying within the forest, but help in assessing whether any new additional environmental status needs to be given to the forest of Dean.
  On the role of the inspector in the context of a public inquiry into the minerals local plan, I must make it clear that the plan inquiry could not make any decisions about special status for the forest of Dean. The role of an inspector in the local plan process is to hold the inquiry into objections to the published local plan and to report to the council with recommendations. He or she carries out that role independently, against the background of existing Government policy, so it would not be appropriate for Ministers to issue any instructions to the inspector in relation to any possible status for the forest of Dean.
  Nevertheless, in subsequently considering the appropriateness of special status, Ministers would have the benefit of any views expressed at the inquiry or in written representations and recorded in the inspector's report to the council. To be relevant to the inquiry, those views would need to be expressed as objections to a particular proposal in the plan.

  1249
  The campaigners for the protection of the forest have to recognise that there is no immediately available one-off solution by which I could simply exclude all quarrying from the forest of Dean. I cannot draw a line around the area and issue a proclamation. Even in national parks there is not an absolute ban on quarrying, although there has to be a strong case to allow new quarrying in such areas. The Government have made our determination on those matters clear in our decision not to approve an extension to Spaunton quarry in the North York moors national park.
  Two national designations are potentially available to the Government in awarding landscape and planning protection to the forest of Dean. They are the designations of national park or area of outstanding natural beauty. Both are concerned with far more than merely quarrying. The delegations that I have met from the forest of Dean have said that they do not consider either of those designations as appropriate to the forest. That is because both designations apply strong planning protection, which some people fear might adversely affect some of the imaginative regeneration schemes that are being developed for the forest. That demonstrates the difficulty involved in achieving just the right level of protection to safeguard the environment, while nurturing the development of local communities.
  I now understand that my hon. Friend is looking for a solution that takes into account the various other pressures on the forest, such as those from visitor numbers. Those issues are central to the system of protected areas designation.
  The Countryside Commission has been undertaking work on various questions concerned with protected areas nationally and is about to submit its formal report to the Government. That will deal with the future status and management arrangements of the New forest and the south downs, as well as the Countryside Commission's proposals for enhanced funding and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
  As a follow-up to that advice, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has asked the Countryside Commission to look again at the forest of Dean. Since the criteria for national park status were laid down in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the forest of Dean has never been among the limited number of areas considered potentially suitable as a national park. It was given at least informal consideration as an area of outstanding natural beauty, but that has so far not come to fruition.
  I understand that, in the 1950s and 1960s, when most of the designation programme was proceeding, there may have been an assumption that the involvement of the Forestry Commission in the forest of Dean was sufficient to provide the protection required. I am told that the matter was last looked at in 1971, when the local authorities concerned were consulted, but did not wish to proceed with designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty, which was designated in 1971, runs along the western edge of the forest. Whatever the previous conclusions and despite the earlier doubts of the anti-quarrying campaigners about area of outstanding natural beauty status, times change and the Countryside Commission is now looking afresh at the question.
  1250
  In consultation with the local authorities and the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Commission is employing specialist consultants to help it to review how the position has changed since 1971, the land management, access and recreation pressures, the potential impact of any future minerals extraction and what the options might be, including AONB designation, to secure the future of the forest of Dean. There will be a steering group to take account of the views and interests of the key stakeholders, and the commission is looking carefully at the best way to take account of wider views.
  As part of the study, the commission will look expressly at the suitability of AONB designation. Planning policy guidance provides that any applications for new or extended mineral workings in areas of outstanding natural beauty must be subject to the most rigorous examination and be demonstrated to be in the public interest. In general, policies and development control decisions affecting areas of outstanding natural beauty should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape.
  The Countryside Commission could recommend a special status, but the one option available to it without primary legislation but with the support of the Secretary of State would be an area of outstanding natural beauty. As my hon. Friend knows, if the commission recommended special status and the Government accepted the recommendation, it would require primary legislation; it would have to join the queue and could take some time to get through. I hope that campaigners in the forest of Dean will make what they want known to the commission.
  My hon. Friend referred to the position in the New forest as a possible way forward for the forest of Dean. I can assure my hon. Friend that the campaigners for greater protection in the New forest are not happy with the current arrangements there. In 1994, the previous Government took the unusual decision to award the New forest heritage area the planning status of a national park, without the usual designation or administrative arrangements for a national park. They wanted the boundary of the heritage area to be defined in the local plan process. The fact that that process is still not complete shows the cumbersome nature of those arrangements, and I think that my hon. Friend referred to the time that had been taken already.
  As I have said, Ministers will shortly be looking at the Countryside Commission's advice on the possible ways forward in the New forest. I do not regard the current arrangements in the New forest as a suitable precedent for the forest of Dean. In any case, those were based on the long-standing view of the Countryside Commission, which is responsible for the designations subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State, that the New forest is suitable for a national park level of designation under the terms of the 1949 Act. The forest of Dean is a different case. It has not been considered appropriate for national park status under the legislation, but, as I have made clear, the question of AONB status remains open.
  I am glad to have had the opportunity to give those issues a proper airing in the debate. The House will recognise that, far from reneging on an election pledge, the Government are tackling the issue of quarrying in the forest of Dean head on. Before coming to power, we said

  1251
  that we would consult local groups, local businesses and the district and county councils on how best to sustain the character and prosperity of the forest and its community. I have made it plain that the best way to achieve that consultation in the context of quarrying in the forest of Dean is to use the existing public inquiry procedures, which occur during the preparation of Gloucestershire county council's minerals local plan. We have also now provided an opportunity for views to be fed to the Countryside Commission as part of a wide-ranging look at what might be the best means of providing appropriate protection for the forest in the future. Those who really have the interests of the forest at heart should now get down and concentrate their energies on putting across their views in the public debate at the local level. That is where the decisions can be affected.
  1252
  It would be pleasing if the reporting were slightly more objective; it would not be a bad idea if, from time to time, journalists contacted the Department, so that we could put our views. That would allow for a slightly more constructive debate than the one that has being going on in some of the heavy newspapers and the Sundays.
  I hope that I have outlined a clear way in which our manifesto pledge can now be carried out. I hope, very genuinely, that those who have visited my office over the past few months will now get down to putting their case succinctly to the two bodies that are considering it—the minerals plan inquiry and the Countryside Commission. I am sure that we will be able to find a satisfactory solution to what clearly is a problem.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eight o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Queen Elizabeth II Bridge
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when ownership of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge and the Dartford Tunnels will transfer to the Government; if the transfer will be earlier than scheduled; and what difference there has been between the revenue received from toll charges and the forecast made when the bridge was sanctioned. [46755]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The concession for the Dartford crossings is likely to end, on current projections and subject to ongoing assessments of maintenance requirements, towards the end of 2000. Tolling can then continue for a further year for the accumulation of a maintenance fund. This estimated timetable is 3 years shorter than was envisaged at the start of the Dartford River Crossing's concession in July 1988. In real terms, toll revenue has been over 20 per cent. higher than expected.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of gender impact assessments which have been undertaken in respect of legislation introduced in this Parliament; if he will make it his policy to do so in respect of future legislation; and if he will make a statement. [47028]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women yesterday, 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58.

  Environment Agency (Penrith Office)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many Environment Agency staff in Carlisle have been made redundant because of the move to Penrith. [47232]

  Angela Eagle
  None.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new jobs will be created in Penrith because of the move to Penrith of the Environment Agency Regional Office. [47224]

  Angela Eagle
  The Penrith Office will be staffed by existing Environment Agency employees from elsewhere in the North West Region. There are no plans for additional posts at this stage.
  560
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the resources which the Environment Agency will put into the local economy in Penrith and the surrounding area when its new headquarters are fully functioning.[47231]

  Angela Eagle
  No estimate has been made.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total number of jobs in the new Environment Agency office in Penrith. [47228]

  Angela Eagle
  118.

  Eurostar Sleeper Carriages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is to happen to the Eurostar sleeper carriages. [47274]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the termination of the lease referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) on 16 June 1998, official Report, column 126, the partially built rolling stock became the responsibility of the manufacturer, GEC Metro Cammel. If this rolling stock is sold on by the manufacturer there is a profit sharing arrangement which could result in a return to the taxpayer.

  London Underground (Muggings)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many mugging offences against passengers on London Underground services were reported in the last 12 months. [47339]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The safety and security of passengers is a top priority for London Underground. It works in partnership with the British Transport Police to reduce the incidence of crime on the network. I understand from London Transport that 462 robberies were recorded in the period from June 1997 to June 1998, a reduction of 8 per cent. on the previous year.

  Crop Irrigation
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to restrict the use of water for irrigating crops. [47514]

  Angela Eagle
  Under proposals set out in The Review of the Water Abstraction Licensing System in England and Wales—Consultation Paper which we published on 19 June, all forms of irrigation where water is moved from a source and applied to land would have to be licensed, unless the abstracted quantities are below a threshold amount which would be set to reflect the local water resource position. Currently, only abstraction for spray irrigation requires a licence.

  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to remove entitlement to compensation if an abstraction water licence for irrigating crops is revoked or varied. [47515]
  561
  Angela Eagle
  As set out in The Review of the Water Abstraction Licensing System in England and Wales—Consultation Paper which we published on 19 June, we are minded to remove, from a date to be determined, compensation for losses arising from the revocation or variation of any abstraction licence which has been granted without time limit if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed action is necessary in order to protect the associated water environment from significant damage.

  Lake District National Park
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how he proposes to consult residents and businesses within the Lake District National Park following the publication of his conclusions about transport strategy in the area; [47463]

  (2) if (a) the viability of local businesses, (b) the prospects for local jobs and (c) the nature of village life in the area will be taken into account in his Department's review of transport strategy within the Lake District National Park; and if he will make a statement; [47464]

  (3) which organisations and individuals representing residents and businesses within the Lake District National Park (a) have been consulted, (b) will be consulted and (c) have chosen to express a view on his Department's transport strategy for the area; [47465]

  (4) when he expects to announce his conclusions concerning transport policy within the Lake District National Park; and if he will make a statement. [47466]

  Angela Eagle
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to look at the transport problems faced by the Lake District and to see what the Government can do to help build on the work which has already been done by a local partnership including Cumbria County Council, the National Park Authority, the Countryside Commission and the Cumbria Tourist Board. I visited the Lake District National Park on 15 May to meet the local partners and to see the problems and opportunities first hand. The Government are committed to an integrated approach, linking matters such as jobs, housing, transport and other services in rural areas, to foster a living sustainable countryside.

  Any new proposals will need to build on the existing transport strategy, for which consultation mechanisms already exist. A number of individuals and organisations representing local interests have put forward their views on the transport problems and solutions in the Lake District National Park. I will be reporting my findings to the Deputy Prime Minister shortly. We will then need to consider the way forward with the local partners.

  Fishing Vessel Losses
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fishing vessels have been lost from Cornish ports since 1995; how many men were lost in each case; and who owned the vessels. [47462]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch has produced a list showing Cornish fishing vessel losses between 1995 and 1997, the most recent years for which records are available.562

  Date of accident

  Name of vessel

  Fatalities

  Owner

  6 November 1995

  Provider

  3

  Mr. G. Adams

  25 July 1996

  Lars William

  —

  Mr. D. J. Evans

  15 August 1996

  Flem Art

  —

  Mr. C. K. Curtis

  16 August 1996

  Rachel and Daniel

  —

  W. Harvey and sons

  24 December 1996

  New Dawn

  —

  Mr. A. J. McFarlane

  11 March 1997

  Gorah Lass

  3

  Mr. P. W. Benney

  30 March 1997

  William G

  —

  Mr. D. p. Smith

  19 September 1997

  Lynn-Well

  —

  Tarbert Shellfish Co. Ltd.

  11 November 1997

  Margaretha Maria

  4

  Mr. g. Adams

  5 December 1997

  Southover Scorpio

  —

  Mr. G. A. Tomlinson

  This list includes vessels which were operated from Cornish ports but were not necessarily registered there.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to raise the 'Margaretha Maria'; and what investigations are taking place to identify the cause of the loss of the vessel. [47461]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch has no plans to raise the vessel. It is currently analysing the material obtained on the survey and is satisfied that it has obtained sufficient evidence to determine how the vessel was lost.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the widows of the men lost aboard the 'Margaretha Maria'. [47460]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  One representation has been received from the hon. Member on behalf of Mrs. Todd.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to introduce legislation to ban the use of lead shot over wetlands; and if he will make a statement. [47096]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 18 December 1997,Official Report, column 276.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths have been caused through white asbestos in each of the last five years. [47410]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of cases specifically caused by white asbestos cannot be determined from available statistics which do not distinguish between types of asbestos. However, there is good evidence that blue and brown asbestos is significantly more hazardous than white.
  563
  Asbestos causes three fatal diseases: mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. The number of deaths from all types of asbestos exposure for mesothelioma and asbestosis in the last five years for which complete data are available are as follows:

  Year

  Mesothelioma

  Asbestosis

  1991

  1,011

  163

  1992

  1,082

  150

  1993

  1,140

  172

  1994

  1,241

  174

  1995

  1,317

  164

  The number of lung cancers cannot be accurately determined, but indirect evidence suggests that there are at least as many cases as for mesothelioma.

  These figures represent deaths from exposure probably between 15 and 45 years ago when the use of asbestos was more widespread and when legislative controls were less stringent than now.

  Stagecoach
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will launch an inquiry into the proposed acquisition of a stake in Virgin Rail by Stagecoach.[47561]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The proposed acquisition by Stagecoach of a 49 per cent. shareholding in Virgin Rail will require approval by the Franchising Director under the terms of Virgin's franchise agreements and by the Rail Regulator under the terms of the licences issued by him. It may also constitute a merger under the terms of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Director General of Fair Trading will be considering this. If it is a qualifying merger, he will provide advice to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as to whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or whether undertakings should be sought in lieu of such a reference.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many members of his Department are currently working on Lockerbie. [47293]

  The Attorney-General
  The conduct of the criminal investigation into the Lockerbie tragedy is in the hands of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. The conduct of the ongoing litigation before the International Court of Justice is a responsibility which my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate shares with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Officials from my office are involved in consideration and discussion of the matter as appropriate.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list, for each of the last four years, all departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside his Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [46836]

  The Attorney-General
  Two such reviews have been established by me or my predecessor during the past four years. They are:

  Review

  Date

  Chairman

  Possible merger of SFO and CPS Fraud Divisions

  July 1994

  Rex Davie

  Review of Crown

  June 1997

  Right hon. Sir Iain Glidewell

  Prosecution Service

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the answer of 28 April 1998,Official Report, columns 65–67, on legal aid, if he will list for the named banisters the amount of public funds they gained from prosecution costs over the same period. [42265]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: The number of prosecuting authorities in England and Wales makes it impracticable for my officials to make inquiries of each in order to aggregate payments made to each counsel. Such inquiries have therefore been confined to the four main prosecuting authorities only, namely the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and HM Customs and Excise. Figures are for gross fees inclusive of VAT. Because of the system operated for the payment of prosecution fees, the figures represent sums actually paid to counsel during the period in question, which is a different basis to that reflected in the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on 28 April 1998, Official Report, columns 65–67, which were calculated on a last payment basis.

  The sums paid by way of prosecution fees to the banisters named during the financial year 1996–97 by the authorities mentioned above is as follows:

  £

  R. Alun Jones QC

  0

  Malcolm Swift QC

  4,230

  Peter Rook QC

  99,421

  Edmund Lawson QC

  17,918

  Stephen Batten QC

  11,876

  Anthony Arlidge QC

  0

  Michael Hill QC

  15,319

  Ronald Thwaites QC

  0

  Andrew Trollope QC

  0

  Stuart Stevens

  91

  Oliver Blunt QC

  52

  Stephen Leslie QC

  0

  Winston Roddick QC

  27,048

  Peter Feinberg QC

  0

  Timothy Raggatt QC

  81,120

  Anthony Berry QC

  258

  Clare Montgomery QC

  50,231

  Peter Doyle

  940

  Patrick Harrington QC

  65,909

  P. James Richardson

  0

DEFENCE

  Manning Levels
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State of State for Defence (1) if he will list the(a) current establishment and (b) actual current manning levels of (i) the Royal Air Force as a whole, (ii) pilots, navigators and ground crew assigned to (1) squadron duty, (2) strike attack, (3) offensive support, (4) reconnaissance, (5) maritime patrol, (6) air defence, (7) air transport (including air-to-air refuelling), (8) support helicopters and (9) search and rescue, (iii) Royal Air Force Regiment and (iv) Royal Auxiliary Air Force; [47546]

  (2) if he will list the (a) current establishment and (b) actual current manning levels of (i) the Army as a whole, (ii) Royal Armoured Corps regiments, (iii) infantry battalions, (iv) Army Air Corps regiments, (v) Royal Artillery regiments, (vi) Royal Engineer regiments, (vii) Royal Signals units, (viii) Royal Logistics Corps units, (ix) Adjutant Generals Corps, (x) Formation Headquarters and (xi) the Territorial Army; [47545]

  (3) if he will list the (a) current establishment and (b) actual current manning levels of (i) the Royal Navy as a whole, (ii) the Fleet Air Arm, (iii) the Royal Marines, (iv) the Royal Marine Reserve and (v) the Royal Naval Reserve. [47547]

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

  Service Children's Education
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for 1998–99 for the Chief Executive of Service Children's Education. [48004]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets for 1998–99.

  1. Exceed the 1997–98 UK LEA average percentage pass rate (measured as a percentage of pupil entries) gaining A⋆ to C grade in 5 or more subjects at GCSE by 4 per cent.; 1998–99 target is 44.3 per cent.

  2. Exceed 1997–98 UK LEA average percentage pass rate (as measured as a percentage of subject entries) at grades A⋆ to C at A level by 2 per cent.; 1998–99 target is 54 per cent.

  3. Maintain an overall percentage pass rate for GNVQ Intermediate Level; 1998–99 target is 92 per cent.

  4. Achieve the following results at standard attainment tasks and tests (SATs) at each of ages 7, 11 and 14 in: (a) English (b) Maths (c) Science.

  Percentage

  Subject

  KS1

  KS2

  KS3

  English

  Teacher Assess

  87

  68

  67

  Reading Test/Task

  87

  —

  —

  Writing Test/Task

  89

  —

  —

  Test/Task

  —

  71

  73

  Maths

  Teacher Assess

  89

  71

  71

  Test/Task

  89

  73

  68

  Science

  Teacher Assess

  90

  72

  73

  Test/Task

  n/a

  78

  74

  566
  5. Achieve as a minimum a "satisfactory" standard in each OFSTED school inspection.

  6. Implement the SCE elements of the MOD scheme(s) for the provision of nursery education overseas.

  Note:
  This target seeks to ensure the completion of the introduction of free nursery education in line with UK provision.
  7. To achieve a percentage reduction in real terms in pupil per capita costs (measured against total Agency resource costs) of 2.5 per cent.
  8. Achieve an index of satisfaction with SCE within the Army Continuous Attitude Survey above 358 overall and above 400 for Germany.

  Note:
  The "Army Continuous Attitude Survey" is an independent customer survey of the views of Army Personnel.
  9. Ensure the percentage of inquiries and/or requests answered within 10 working days of receipt is at least 90 per cent.

  United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Defence Agency for 1998–99. [48024]

  Mr: Spellar
  The key targets set for the UK Hydrographic Office in 1998–99 are as follows:

  1. To process and promulgate priority safety information within stated timescales from receipt of data.

  2. To achieve 100 per cent. of the endorsed and funded Defence Programme to cost, quality and timeliness targets as defined in Tasking Authorisation Forms (TAFs).

  3. To meet short-notice Defence operational requirements within agreed timescales.

  4. Implement by 30 September 1998 new performance indicators (PIs) of product availability and service levels for response times as perceived from our customers' perspective for improving safe navigation.

  5. To break even taking one year with another.

  6. To achieve an average Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) during the plan period of 7.5 per cent.

  7. To achieve efficiency savings of 13.5 per cent. of controllable costs (based on controllable costs for FY95–96) by 31 March 2001.

  Agency Newsletters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of(a) the Army Base Repair Organisation, (b) the Army Personnel Centre and (c) the RAF Training Group;, how often each is produced; and when each was first produced. [46815]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Jim Drew to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about newsletters produced by three Defence Agencies. This mater, as far as the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO) is concerned, falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The ABRO Newsletter, "ABRO News", is unclassified. It was first produced in August 1994. Until 1997 it was produced every other month. In 1997 three issues were produced and there has been one issue thus far in 1998.
  567
  Letter from Tony Stables to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence about the production of newsletters, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency.
  The RAF Training Group does not currently produce an Agency-wide newsletter, but a variety of such publications are issued by our individual units to their own staff, giving up to date information on all matters of interest. They are unclassified and published at varying intervals. The original dates of issue are as varied as the publications themselves; however, most of them have been launched, or relaunched in their present format, since the formation of the Agency in April 1994.

  Letter from Alex Stevenson to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 June 1998:
  I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre (APC), in his absence on business, to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the security classification and production of an APC newsletter, as this matter falls within the responsibility of this Agency.
  The APC has produced two types of newsletter, both of which have been published without security classifications to ensure they received the widest possible circulation among the intended readership. Seven issues of an internal newsletter for staff of the APC and its predecessor organisations were published at irregular intervals between April 1996 and September 1997 to report major developments in the APC Implementation Programme. Production of a successor internal newsletter is currently being considered. An external newsletter for APC customers was first produced in December 1997 and has been published quarterly to all Field Army units worldwide. Two issues have been published to date and a third will be published in July.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways he is co-operating with the US Defence Secretary in the devising and development of(a) protective equipment and (b) vaccines to defend (i) United States and British troops and (ii) civilian populations from chemical and biological weapons. [46544]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: I have recently agreed with the US Defence Secretary that we should increase co-operation to combat chemical and biological weapons. This will further deepen the existing close collaboration in this area.

  The UK is already party to a trilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States and Canada on chemical and biological defence. Under the auspices of this MOU, we have developed a joint approach to chemical and biological defence and collaboration across the full range of defensive measures, including protective equipment and vaccines. In addition, the three countries are seeking to harmonise our policy and procedures for dealing with the threat from chemical and biological weapons. We also plan to participate in a joint vaccine programme which will develop licensed vaccines for all three countries.

  The defence of the civilian population is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Mount McKinley Rescue
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rescue of the two British Army climbers from Mount McKinley in Alaska. [47559]
  568
  Mr. Spellar
  On Thursday 18 June a 10 man team of soldiers from the 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, had split into two groups in an attempt to climb Mt. McKinley in Alaska. A team of six were attempting the summit, whilst three soldiers remained in a mountain hut at 14,000ft to provide support. The tenth solider had already left the mountain suffering from altitude sickness.

  At 19,300ft as they attempted to cross a snow buttress, the leading group of three soldiers, who were roped together, fell 300ft. Two of them sustained injuries which prevented them from taking any further part in the expedition. Whilst the two injured soldiers remained at 19,000 ft with two fit members of the team, the other two descended to a rescue hut to raise the alarm. During the descent they encountered two American civilian climbers who had both fallen and had sustained serious injury. One of the soldiers remained with the Americans whilst the other continued down the mountain to alert the rescue services.

  The High Altitude Rescue Team from the US Army Base at Fort Wainwright were alerted by the National Park Rangers at 2 o'clock on the morning of Friday 19 June. However, due to heavy cloud formations, strong winds and temperatures of 30 degrees below zero, a helicopter rescue was not possible. Later that day one of the injured soldiers who had been unconscious but had now recovered, needed to be evacuated to a lower altitude. He was accompanied by a fit member of the team. However, during the descent, the climbers became disoriented and both fell a considerable distance down a steep slope. During the fall one of the soldiers suffered a broken ankle. Both were rescued and taken to the hut at 14,000 ft, still unable to be lifted out by helicopter due to poor conditions.

  The two soldiers remaining at 19,000 ft were now isolated by bad weather which prevented their rescue until Monday 21 June. During this period they endured four difficult nights at high altitude, in freezing conditions, with very little food. On 21 June a special high altitude Lama helicopter lifted both soldiers from the mountain to a base camp where they were transferred to another helicopter and air lifted to hospital in Anchorage. In total, four soldiers were hospitalised, one has sustained a broken ankle, two have frostbite, and one, who has since been released, had minor injuries.

  We owe a debt of gratitude to the National Park Rangers and the US Emergency Services for performing such a gallant act of rescue. In addition, the many mountaineers who assisted on the mountain in the recovery of our soldiers are to be thanked. We should also congratulate our soldiers, who finding themselves in extremely difficult circumstances, relied upon their high quality training to survive this hostile and life threatening situation.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Eurofighter aircraft by value is sourced from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) Spain and (d) Italy. [46978]

  Mr. Spellar
  Workshare entitlements, based on the number of aircraft each country is purchasing are: United Kingdom 37.42 per cent., Germany 29.03 per cent., Spain
  569
  14.03 per cent. and Italy 19.52 per cent. Any imbalances that arise between production activity levels and entitlements will be addressed during the life of the programme using mechanisms established in the Memoranda of Understanding signed by the partner nations in December 1997.

  AWE, Aldermaston
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many quarterly analysis reports produced by the Directorate of Quality Assurance at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston since January 1995 are currently unclassified. [46796]

  Mr. Spellar
  Fourteen.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many directorates currently exist at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston. [46797]

  Mr. Spellar
  Eleven.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1998,Official Report, columns 1–2, how many reports produced by the Weapon Diagnostic Division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment between 1979 and 1994 are currently unclassified. [46809]

  Mr. Spellar
  Twenty five of the reports produced by the Weapon Diagnostic Division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment between 1979 and 1994 are currently unclassified.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he currently expects to publish the strategic defence review; and when he ceased to expect to publish the review in the first half of the year. [47517]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I expect to be able to publish a White Paper on the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review shortly. The timetable has been kept under review and it is only in the last two weeks that it has become clear that we could not publish in the first half of the year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the targets the Government have set for their policies on smaller businesses, indicating the timetable for such targets. [47427]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are currently refining their detailed policy framework for small businesses.

  The resulting strategy will be set out in the Competitiveness White Paper to be published in the Autumn.

  Berlin Airlift
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans the Post Office has to issue a set of stamps to commemorate the Berlin Airlift. [47426]
  570
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office's stamp programme for 1999 has been designed to celebrate the Millennium: no special anniversaries will be commemorated. The Post Office recognises the importance of the Berlin Airlift anniversary and plans to issue a special commemorative label with associated philatelic products to honour the event. With the support of the Ministry of Defence, the Post Office is planning a high profile launch to maximise interest and publicity.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of gender impact assessments which have been undertaken in respect of legislation introduced in this Parliament; if he will make it his policy to do so in respect of future legislation; and if he will make a statement. [47022]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women on 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her oral statement of 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 507–19, what research underlay her statement that there would be no employment effects consequent on her minimum wage proposals; and what factors underlie the estimates made by the Low Pay Commission. [47236]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government's assessment was based on a wide range of econometric studies. The independent Low Pay Commission, which undertook a comprehensive consultation exercise and examined a wide body of published research on the effect of national minimum wages, concluded that a national minimum wage set at a sensible level, as we propose, should not have an adverse effect on employment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the minimum wage legislation will allow a worker to agree to be paid(a) nothing, (b) a rate between nothing and the minimum and (c) nothing for some hours or functions and the minimum for other hours or functions. [47322]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We have accepted the Low Pay Commission's recommendation that workers will be paid at least the national minimum wage for all hours worked and for all hours when they are at work and available for work. All workers will be covered by the minimum wage legislation apart from the genuinely self-employed and voluntary workers.

  Supermarkets (Anti-competitive Practices)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to prevent supermarkets engaging in anti-competitive practices; and if she will make a statement. [47193]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Under UK competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour, abuse of monopoly power or restrictive trade practices.
  571
  Anyone with evidence of anti-competitive practices should forward this to the Director General.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many DTI investigations have been conducted into alleged insider share dealing since 1987; and how many have resulted in a successful prosecution. [47200]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  There have been 125 separate appointments of inspectors under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 since 1987, some of which are ongoing. Successful prosecutions have followed from 11 of these appointments. This excludes 9 successful prosecutions, 6 by the DTI, where inspectors were not appointed.

  Aerospace Investment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been invested in research and development in the aerospace industry by the(a) private sector and (b) Government in each of the last three years. [46217]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: Expenditure on aerospace research and development performed within UK businesses for the last three years for which data are available is as follows:

  £ million

  Government1

  Funded by Private sector2

  Total

  1994

  240

  620

  860

  1995

  242

  643

  886

  1996

  216

  596

  812

  1 Government funded R&D includes payments of launch investment which can generate returns to Government through levies on sales. Government funded also includes a small contribution from the European Union.

  2 Includes funds from overseas business

  Source:

  ONS Business Enterprise Research and Development (BERD) survey

  Business Franchising
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the role of business franchising as a means of facilitating small firm growth. [47145]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department has commissioned the following research on business franchising:In 1993–94 Professor John Stanworth of the International Franchise Research Centre, University of Westminster, evaluated the impact of franchising on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The report, entitled "The Impact of Franchising on the Development Prospects of SMEs in the United Kingdom" was published in 1994.
  In 1995–96 Professor D. A. Kirby of Durham University Business School, Ms J. Waites of the Franchise Company, Stockton and Mr. J. Bagri carried out research on "Franchising as a Business Development Strategy" for the Department. The final report was published in 1996.
  572
  Both reports are available in the Library of the House.

  As a result of the Department's research, a publication entitled "An introduction to Franchising—Franchising Your Business" has been produced. This is aimed at those considering franchising their business, and complements an existing booklet for those considering purchasing a franchise.

  Smaller Quoted Companies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what has been the changes in the proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product contributed by smaller quoted companies in each of the last 10 years; [47081]

  (2) what proportion of United Kingdom export sales were made by smaller quoted companies in each of the last five years. [47082]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: The information requested is not available from official sources.

  Lord Archer
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of her Department's investigation into the share transactions relating to Anglia TV in 1994; how many inspectors were assigned to the case; and how long it took. [46982]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  On 8 February 1994 two independent inspectors were appointed under S.177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to investigate dealings in the securities of Anglia Television Group Plc between 10 January and 21 January 1994. They submitted their report on 19 July 1994. Their fees and disbursements amounted to about £215,000 (including VAT).

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Department's inspectors investigating the dealing by Lord Archer in Anglia TV shares in 1994 interviewed Sir Nicholas Lloyd; and if she will make a statement. [46577]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  It is not the Department's practice to give details of witnesses in insider dealing investigations.

  Cigarette Exports
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cigarettes manufactured in the United Kingdom were exported and to which countries in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [46921]

  Mrs. Roche
  The values of UK exports of cigarettes to the main destinations in each of the last 5 years are given in the following table. The statistics on UK trade do not distinguish between cigarettes that are manufactured in the United Kingdom and those manufactured elsewhere.
  573

  UK exports of cigarettes. 1993–97 Main export markets

  Market

  £ million

  1993

  1 Hong Kong

  188.8

  2 Singapore

  78.8

  3 Saudi Arabia

  54.2

  4 Taiwan

  48.9

  5 Netherlands

  22.4

  6 Benin

  16.3

  7 Dubai

  12.1

  8 Djibouti

  11.8

  9 Greece

  10.4

  10 Kuwait

  9.1

  Rest of World

  114.6

  World

  567.5

  1994

  1 Netherlands

  137.3

  2 Hong Kong

  130.6

  3 Germany

  73.5

  4 Singapore

  71.3

  5 Saudi Arabia

  49.6

  6 Taiwan

  46.5

  7 Philippines

  46.2

  8 Belgium-Lux

  33.0

  9 Benin

  18.2

  10 Russia

  15.1

  Rest of World

  151.1

  World

  772.4

  1995

  1 Netherlands

  251.5

  2 Hong Kong

  124.0

  3 Philippines

  96.7

  4 Germany

  91.6

  5 Singapore

  83.1

  6 Saudi Arabia

  50.2

  7 Taiwan

  46.9

  8 Belgium-Lux

  44.9

  9 Benin

  30.8

  10 Russia

  14.6

  Rest of World

  190.2

  World

  1,024.4

  1996

  1 Netherlands

  248.8

  2 Hong Kong

  135.3

  3 Singapore

  132.4

  4 Germany

  93.4

  5 Philippines

  71.7

  6 Belgium Lux

  58.3

  7 Saudi Arabia

  51.2

  8 Taiwan

  42.3

  9 South Korea

  23.8

  10 Russia

  23.2

  Rest of World

  197.5

  World

  1,077.8

  1997

  1 Netherlands

  246.9

  2 Singapore

  130.8

  3 Belgium-Lux

  84.9

  4 Germany

  81.6

  5 Hong Kong

  69.4

  6 Philippines

  59.2

  7 Saudi Arabia

  42.4

  8 Taiwan

  33.6

  9 South Korea

  28.0

  Russia

  26.9

  Rest of World

  272.1

  World

  1,075.7

  Source:

  Overeas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise

SCOTLAND

  Pilot Schemes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the pilot schemes announced since 1 May 1997 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) 2000–01. [46041]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: There are a large number of pilot schemes across my Department involving local authorities. The information requested is not held centrally and the costs of providing it in full would be disproportionate. In most cases, the total sums involved in each scheme are less than £50,000; many involve no additional funding. The following are amongst the larger schemes for which my Department is responsible.

  1. £16 million has been allocated to a pilot Rough Sleepers Initiative over 3 years 1997–98 to 1999–2000; and £9 million to a pilot Empty Homes Initiative in 1997–98 and 1998–99. The schemes are a mix of revenue and capital expenditure.

  2. The Mental Health Development Fund involves funding of £3 million per year between 1998–99 and 2000–2001 for partnership schemes which demonstrate the breaking down of barriers to co-ordinated care and support.

  3. The Alternatives to Exclusion Grant Programme involves funding of £3 million over 3 years to reduce the incidence of exclusion from school; the scheme mainly involves revenue funding; 18 councils will participate.

  4. £1.3 million has been allocated to the New Deal for Communities Programme in 1998–99, to help neighbourhoods with high concentrations of deprivation. Edinburgh and Glasgow Councils will be involved in the pilots and more councils are to be designated.

  5. The Public Libraries Challenge Fund of £250,000 was established on a pilot basis for 1997–98 only; 6 authorities received capital funding.

  Farmers (Payments)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of payments due in December 1997 to farmers(a) were paid late and (b) have not been paid to date; and if he will make a statement. [46944]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Under the Arable Area Payments Scheme in Scotland 98.6 per cent. of applicants received payments due by 31 December 1997 (representing 98 per cent. by value). As at 1 June 0.05 per cent. of applicants are yet to receive payments (representing 0.05 per cent. by value).

  Further Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Association of Scottish Colleges regarding funding; what plans he has to give additional funding to the further education sector in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [47249]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: I met with representatives of the Association of Scottish Colleges on 7 May and addressed the Association's Annual Conference on 12 June. On both occasions funding was discussed.
  575
  No decisions about funding for the sector in 1999–2000 can be made until the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review is completed. This Government have already increased the resources available to the further education sector in 1998–99 by £11.4 million over the planned figures of the previous Administration.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on(a) the future of Clydebank College and (b) the imminent redundancy of lecturing staff there. [47251]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: The Board of Management of Clydebank College is currently implementing a series of recommendations contained in a report by independent consultants, the object of which is to restore the College's financial health and viability.

  The College's cost base is well above the norm for the further education sector. While any redundancies are regrettable, the college recognises that it is necessary to make significant cost reductions in order to secure its future as a major provider of further education within the local area.

  When I visited Clydebank College on 14 May I announced the establishment of a £2 million restructuring fund for the further education sector into which I invited the College to apply.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 44, if he has now received the consultants' report on Opportunities for Gaelic Broadcasting in the Digital Era; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [47407]

  Mr. Wilson
  The consultants' report on Gaelic broadcasting in the digital era has been received. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library. The report will be issued as part of a consultation exercise on how a dedicated Gaelic television channel can best be established.

WALES

  Railways
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve the(a) Wrexham-Birkenhead rail line, (b) Central Wales line and (c) Wrexham-Shrewsbury-Hereford-Cardiff line; and if he will make a statement. [45889]

  Mr. Hain
  Investment in rail infrastructure is primarily a matter for Railtrack, whose published Network Management Statement sets out investment strategies for particular routes. The Government support passenger rail services through the franchise agreements with train operators. One of the main objectives of our integrated transport policy, to be set out in a White Paper next month, is to encourage more passengers and freight onto the railways.

  Sewers
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the advantages of requiring all new housing developments with access to the mains sewers to comply with the requirements of the Public Health Act 1936 and the Water Industry Act 1991 in order that the sewers serving these developments meet the criteria for adoption by the local authority. [46648]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Review of Sewerage Law carried out in 1986 considered the question of requiring all new sewers to be built to an adoptable standard but the view was taken that existing legislation which enables sewers to be adopted was sufficient. It is a matter for developers to consider the advantages of building sewers to an adoptable standard. The Government have no plans at present to make any changes to the current legislation with regard to the adoption of sewers.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many households he estimates have unadopted sewers connected to the mains system as a result of developers not meeting the requirements of the Public Health Act 1936 and the Water Industry Act 1991 when constructing housing developments. [46649]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is not available to enable me to provide such an estimate.

  Farmers (Payments)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of payments due to farmers in December 1997(a) have not been paid to date and (b) were paid late; and if he will make a statement. [46945]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Under the Arable Area Payments Scheme in Wales, 78.3 per cent. of applicants received payments due by 31 December 1997 representing 67.0 per cent. by value. As at 1 June, 0.4 per cent. of applicants are yet to receive payments, representing 0.2 per cent. by value.

  Victim Support Groups
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Victim Support groups there are in Wales; and how much funding they have attracted from(a) the Welsh Office and (b) local government sources in (i) the present financial year and (ii) the last two financial years. [46794]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information provided by the National Association of Victim Support Schemes indicates that there are 31 such local schemes and branches currently operating in Wales.

  Central Government funding for Victim Support Schemes is provided by the Home Office on an England and Wales basis and is allocated to Schemes by a Funding Panel. All Victim Support Schemes operating in Wales have received funding from this source in the current and previous two financial years.

  The Volunteering in Wales Fund, which is administered by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action on behalf of the Welsh Office, provided £8,030 to Cardiff Volunteer Support in 1997–98. Support may also be obtained from other sources, such as local government, but details of these are not held centrally.

  A470
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when there will be further progress on the improvement of the A470 Blaenau Ffestiniog to Betwys-y-Coed road; and if he will make a statement. [47043]

  Mr. Hain
  Stage 1 of the A470 Ledr Valley improvement, between Cancoed and Minffordd has been completed. Further improvements on the Blaenau Ffestiniog to Betws-y-Coed section of the trunk road are subject to the current review of the Welsh trunk road programme. The report on the review will be published later this year.

  Housing
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing association houses were built in Wales in each year since 1975; and what is the forecast for the next five years. [47116]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the number of housing association dwellings completed in each year from 1975 is given in the following table. There are no official forecasts.

  New housing association dwellings completed:

  Year

  Housing association completions

  1975

  275

  1976

  182

  1977

  388

  1978

  1,072

  1979

  1,016

  1980

  917

  1981

  540

  1982

  794

  1983

  529

  1984

  593

  1985

  607

  1986

  534

  1987

  467

  1988

  719

  1989

  1,663

  1990

  1,685

  1991

  2,463

  1992

  2,460

  1993

  2,853

  1994

  2,841

  1995

  2,258

  1996

  2,404

  1997

  2,124

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses have been built in each year in Wales since 1975; and what is the projected number to be built for the next five years. [47117]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the number of local authority dwellings completed in each year from 1975 is given in the following table. There are no official forecasts.

  New local authority dwellings completed:

  Year

  Local authority completions

  1975

  7,332

  1976

  6,864

  1977

  6,575

  578

  Year

  Local authority Completions

  1978

  4,111

  1979

  3,010

  1980

  3,493

  1981

  3,370

  1982

  1,771

  1983

  1,543

  1984

  1,997

  1985

  992

  1986

  744

  1987

  810

  1988

  793

  1989

  566

  1990

  610

  1991

  418

  1992

  133

  1993

  172

  1994

  227

  1995

  176

  1996

  43

  1997

  1

  Cycling
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts he is making to promote cycling in Wales. [47103]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office has endorsed the National Cycling Strategy which aims to quadruple cycle use by 2012 and is represented on the National Cycling Forum which is charged with taking the strategy forward. We are working actively with others to implement it.

  I have recently announced that up to £500,000 per year will be available for local authority Safe Routes to School initiatives in Wales. I expect cycling to play a major part in such initiatives.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on the provision of cycling facilities in each of the past 10 years; and what is the projected amount to be spent in each of the next five years. [47102]

  Mr. Hain
  Local authorities are the primary agents for providing facilities for cyclists. We support local authorities' efforts with funding through the Transport Grant scheme in relation to packages; the Strategic Development Scheme; the Welsh Capital Challenge scheme and the annual capital block allocation.

  The Welsh Office also provides cycling facilities as part of new or improved trunk road schemes where a need can be justified.

  The cost of providing these facilities cannot be disaggregated from the overall costs.

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farm workers are employed in each local authority area in Wales. [47104]
  579
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Farm workers working on Welsh farm holdings, 1 June 19971

  Family Workers2

  Hired Workers3

  Total Workers

  Bridgend

  42

  148

  190

  Caerphilly

  53

  125

  178

  Cardiff

  6

  152

  158

  Carmarthenshire

  690

  1,453

  2,125

  Ceredigion

  431

  1,077

  1,508

  Conwy

  228

  493

  721

  Denbighshire

  231

  541

  772

  Flintshire

  144

  458

  602

  Gwynedd

  360

  921

  1,281

  Isle of Anglesey

  210

  552

  762

  Merthyr Tydfil

  13

  26

  39

  Monmouthshire

  235

  741

  976

  Blaenau Gwent

  21

  30

  51

  Neath Port Talbot

  67

  149

  216

  Newport

  45

  129

  174

  Pembrokeshire

  428

  1,874

  2,302

  Powys

  938

  2,442

  3,380

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  63

  155

  218

  Swansea

  92

  295

  387

  Torfaen

  25

  69

  94

  Vale of Glamorgan

  100

  300

  400

  Wrexham

  128

  455

  583

  Wales

  4,550

  12,567

  17,117

  1 Excludes farmers, partners and directors

  2 Excludes spouses of farmers, partners and directors

  3 Includes salaried managers, hired and seasonal and casual workers

  Source:
  June 1997 Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Penmaenbach Road Tunnel
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what safety checks have been carried out during the last 14 months to the Penmaenbach Road Tunnel on the A55 between Conwy and Penmaenmawr; and if he will make a statement. [47391]

  Mr. Hain
  During the last 14 months regular safety inspections have been carried out at the Penmaenbach Tunnel on the A55 by Welsh Office engineers and the North-East Wales Trunk Road Agency, who are appointed highway maintenance agents of the Welsh Office. In addition, the Welsh Office commissioned crack movement monitoring during the same period. Both safety inspection and crack movement monitoring is ongoing. The dates of the safety inspections and crack movement monitoring over the last 14 months were:

  Safety inspections

  Crack movement monitoring

  9 April 1997

  9 April 1997

  25 June 1997

  25 June 1997

  15 October 1997

  7 January 1998

  7 January 1998

  24 June 1998

  1 April 1998

  —

  24 June 1998

  —

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce details of the additional funding for rural transport announced in the Budget. [47899]
  580
  Mr. Hain
  I have arranged for the Special Grant Report (No. 3) (Wales) 1998 to be laid before the House today. The report which is subject to affirmative resolution, confirms the allocation of the £2.25 million to local authorities which I announced on 11 June, and sets out the conditions attached to the grant. Guidance on the use of the grant is being distributed to local authorities today.

  This new grant represents a major boost to the provision of bus services in rural areas, and is an important step in the development of the Government's integrated transport policy.

  Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current members of the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, and give their relevant qualifications. [47523]

  Mr. Hain
  The current members of the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales are as follows:

  Chairman

  Mr. Rudi Plaut, CBE

  Deputy Chairman

  Mr. Owen Rees, CB

  Members

  Mrs. Ann Davies

  Mrs. Susan Parsons

  Mrs. Caroline Lewis

  Mr. Romey Ahmed

  Mr. Peter Thomas

  Mr. Emlyn Jones, OBE

  Mr. Keith Davies

  Mrs. Claire Argyle

  Mr. Clive Carthew

  Mr. Alan Boxford

  Mr. Christopher Kipling.

  Information about members is set out in the publication "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales" which is updated quarterly and placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Health Trust Bills
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the impact of introducing centralised payment of health trust bills. [46368]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White paper "The New NHS" made clear our intention to reduce bureaucracy in the National Health Service. Centralised payment of NHS trusts' bills is not considered a practical way of achieving that objective.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much health spending rose as a proportion of gross domestic product between 1978–79 and 1997–98; and how much it has risen in 1998–99. [46479]
  581
  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is in the table.

  United Kingdom National Health Service expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)

  Year

  UK NHS gross expenditure as a percentage proportion of GDP1

  1978–79

  4.7

  1997–98

  5.6

  1998–99

  5.6

  1 The table is calculated using National Health Service total gross outturn figures for the United Kingdom for 1978–79, estimated outturn for 1997–98, and planned expenditure for 1998–99, and estimates of GDP published on 17 March 1998

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much capital spending in the NHS increased(a) on average over the period 1978–79 to 1997–98 and (b) in 1998–99. [46435]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is in the table.

  Increases in National Health Service capital expenditure

  Period

  Percentage net real terms growth

  1978–79 to 1997–98 (average annual growth)

  -0.6

  1998–991

  4.9

  1 Planned expenditure

  Note:
  In addition, since 1 May 1997, 25 major hospital schemes, worth almost £2.2 billion have been given the go ahead under the Private Finance Initiative

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress with the construction of the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital. [46735]

  Mr. Milburn
  Construction started on the new Norfolk and Norwich Hospital on 12 January 1998. Design and construction work has progressed well and is currently over three weeks ahead of the original design and construction programme. At the current rate of progress the contractor will complete the hospital on or before the contracted date of 9 January 2002.

  Macmillan Nursing Services
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the availability of Macmillan Nursing Services in cancer treatment units. [47215]

  Table 1—Maternities in England by multiplicity 1990–97

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Twins

  7,533

  7,739

  7,888

  7,896

  8,014

  8,320

  8,166

  8,408

  Triplets

  190

  201

  193

  225

  249

  266

  246

  279

  Quadruplets

  9

  10

  8

  11

  8

  6

  7

  4

  582
  Mr. Boateng
  The Government recognise the valuable contribution to cancer services made by voluntary and charitable organisations, including Macmillan Cancer Relief. It is for this reason that Macmillan Cancer Relief and Marie Curie are represented on the National Cancer Forum. Decisions about the provision of services in local hospitals, including the provision of Macmillan nursing services for cancer patients, are for local agreement between the organisations involved. The policy framework for commissioning cancer services and guidance on improving outcomes in breast and colorectal cancer, which are currently being implemented, encourage the development of multi-professional teams, with specialist nurses as core members.

  Child Safety Week
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives his Department will take to promote Child Safety Week on 22 to 28 June. [47197]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's public health strategy, as outlined in the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", made accident prevention a priority area. We have already proposed a target to reduce the rate of accidents by at least a fifth by the year 2010 from a 1996 baseline. We are particularly concerned that accidents in childhood show a strong social class bias, with children in Social Class V being five times more likely to die in an accident than children in Social Class I.

  The Department has a significant and on-going interest in promoting Child Safety Week as part of its commitment to the reduction of childhood accidents by providing funding to the Child Accident Prevention Trust which organises Child Safety Week. Furthermore, the Department publicised this year's initiative in the March and May editions of "Target" magazine, which reaches a wide audience in health authorities, local authorities, voluntary organisations, schools and the private sector.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in England in each year from 1990 to 1997; what was the total number of maternities in each year; and how many multiple births of each type in each year were conceived as a result of (i) in vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [46930]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of multiple maternities and total number of maternities to women resident in England from 1990 to 1997 is shown in table 1. The number of multiple births following in vitro fertilisation and donor insemination treatment at licensed clinics in England from 1 August 1991 to 31 March 1996 (the latest available) is shown in table 2. Figures were not collected before 1 August 1991 and those for gamete intra-fallopian transfer and other forms of assisted conception are not collected.
  583

  Table 1—Maternities in England by multiplicity 1990–97

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Quintuplets

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sextuplets

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Septuplets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Total

  Maternities

  662,050

  655,705

  646,266

  631,710

  624,004

  607,793

  608,845

  601,481

  Source:
  Office for National Statistics

  Table 2—Multiple births recorded following donor insemination (DI) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) at licensed clinics in England 1991–96

  Treatment type

  Number of twins

  Number of triplets

  Number of quadruplets (or more)

  1991 DI

  27

  1

  0

  1991 IVF

  210

  29

  1

  1992 DI

  83

  7

  1

  1992 IVF

  555

  79

  0

  1993 DI

  105

  15

  0

  1993 IVF

  689

  114

  1

  1994 DI

  96

  14

  1

  1994 IVF

  823

  130

  1

  1995 DI

  106

  15

  0

  1995 IVF

  1,054

  135

  1

  1996 DI

  26

  1

  0

  1996 IVF

  307

  35

  1

  Notes:
  The figures for total births include stillbirths and neonatal deaths (babies dying up to and including the 27th day after birth)
  The figures are based upon the latest verified data, covering treatments carried out from the start of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority register (1 August 1991)
  Data for 1991 is for 1 August 1991 to 31 December 1991 only
  Data for 1996 is from 1 January 1996 to 31 March 1996 only

  Source:

  HFEA

  Gluten-free Flour Prescriptions
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to extend the prescription of gluten-free flour on the NHS to multiple sclerosis sufferers. [47295]

  Mr. Milburn
  The prescribing of gluten-free flour on the National Health Service for a particular patient is a matter for a general practitioner's clinical judgment, but is open to challenge by the health authority concerned. Multiple sclerosis is not however one of the conditions for which the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances recommends gluten-free products as suitable for prescribing at NHS expense.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the NHS of the prescription of gluten-free flour for patients suffering from Coeliac's disease. [47296]

  Mr. Milburn
  The latest information on the annual cost of gluten-free products dispensed at National Health Service expense is shown in column 4 of the Oral Nutrition section (BNF 9.4) of Prescription Cost Analysis, England, 1997, copies of which are available in the Library. It is not possible to identify the condition for which any prescription has been written.

  Breastfeeding Week
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives the Government took to promote National Breastfeeding Week on 17 to 23 May. [47219]

  Ms Jowell
  National Breastfeeding Awareness Week has been run since 1993. It aims to raise awareness of the health benefits of breastfeeding, increase the social acceptance of breastfeeding and to promote support for breastfeeding mothers. The week is promoted by the National Network of Breastfeeding Co-ordinators (NNBC), which the Department funds.

  This year the Department funded and provided the publicity materials which could be used during the week. These included posters and postcards with the slogan "Free fast food for babies", aimed at promoting breastfeeding and increasing its social acceptability. Materials were disseminated on request and in total 30,000 posters and 102,000 postcards were sent to health professionals, breastfeeding promotion groups and members of the public. The Department also funded a promotional advertorial in Pregnancy and Birth magazine.

  The week aims principally to galvanise action at local level where the NNBC are instrumental in organising local activities and events which disseminate the messages on the benefits of breastfeeding to a wide audience. For example, this year some co-ordinators worked with schools during the week to promote breastfeeding whilst others used questionnaires about the availability of breastfeeding facilities to engage people's attention.

  In addition to the local activities of the NNBC, I launched the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund United Kingdom Baby Friendly Initiative's (UKBFI) new community initiative to mark the start of National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. This initiative centres around a seven point plan which aims to protect, promote and support breastfeeding in community health care settings and will complement the UKBFI hospital initiative. I took this opportunity to announce that the Department will be funding, subject to contract, research costing £225,000 which aims to identify some of the barriers to breastfeeding amongst women in low income groups, where breastfeeding rates are lowest.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives the Government will take to promote National Osteoporosis Week on 22 to 28 June. [47222]

  Ms Jowell
  I have today announced, at the sixth Bath conference on osteoporosis and bone mineral measurement, a detailed and comprehensive strategy to prevent and tackle osteoporosis.
  585
  Osteoporosis is a complex and widespread problem and we need to concentrate our efforts on specific high risk groups. We also intend to encourage people to think creatively about how everyone can plan a part in preventing fractures, preventing the accidents that lead to fractures, and preventing osteoporosis in the first place. The initiatives we have taken will ensure that clinicians, managers and primary care teams have access to the information that they need on the treatment and management of osteoporosis; and individuals will be able to find out what steps they can take to reduce their chances of getting osteoporosis.

  The specific elements of the strategy are:
  new clinical guidelines on the management and treatment of osteoporosis, produced by the Royal College of Physicians together with the Royal Colleges of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Surgeons;
  a quick reference guide and laminated guideline card for general practitioners and community nurses, summarising the guidelines' key messages on prevention and treatment, to help primary care teams develop consistent, evidence-based practice for diagnosing and managing osteoporosis. The guide and card have been welcomed by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and of General Practitioners;
  the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy's (COMA) report on nutrition and bone health, which is due to be published next month. This will highlight the importance of Vitamin D in the prevention of osteoporosis;
  the Health Education Authority is producing a fact sheet, "Nutrition and Bone Health", to coincide with the publication of the COMA report, summing up its recommendations in a user-friendly format; and
  a local health action sheet has been compiled on preventing accidents caused by osteoporosis. It shows what can be done at national, local and individual level to reduce the number of accidents and is a source of ideas for health authorities to use in planning effective action against osteoporosis in their respective areas. All the information is being brought together in a new Internet site so that it is accessible to National Health Service organisations and professionals.
  Earlier this week I also announced that the Department is publishing a series of new factsheets, which contain practical advice for older women on how to sustain physical and emotional wellbeing. Individual factsheets have been developed on osteoporosis and accident prevention.

  Copies of the documents mentioned will be placed in the Library as they are published.

  Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives his Department will take to promote the U.N. International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking on 26 June. [47206]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department will not be taking any specific initiatives to promote United Nations International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking. We are committed to the United Nations drug control programme and the Government were key participants in the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem from 8–10 June. This included a statement by my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the European Union. In addition, the Government will be involved in promoting European Drug Prevention Week from 16–22 November this year. Drugs issues will remain the focus of sustained action at all levels as our new ten year drug strategy begins to be implemented.

  Health Service Spending (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was total spending on health services in Lancashire in(a) April 1996 to April 1997 and (b) April 1997 to April 1998. [47254]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: The information requested for Lancashire in the period April 1996 to April 1997 is in the table. Information for the period April 1997 to April 1998 is not yet available.

  Spending on health services in Lancashire—April 1996 to April 1997

  Health Authority

  £000

  South Lancashire Health Authority

  178,708

  North West Lancashire Health Authority

  312,965

  East Lancashire Health Authority

  324,981

  Morecambe Bay Health Authority (part)

  89,216

  Total

  905,870

  Notes:

  1. Some expenditure by the above health authorities will be outside Lancashire

  2. National Health Service trusts do not produce segmental accounts by geographic area

  3. The amount shown for Morecambe Bay represents 44 per cent. of the total expenditure for this authority. This is based on the population figures for 1996/97, which indicate that 44 per cent. of residents served by the health authority actually live within Lancashire. The actual total spending on health services by Morecambe Bay was £202,763,000

  Source:

  Annual accounts of health authorities for the year ended 31 March 1997

  Child Protection
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to local area child protection committees on addressing the needs of children involved in sexual exploitation and prostitution. [47429]

  Mr. Boateng
  "Working Together Under the Children Act 1989" issued in 1989 by the Department, Home Office, Department for Education and Employment and Welsh Office, provides guidance on inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse. It includes guidance to Area Child Protection Committees on their role in developing and reviewing child protection policies. Such policies would be expected to address the needs of children at risk of, or subject to, sexual exploitation.

  We are aware of the growing concern about the involvement of children and young people in prostitution. We intend to issue joint Health Department/Home Office guidance in the autumn on how best to deal with the problem and meet the needs of children involved in prostitution. This guidance will take account of the responses to the Department's consultation paper "Working Together to Safeguard Children: New Government Proposals for Inter-Agency Co-operation", which, among other issues, invited views on how to address the problem of children involved in prostitution. It will also take account of the Association of Chief Police Officers' guidelines on dealing with children involved in prostitution and the new arrangements for juvenile offenders in the Crime and Disorder Bill.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Sector Prisons
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the reports of the two reviews on private sector prisons which he announced on 19 June 1997,Official Report, columns 249–51.. [47898]

  Mr. Straw
  I am placing in the Library copies of the reports to the two reviews referred to in my answer of 19 June 1997. The Prison Service has already sent copies to unions and to the contractors.

  Prisons (Communicable Diseases)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reducing the risk of the spread of communicable diseases in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [47900]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are committed to tackling drug misuse in prisons. In support of the Government's wider national strategy, Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain, the Prison Service launched its new drug strategy on 12 May. It builds on existing drug policies and seeks to reduce the number of prisoners testing positive for drugs as a result of mandatory drugs testing. Inmates proved to be misusing drugs are normally punished with a loss of privileges, additional days added to sentence or another penalty, and injecting equipment is always confiscated when found. The Prison Service is also working to achieve our manifesto commitment to provide access to voluntary drug testing (so-called "drug-free wings") for all prisoners who request it, supported by treatment programmes to help them stay drug free.

  These are other measures are achieving considerable success in reducing drug misuse in prisons. However it is known that a minority of inmates persist in injecting and in sharing injecting equipment. This behaviour poses a substantial risk in terms of the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other communicable diseases, not only to prisoners themselves but to staff who encounter contaminated needles and to the wider community. To help counter such risks, disinfecting tablets have been readily available in Scottish Prisons since 1993. They were also introduced in all prisons in England and Wales in 1995 but were withdrawn because of safety concerns. Those concerns have now been allayed following tests by the Health and Safety Executive. In the interests of public health, following consultation with the Department of Health and with the support of the Chief Medical Officer, the Prison Service will provide disinfecting tablets on a trial basis, together with a leaflet explaining how to use the tablets and providing information about hepatitis and HIV. The leaflet will warn prisoners of the dangers of injecting and outline help available to tackle their drug misuse.

  The pilot scheme, which is planned to start in July 1998, will operate for three months in 11 selected prisons, and will make disinfecting tablets available to prisoners freely and anonymously. A variety of distribution methods suitable to the geography and regime of the different prisons will be trialed.
  588
  The pilot scheme will be evaluated by an independent academic team based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. If successful, the initiative will be extended to all prisons in England and Wales.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licence applications have been rejected under section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the last five years. [47317]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 July 1997,Official Report, column 173 and the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 24 February 1998, Official Report, column 178.

  Records that distinguish between a licence which was refused and one which was "not proceeded with" by the applicant are not kept centrally.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement his Department had in the decision to allow Imutran to export two transgenic pigs to the Netherlands for use in an organ transplant experiment; for what reasons it was considered appropriate for this experiment to be carried out abroad rather than in the UK; and if Imutran had sought permission to conduct this experiment in the United Kingdom. [47307]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 14 May 1998,Official Report, columns 166–67.

  The purpose of exporting these animals was, we understand, to facilitate an international research programme on xenotransplantation. Part of this programme is carried out in the United Kingdom. Collaboration of this sort is preferable to groups in different countries carrying out independent research programmes and any replication of work this might entail.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are currently waiting to be informed of a decision by his Department. [47007]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of applicants for new certificates of designation, project licences and personal licences who are awaiting a decision are two, 258 and 211 respectively. In addition to new applications, there are 1,307 applications for amendments to existing licences awaiting a final decision.

  These figures include cases where we are waiting for further information from the applicant or a revised application, and cases where the applicant is currently in discussion with the Inspectorate about how the draft application could be refined to minimise the amount of suffering and the number of animals used and to maximise the benefit that might accrue from the work. It is not possible to disaggregate these from the total.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what grades of staff have been involved in processing applications for personal and project licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in each of the past three years. [47006]
  589
  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of staff is given in the table.

  Year

  Inspectors

  Executive grades

  Administrative grades

  1996

  15

  0.47

  12.85

  1997

  16

  0.47

  12.85

  1998

  16.5

  0.47

  13.85

  Inspectors spend, on average, approximately 40 per cent. of their time assessing licence applications and amendments. The remainder is spent on visits of inspection and in providing specialist advice.

  Additional funding has been secured to increase the complement of the Inspectorate from 18 to 21. Three new inspectors are scheduled to join the Inspectorate in the next two months.

  Executive staff (Executive Officer to Grade 7) and administrative staff (Administration Assistant, Administrative Officer and equivalents) are shown as full-time equivalents. Additional funding has allowed the administrative staffing levels to be increased in 1998–99 through extra conditioned hours and overtime.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken between receipt of an application for a licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and informing the applicant of the decision. [47008]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Averages could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Apart from a couple of exceptional cases, we have dealt with all new personal licence applications received before March 1998.

  The time taken for project licence applications varies greatly depending on a number of factors, including the quality of the initial application; the complexity or originality of the proposed work; and whether it is necessary to consult a specialist inspector, an external assessor or the Animal procedures Committee.

  Mrs. Estelle Mills
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the application of Mrs. Estelle Mills, a constituent of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, for British citizenship, application number M739663, will be(a) considered and (b) determined. [47565]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not normal practice to comment on individual citizenship applications but in this case I am able to say that in fact Mrs. Mills' application was granted on 16 June.

  Public Interest Immunity (Document D909)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what disciplinary action has been taken against those providing Inland Revenue information referred to or relative to Public Interest Immunity Document D909 to persons outside the Inland Revenue; [47262]

  (2) if he will make a statement on Document D909 on the Public Interest Immunity list; [47258]
  590
  (3) if he will make a statement on the role of Merseyside Police in respect of Document D909 on the Public Interest Immunity list; [47259]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the process by which information relating to Document D909 on the Public Interest Immunity list was secured from Inland Revenue sources; [47260]

  (5) if he will set up an inquiry into how Inland Revenue information relating to Document D909 on the Public Interest Immunity list came into the public domain. [47261]

  Mr. Michael
  The use of material generated as part of the investigation/prosecution process, whether used or unused, is to be the subject of consideration by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords next month in the case of Taylor v Serious Fraud Office. The facts of that case have a considerable amount in common with the case to which I believe this question relates and it would not be proper for me to comment or intervene at this time.

  Prisoners (Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1), pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) of 1 June 1998,Official Report, columns 50–51, what estimate he has made of the number of (a) in-cell televisions and (b) prisoners who will have access to in-cell televisions when in-cell television has been extended more generally across the prison service; [44612]

  (2) if he will list the prisons in which in-cell television is not to be made available; [44605]

  (3) if any prisoners who are not on drug-free wings of prisons will have in-cell television made available to them following the increased availability of in-cell television; [44613]

  (4) what criteria will be used in determining the availability of in-cell television to prisoners on the standard privilege level; [44608]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners on the standard privilege level who will have access to in-cell television when in-cell television has been extended more generally across the prison system. [44606]

  Ms Quin
  All prisons will in due course provide in-cell television as an earned privilege but its extension will be gradual and monitored closely. The Prison Service will be deciding by August which local schemes should be implemented this financial year and will take account of early experience before deciding which schemes should be implemented next financial year.

  The option of in-cell television will initially be targeted on prisoners on the enhanced privilege level or in other priority groups, such as those who are "drug free".

  The future numbers of in-cell televisions and prisoners with access to them will depend on early experience of the policy which will be closely monitored.

  The procurement exercise is based on approximately 20,000 sets over a contract period of three to five years.

  CCTV Challenge Competition
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to retain the CCTV Challenge Competition in 1999–2000. [47263]

  Mr. Michael
  The expenditure plans we inherited from the previous Administration made no provision whatsoever to support closed circuit television after 1998–99. The Government's spending plans for 1999–2000 and beyond will be announced in a White Paper to be published in July.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1998,Official Report, column 528, relating to current expenditure on his Department's emergency planning activities, if he will identify the subject or subjects of the expenditure classed as "(f) other" in his answer; and if he will make a statement. [44561]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures for other expenditure provided in the Answer of 20 April included, in error, some costs relating to the Emergency Planning College. This has been corrected in the table.

  Other current expenditure on emergency planning activities

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99(provision)

  Severe Weather

  Warning Service

  0

  3,152

  4,174

  3,852

  Information Technology

  52

  144

  63

  50

  Training

  0

  3

  7

  4

  Stationery

  5

  11

  4

  5

  Hospitality

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Reprographics

  0

  4

  5

  5

  National Warning System

  407

  302

  318

  382

  Research and Development

  368

  129

  52

  50

  Police Emergency Planning Expenditure

  344

  255

  219

  0

  Radiation Monitoring Equipment

  8

  11

  8

  0

  Media Advisory Service

  186

  148

  188

  188

  Disposal of former Civil Defence estate/equipment

  2,784

  1,794

  958

  0

  Total

  4,156

  5,955

  5,998

  4,538

  Prison Inspections
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits were made to prisons in England and Wales during 1997 by the Chief Inspector of Prisons; and which establishments were visited. [46975]

  Ms Quin
  During 1997, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons visited 40 Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. These were: Albany; Aldington; Birmingham, Buckley Hall; Bullwood Hall; Camp Hill; Canterbury; Cardiff; Colchester; Cookham Wood; Deebolt; Feltham; Foston Hall; Full Sutton; Garth; Glen Parva; Grendon; Guy's Marsh; Haslar; Haverigg; High Down; Highpoint; Hindley; Hollesley Bay; Holloway;592
  Kingston; Littlehey; Low Newton; Manchester; New Hall; Onley; Parc; Parkhurst; Stocken; Styal; Thorn Cross; Wakefield; Wandsworth; Wealstun; and Winchester.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received from Christians from Pakistan for asylum status; and if he will make a statement. [46918]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information on the number of Christian asylum applicants who are nationals of Pakistan could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of gender impact assessments which have been undertaken in respect of legislation introduced in this Parliament; if he will make it his policy to do so in respect of future legislation; and if he will make a statement. [47024]

  Ms Quin
  The gender perspective in policy making is being addressed through the cross-Departmental mainstreaming initiative which the Ministers for Women launched on 18 May. This involved wide consultation in the formation of new guidelines. These guidelines will require Departments to consider how policy proposals affect women; consult with women's organisations where appropriate; and take action where the differential impact is not justifiable.

  The Ministers for Women intend to publish an Annual Report to Parliament setting out progress on mainstreaming the women's perspective into Government policy making. The first report will be published after the end of this financial year.

  Metropolitan Police
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what ways(a) redrawing the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police area and (b) reducing Metropolitan Police numbers, will affect the funding formula under which the Metropolitan Police receives extra resources for national responsibilities. [47031]

  Mr. Michael
  The special payment the Metropolitan Police receives outside the funding formula in recognition of its distinct national and capital city functions is unlikely to be affected by the change in the force's boundaries, or any consequential reduction in the total number of police officers in the force.

  Lorne House Drugs Project
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the Lorne House drugs project in Hackney. [47067]
  593
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Lorne House Project was raised in correspondence in October 1997 by the London Drug Services Providers Consortium, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in November 1997. Lord Peyton of Yeovil also tabled a Parliamentary Question that month and since then has written on six occasions, most recently on 2 June. We shall be replying to his latest letter shortly.

  Police (Medical Retirements)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of medical

  Medical retirements as a percentage of all police retirements, England and Wales 1990–1997–98

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–981

  Avon and Somerset

  54

  59

  57

  52

  71

  28

  40

  54

  Bedfordshire

  41

  58

  32

  41

  43

  39

  39

  50

  Cambridgeshire

  59

  51

  35

  49

  45

  48

  40

  25

  Cheshire

  59

  58

  61

  46

  44

  29

  38

  26

  City of London

  59

  33

  38

  44

  35

  40

  27

  16

  Cleveland

  79

  85

  81

  62

  78

  57

  58

  32

  Cumbria

  53

  48

  47

  57

  63

  23

  39

  44

  Derbyshire

  75

  80

  75

  79

  68

  60

  58

  65

  Devon and Cornwall

  40

  51

  42

  43

  27

  22

  18

  20

  Dorset

  54

  68

  48

  72

  32

  33

  22

  20

  Durham

  64

  62

  48

  61

  66

  56

  53

  35

  Dyfed-Powys

  52

  61

  59

  50

  58

  61

  48

  46

  Essex

  40

  48

  33

  30

  40

  27

  32

  25

  Gloucestershire

  38

  39

  43

  30

  37

  21

  24

  n/a

  Greater Manchester

  73

  68

  67

  60

  69

  49

  65

  61

  Gwent

  38

  58

  64

  51

  67

  58

  56

  47

  Hampshire

  35

  38

  38

  42

  41

  23

  21

  30

  Hertfordshire

  41

  63

  33

  45

  37

  58

  19

  33

  Humberside

  46

  48

  43

  43

  69

  33

  37

  34

  Kent

  56

  52

  59

  63

  65

  49

  16

  20

  Lancashire

  61

  67

  64

  57

  65

  49

  41

  25

  Leicestershire

  74

  75

  68

  85

  75

  63

  56

  42

  Lincolnshire

  38

  59

  48

  51

  71

  49

  23

  48

  Merseyside

  65

  58

  62

  71

  78

  76

  77

  54

  Metropolitan Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  48

  35

  50

  51

  n/a

  Norfolk

  37

  53

  38

  31

  37

  20

  23

  21

  North Wales

  59

  71

  71

  71

  82

  72

  55

  28

  North Yorkshire

  75

  65

  81

  74

  77

  67

  76

  49

  Northamptonshire

  93

  56

  55

  39

  68

  37

  58

  41

  Northumbria

  67

  70

  64

  60

  81

  69

  63

  n/a

  Nottinghamshire

  78

  63

  66

  71

  78

  53

  51

  43

  South Wales

  59

  64

  37

  36

  42

  48

  36

  49

  South Yorkshire

  52

  60

  59

  66

  55

  49

  45

  31

  Staffordshire

  59

  69

  69

  70

  64

  60

  55

  50

  Suffolk

  40

  43

  59

  47

  34

  47

  39

  39

  Surrey

  61

  57

  44

  44

  60

  45

  41

  14

  Sussex

  39

  46

  40

  36

  37

  39

  29

  18

  Thames Valley

  51

  49

  48

  35

  58

  44

  44

  33

  Warwickshire

  37

  45

  30

  38

  27

  48

  38

  33

  West Mercia

  51

  50

  53

  40

  47

  46

  48

  38

  West Midlands

  39

  39

  32

  31

  58

  37

  35

  29

  West Yorkshire

  85

  73

  83

  71

  70

  32

  35

  n/a

  Wiltshire

  29

  48

  23

  34

  22

  13

  16

  19

  Provincial average

  59

  59

  56

  54

  60

  46

  43

  2—

  England and Wales average

  2—

  2—

  2—

  53

  53

  46

  45

  2—

  1 Figures for 1997–98 are provisional

  2 Data from some forces not available

  Note:

  n/a—not available
  594
  retirements from each police service in England and Wales as a proportion of all retirements for each of the last 10 years. [47212]

  Mr. Michael
  Numbers of medical retirements from forces in England and Wales for the years between 1990 and 1996–97, as a proportion of the total number of retirements, are included in the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary "Lost Time: The Management of Sickness Absence and Medical retirement in the Police Service", published in December 1997. The information is reproduced in the table, which also includes provisional figures for 1997–98. Such information is not available for the period before 1990.

  Child Pornography
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted in England and Wales during the last 12 months for trading in child pornography. [47107]

  Mr. Michael
  Prosecutions for trading in child pornography cannot be identified separately on the Home Office Court Proceedings database from other child pornography offences. The information available on child pornography is given in the table.

  Number of persons prosecuted in 1996 for child pornography offences

  England and Wales

  Total prosecutions

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  Take, make, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute or show, or publish any advertisement conveying the distribution of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children1

  80

  0

  Possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child2

  122

  3

  1 Protection of Children Act 1978 Sec 1,6 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Sec 84

  2 Criminal Justice Act 1988 Sec 160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Sec 84(4) and 86(1)

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women are at present serving a life prison sentence in England and Wales. [47195]

  Ms Quin
  The latest available information is for 31 May 1998. On that date, there were 3,792 male and 139 female life sentence prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who were serving a life sentence were released on parole in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [47106]

  Ms Quin
  Life sentence prisoners are released on life licence and not parole. Provisional information for 1997 shows that between January and December 1997, 111 life sentence prisoners were released on life licence from Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department will take to promote the U.N. International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking on 26 June. [47207]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office played a significant role in the preparations for and at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, held in New York on 8–10 June, which I attended. The Special Session attracted a significant amount of press and media coverage in the United Kingdom. We shall take any suitable opportunities to highlight the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking but, as in recent years, we will not be taking any specific initiatives to mark the Day.

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is(a) co-director of ACPO Ltd. and (b) a member of the Executive Committee of ACPO. [47029]

  Mr. Michael
  Yes.

PRIME MINISTER

  No. 10 Downing Street (Staff Costs)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the total staff costs for No. 10 Downing Street in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 indicating separately the costs for (i) private secretaries, (ii) Policy Unit staff, (iii) Press Office staff, (iv) Strategic Communications Unit staff, (v) all support staff and (vi) Political Office staff. [40221]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: The total staff costs for No. 10 Downing Street were £3.4 million in 1996/97 and £4.1 million in 1997/98. Estimated costs for 1998/99 are £4.9 million. Due to changes to the accounting systems, it is not possible to give a breakdown of the 1996/97 figures as requested which means that a meaningful comparison with subsequent years cannot be drawn. The cost of the Political Office does not fall to the Government.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 92, if all the papers forwarded by the Prime Minister to Sir Thomas Legg's inquiry will fall within the terms of reference of that inquiry; and if he will ensure that all such papers contain the dates on which they were received by his Department and the names of all those to whom they were circulated. [44556]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: Sir Thomas Legg is conducting a full and independent investigation into the supply of arms to Sierra Leone. He will determine which papers are relevant and the format in which they should be presented to him.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for a national contingency plan in the event of the failure of public and private sector computer systems to recognise the year 2000; and if he will make a statement. [45637]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The actions that the Government have taken to deal with the Year 2000 problem are designed to prevent such failures. The Government are, however, taking a number of actions to ensure the continued delivery of the supplies and services essential to the life of the community.

  The Government are currently conducting a risk assessment study of the national infrastructure, including public and private elements, which will inform contingency planning. The Home Office is addressing how to use the established framework for dealing with emergencies in the context of the Year 2000 problem. The

  597
  Civil Contingencies Committee will co-ordinate the central government response to any emergency caused by widespread system failure.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is reviewing progress within departments and agencies on a quarterly basis. He made an oral statement to the House on 8 June 1998, Official Report, columns 716–27 and published the latest revisions to Departments' action plans, which included information about their business continuity planning, together with an initial survey of the wider pubic sector including the NHS and Local Authorities. The information has been placed in the Library of the House and published on the Internet.

  Government Buildings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 665, if he will list the Labour Party events which have taken place since 14 May 1997 at (a) 10 Downing Street, (b) 11 Downing Street, (c) Carlton House Terrace and (d) Chequers. [46257]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 June 1998, Official Report, column 665.

  Any private receptions have been held in accordance with the Ministerial Code.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Prime Minister if he gave written permission to(a) the Secretary of State for Scotland and (b) the Chancellor of the Exchequer to visit France on unofficial business on 10 June. [46557]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 June 1998]: Both Ministers agreed their visits with the Prime Minister.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have been briefed by their departments on the employment impact of the minimum wage proposals. [47233]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the policy of this or previous Governments to disclose details of the opinions, advice, recommendations and deliberations individual Ministers receive from their Departments. However, the Government share the Low Pay Commission's view that the national minimum wage set at the level proposed should have no significant impact on employment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effects on Departmental budgets of the minimum wage proposals. [47234]

  The Prime Minister
  Departmental spending plans will be announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review outcome and will take into account any effects of the introduction of the minimum wage.

  Ministerial Committee on Welfare Reform
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee on 598
  Welfare Reform; how many times the Committee has met since its establishment; and if he will make a statement on the Committee's work to date. [47062]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 67, following the first meeting of the Group on 22 January. In accordance with long-established practice, it is not customary to make public details of discussions within such groups.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what discussions he had with President Clinton on the transfer of nuclear waste from Georgia to Dounreay; and what data the US Government gave him on this material; [46248]

  (2) on what dates negotiations took place with regard to the importation of nuclear material from Georgia; on what date it was first discussed that low-grade nuclear material would form part of the consignment; and which UK representatives were involved in these discussions; [46249]

  (3) on what date he was notified that 9 kilogrammes of low-grade nuclear waste was included in the consignment of nuclear material brought to Dounreay from Georgia; and what quantity of low-grade nuclear waste was proposed when he agreed to receive the material into the United Kingdom; [46246]

  (4) who made the decision to accept the 9 kilogrammes of low-grade nuclear waste from Georgia for reprocessing at Dounreay; when it was made; and which ministers were informed. [46247]

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 June 1998, c. 314]: The second paragraph contained a transcription error. This occurred in a section of the paragraph which should have repeated information already in the public domain. A corrected version of the relevant section is set out.

  "The Government's prime objective was to remove material of proliferation concern from Georgia. Before the Government made the decision to take the material, we were informed of all relevant issues. Low grade nuclear waste did not form part of the consignment, which consisted of unirradiated and irradiated high enriched and low enriched uranium. As I told the House on 22 April 1998, Official Report, column 818, in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush (Mr. Soley), the intermediate level radioactive waste resulting from reprocessing the irradiated uranium would fill two drums."

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to(a) withdraw and (b) suspend aid to India or Pakistan following the recent nuclear tests in those countries. [46725]
  599
  Clare Short
  Our bilateral programmes to both countries are poverty focused and we do not propose to take actions which will hurt the poor. But we are in the process of preparing new Country Strategy Papers for India and Pakistan which will consider carefully the implications, including the economic and financial implications, of the nuclear tests when assessing prospects for partnerships for poverty reduction.

  Jubilee 2000
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received from the organisers of Jubilee 2000; and if she will make a statement about those targets for debt relief set out by Jubilee 2000 which conflict with Government targets. [47308]

  Clare Short
  We have regular contacts with the organisers of Jubilee 2000 about international debt. Last month, I was delighted to have been able to address many of their supporters, who had travelled to Birmingham at the time of the G8 Summit.

  Jubilee 2000's targets, and those of the Government set out in the Mauritius Mandate launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last September, seek the same overall objective —the remission of the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries. We both recognise the important part debt relief can play in the eradication of poverty, that creditors and debtor governments share responsibility for finding sustainable solutions, and that work must be tackled on a case-by-case basis, with debtors themselves being closely consulted in the process.

  The Government have been pressing for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt Initiative to be implemented as quickly as possible. At the G8 Summit, leaders agreed to encourage all eligible countries to put in place the policy measures needed to ensure that by 2000 they had at least embarked on the process which will lead to debt relief, which is one of the main aims of the Mauritius Mandate.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Commonhold
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the outstanding issues which need to be resolved before proposals on the introduction of commonhold are published; and if he will make a statement. [46555]

  Mr. Hoon
  The introduction of a commonhold scheme is a manifesto commitment. Although the introduction of such a scheme could be carried out independently of commitments in the field of leasehold reform, the Government's view is that it would be prudent for these developments to be co-ordinated. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister aims to issue a consultation paper on leasehold reform later in the year.

  Rights of Audience
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when Her Majesty's Government will announce its proposals for modernising rights of audience in the higher courts. [47896]
  600
  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has this morning published a paper, "Rights of Audience and Rights to Conduct Litigation in England and Wales: The Way Ahead", copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Comments are invited by 14 September 1998.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many zones he currently proposes to have in the Millennium Dome. [45135]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Fourteen exhibit zones are currently under development, plus the central show.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much of the finance for the New Millennium Experience he proposes to raise from the private sector; and how much is currently committed. [45133]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Over £100 million of private sector sponsorship for the Millennium Experience has been committed so far. The New Millennium Experience Company is in active discussion with a number of companies and is on course to achieve the sponsorship target of £150 million by the end of the year.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Listed Sporting Events
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the outcome of his review of major events listed under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. [47969]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My review of the list is now complete. I have conducted it in the light of the criteria which I published last year. I consulted widely on the criteria and the content of the list and I have carefully considered the many representations made to me. I have accepted the general principles of the report produced by the Advisory Group chaired by Lord Gordon of Strathblane.

  With immediate effect, I am revising the list of events under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996.

  I am retaining the following events on the list, requiring live coverage to be made available to free-to-air terrestrial television broadcasters (in Category A as specified in the 1996 Act):

  The Olympic Games

  The FIFA World Cup Finals Tournament

  The FA Cup Final

  The Scottish FA Cup Final (in Scotland)

  The Grand National

  The Derby

  The Wimbledon Tennis Finals.

  I am adding the following events to the list on the same basis:

  The European Football Championship Finals Tournament

  601

  The Rugby League Challenge Cup Final

  The Rugby World Cup Final.

  After careful consideration of the Advisory Group's recommendations, I have concluded that a number of the matches in the World Cup and European Championships football qualifying tournaments meet the criteria for listing. I believe that it is important that crucial ties in these competitions should be available to all viewers and therefore intend to seek Europe-wide arrangements for protecting free-to-air live broadcasts of crucial matches in these competitions.

  I am also listing some further events on a different understanding. For these events, I have recommended to the Independent Television Commission that live coverage might be allowed to be shown exclusively by a Category B broadcaster (as specified in the 1996 Act), provided there are satisfactory arrangements for secondary coverage by a Category A broadcaster. I have asked the ITC to consider setting a minimum acceptable standard for such secondary coverage, to include some combination of delayed full coverage, highlights and live radio commentary.

  The events I am listing on this understanding are:

  Cricket Test Matches played in England

  Non-Finals play in the Wimbledon Tournament

  All Other Matches in the Rugby World Cup Finals Tournament

  Five Nations Rugby Tournament Matches Involving Home Countries

  The Commonwealth Games

  The World Athletics Championship

  The Cricket World Cup—the Final, Semi-finals and Matches Involving Home Nations' Teams

  The Ryder Cup

  The Open Golf Championship.

  Libraries
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public money was used to support the lending of(a) books and (b) other printed sources in public libraries in 1996–97. [47211]

  Mr. Fisher
  In 1996–97, public library authorities in England spent £83.5 million on books and pamphlets, and £6.1 million on newspapers, periodicals and magazines. Information is not held centrally about the operating costs of lending services for books or other printed material.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what is the national average per constituency for awards made by the Millennium Commission since 1 May 1997; [47290]

  (2) if he will list the awards made by the Millennium Commission by constituency since 1 May 1997. [47289]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission and place copies of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Tourism
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the number of jobs in British seaside resorts dependent on the tourism industry. [46721]

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list by local authority area for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available (i) the value of tourism, (ii) the number of direct tourism jobs, (iii) direct tourism jobs as a percentage of the workforce, the number of indirect tourism jobs and the percentage of jobs sustained in full or (iv) part by tourism. [46507]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Spending by tourists across the UK was estimated to be £40 billion for 1996 and the estimate for 1997 will be available shortly. Employment in tourism-related industries was estimated at 1.7 million in the Summer of 1997. However, the national tourism and employment surveys are designed to give disaggregated figures down to regional level and, in some cases, county level and figures for the value of tourism and the number of jobs in tourism-related industries are not available for individual local authorities.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product tourism accounts for. [46723]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Figures from the ONS show that the value added contribution of the tourism-related industries was £17,602m in 1995, the latest year for which figures are available. This accounted for 2.89 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product of £608,090m.

  These figures are likely to underestimate the whole value added contribution to GDP arising from the total of £38 billion for tourism spending in the UK in 1995. For example, spending on retail goods by tourists is not captured in the figures on the tourism-related industries, which refer only to those industries in which tourism accounts for a significant proportion of total spending. On the other hand, some of the value added in the tourism-related industries will have arisen from spending by residents rather than tourists.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the British Tourist Authority has to promote British seaside resorts as tourism destinations in the near future. [46722]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The BTA will continue to assist seaside resorts to promote themselves effectively as tourist destinations. BTA encourages targeted marketing to those groups most likely to be attracted to a particular resort; participation of individual destinations in larger overseas marketing partnerships; and involvement of such partnerships in overseas consumer and trade exhibitions. BTA will also continue to feature seaside resorts in the print it distributes and through public relations activities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 263, how many of the 1997 European Communities legislative items were incorporated into United Kingdom law by (a) primary legislation and (b) statutory instrument; and what is the procedure for determining the appropriate vehicle for the incorporation of EU instruments. [45719]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member in due course. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Police and Military Assistance (Human Rights)
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what place is given to human rights in the programme of training supplied by the United Kingdom for foreign police and military personnel; and what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on its effectiveness in improving the human rights record of the countries concerned. [47344]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The FCO's programme of training for foreign police and military personnel, Assistance to Support Stability with In-Service Training (ASSIST) promotes respect for international human rights standards through training which features human rights both as a distinct discipline and as an element of broader training courses.

  The programme will be evaluated internally at the end of the current financial year against the criteria announced in my Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 26 March 1998, Official Report, columns 235–36.

  Zinoviev Letter
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed research in the Moscow archives by Gill Bennett into the circumstances surrounding the Zinoviev letter of 1924. [47406]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 12 February 1998,Official Report, column 324, that he had commissioned the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Historians to write a memorandum on the Zinoviev Letter of 1924, drawing on papers held by the SIS as well as those in the FCO. Work on this memorandum is well advanced and copies will be laid in the House on publication.

  In order that the memorandum should be as comprehensive and authoritative as possible, it was decided that the FCO Historian should visit Moscow and examine material held in parallel Russian archives. We are grateful to the Government of the Russian Federation for their co-operation in arranging this visit, which will take place early in July.

  Falkland Islands (Oil)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement 604
  on the latest oil exploration around the Falkland Islands; and who will be eligible to receive royalties from oil found in this area. [47433]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Exploratory drilling in the North Falkland Basin started on 27 April 1998 when Amerada Hess drilled the first well. On 27 May they announced they had abandoned this well, stating that although the well had encountered traces of hydrocarbons, nothing further had been found. Lasmo are now in the process of drilling the second well. It is far too early to make any prediction about finding oil in commercial quantities.

  Any oil revenues will accrue to the Falkland Islands Government. I discussed some revenue sharing, should oil be found, with the Falkland Islands Councillors during a visit to the Islands in April. I welcomed their generous offer made in 1994 to share revenues from oil production with HMG and we agreed that we should now discuss this in a spirit of co-operation and partnership.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey concerning the behaviour of Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus towards Kurdish civilians. [46779]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: None.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about human rights abuses in the northern part of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [46778]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: We have not recently received reports of any specific incidents of human rights abuses in northern Cyprus. The High Commission in Nicosia continues to monitor closely human rights issues in Cyprus as a whole.

  The Cyprus problem involves a range of issues that need to be resolved. All parties agree that this will be best achieved through a comprehensive political settlement under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be able to publish the report of his official group on organophosphorous products; and if he will make a statement. [48003]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  With the agreement of my colleagues, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Health, for Defence, for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, I am today publishing the report from the official group on organophosphorous (OP) products. The group was set up at the end of last year to review the processes for sharing information and achieving co-ordination between Departments, to draw together scientific evidence and identify any gaps to be
  605
  remedied; to examine those processes by which OPs are licensed, and to advise whether procedures should be changed.

  The group's report is the most thorough review of all the issues relevant to the safety and control of these products ever carried out by Government. It is evidence of how seriously we take the public concern about organophosphorous compounds and their use.

  The existence of the groups has brought about more effective co-operation between the many Government Departments involved. This is in itself an important step forward, and the group will continue to serve this purpose. The group has formed two networks of Departmental contacts to liaise on exchange of information and the planning of research projects. The aim is to ensure that Departments work on complete and up-to-date information, and avoid conflicting decisions.

  The group has made recommendations for early action to improve licensing procedures, the flow of information within Government and to the public, and the range of expertise of the advisory committees from which Government draw scientific advice. We intend to act on all these recommendations. To this end, the Freedom of Information Bill team has been alerted to the need for a clear legal basis for the sharing of information relating to the licensing of medicines and pesticides, and action has begun to alter the membership of the advisory committees.

  One important recommendation relates to a comprehensive literature review by the Institute for Environment and Health (IEH) of the scientific evidence on the effects of OPs on human health. The report on that study is also being published today. This review presents a complicated picture; there remains uncertainty about the health effects of OPs. This uncertainty led the official group to recommend that Government should seek views on this study from the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). Government accept this recommendation and have set up a special sub-group of COT to start the process. We are asking the committees to give their opinions by the end of 1998. Taking into account the advice from these committees, Government will consider whether any new precautionary measures might be appropriate, in addition to the safeguards in force now. It is our intention to subject every piece of available evidence on OPs to rigorous and transparent scrutiny. We are far from complacent about the continuing concerns about possible health effects of OPs.

  Copies of both reports will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Poultry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to require residue testing of imported poultry meat. [47450]

  Mr. Rooker
  Any third country wishing to export poultry meat to the European Union must submit residue testing plans to the EU Commission. These describe the residue testing programme to be undertaken in respect of 606
  their meat production and must provide guarantees which have an effect at least equivalent to the requirements of the Community on EC producers.

  EU Commission inspectors verify compliance with these requirements when they carry out periodic checks on third country slaughterhouses authorised to produce meat for export to the Community. Port Health Authorities (or local authorities in their absence) are responsible under Directive 90/675/EEC for checking 1 per cent. of all imported meat and meat products for residues of veterinary medicines.

  Hunt Kennels
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) of 8 June 1998,Official Report, columns 452–53, if he will estimate how many fallen stock and what tonnage is disposed of by hunt kennels; and what proportion this represents of the total. [47239]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on the numbers and tonnage of fallen stock disposed of through hunt kennels is not available. However, a small survey undertaken by the State Veterinary Service earlier this year indicates that around 55 per cent. of calves, 35 per cent. of adult bovines, 25 per cent. of sheep and goats, and 10 per cent. of pigs and lambs, which have fallen, may be disposed of through hunt kennels.

  Food Safety Week
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives the Government have taken to promote National Food Safety Week on 8 to 14 June. [47217]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government regard National Food Safety Week, organised by the Food and Drink Federation, as a valuable way of promoting public health messages on food hygiene. I was pleased to launch the campaign, and in addition, the Government provided financial support. National Food Safety Week is distinct from the Government's own publicity initiatives on food safety. About £1.5m is committed by the Department each year on publicity material and media campaigns.

  Kew Gardens
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister for London and Construction, of 17 June 1998,Official Report, column 335, if he will make a statement on his Department's future plans for Kew Gardens. [47292]

  Mr. Rooker
  As the sponsoring Department for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the Ministry will provide the body with funding of over £17 million grant-in-aid during the current financial year. We look forward to receiving shortly its corporate strategic plan for the period
  607
  to 2002/03. My right hon. Friend will be discussing Kew's operations and scientific programmes with its Director and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees when he visits the Gardens on 7 July.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the years in which the former Potato Marketing Board implemented market support measures by purchasing potatoes for use as animal feed, together with the tonnage for each year. [47563]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am taking steps to obtain the information, some of which is held in store. I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and, of course, place a copy in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorists
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each year since 1975 the number of persons accused of terrorist crimes who have been tried in Northern Ireland Courts under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975, specifying so far as the information is readily available to the offence alleged, where it was committed and the outcome of the trial. [46742]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  Table 2—Additional information in respect of persons tried in Northern Ireland for extra-territorial offences under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 during the period 1990–1997

  Year of trial

  Number of Persons tried

  Principal offence

  Where offfence was committed

  Sentence imposed

  1990

  1

  Counselling and procuring an explosion, contrary to section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and section 6(2)(a) of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975

  1RoI

  16 years' imprisonment

  1991

  1

  Possession of ammunition with intent, contrary to Article 17 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and section 1 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975

  RoI

  7 years' imprisonment

  1992

  1

  Conspiracy to Murder, contrary to Article 9(1) of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 and section 6(2)(b) and (3) of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975

  2NI

  15 years' imprisonment

  1993

  1

  Counselling and procuring murder, contrary to section 6(2)(a) and (3) of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975

  RoI

  3—

  1994

  3

  Armed robbery, contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and section 1 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975

  RoI

  4—

  1995

  1

  Possession of a firearm with intent, contrary to Article 17 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and section 1 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975

  RoI

  8 years' imprisonment

  1996

  1

  Possession of explosives contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and section 1 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975

  RoI

  8 years' imprisonment

  1 RoI connotes an offence committed in the Republic of Ireland

  2 NI connotes an offence committed in Northern Ireland

  3 An order was made that the principal offence should not be proceeded with without the leave of the court. A sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was imposed in respect of other offences

  4 An order was made that the principal offence should not be proceeded with. Sentences of 2 years' imprisonment and 2 years' imprisonment suspended for a period of 3 years were imposed in respect of other offences

  608
  The information requested is set out in the tables. In respect of the more detailed information requested by the hon. Member for the period 1976–1989, that information is not readily accessible and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The figures given are for all extra-territorial offences tried in Northern Ireland.

  Table 1—Number of persons tried in Northern Ireland for extra-territorial offences under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 during the period 1977–1997

  Number of persons

  Year of trial

  Tried

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  1977

  0

  0

  0

  1978

  3

  3

  0

  1979

  0

  0

  0

  1980

  0

  0

  0

  1981

  1

  1

  0

  1982

  2

  2

  0

  1983

  0

  0

  0

  1984

  0

  0

  0

  1985

  1

  1

  0

  1986

  1

  1

  0

  1987

  1

  0

  1

  1988

  5

  5

  0

  1989

  1

  1

  0

  1990

  1

  1

  0

  1991

  2

  2

  0

  1992

  0

  0

  0

  1993

  1

  1

  0

  1994

  3

  13

  0

  1995

  2

  2

  0

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  1997

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  24

  23

  1

  1 An Order was made that the extra-territorial offences should not be proceed with without the leave of the court. The defendants were convicted on other charges.

TREASURY

  Public Debt
  18. Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his objectives for the level of public debt in the long term. [46166]

  Mr. Darling
  We will ensure a prudent and stable ratio of public debt to national income. We are now planning on the basis that our debt GDP ratio will be 40 per cent. or lower.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from retailers on the Government's policy on economic and monetary union. [46168]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The retail sector is represented on our Business Advisory Group on EMU, which allows us to work with business on the strategic and practical implications of EMU. Retailers were involved in producing a report from the Business Advisory Group on EMU, published in January, and are helping us to prepare an outline national changeover plan of the steps which would be involved if the UK were to decide to join the single currency.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the preparations he is making for the introduction of a single currency. [46170]

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the preparations he is making for the introduction of a single currency. [46172]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Our priority is to make businesses aware of the strategic and practical implications of the launch of the euro on 1 January 1999, and to help them prepare. The Treasury's Euro Preparations Unit is stepping up our communications campaign aimed chiefly at smaller businesses. It includes a telephone line, a website and factsheets, and we will soon publish a six-monthly report on preparations for the euro.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to public funds of the Captain Euro campaign. [46186]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There has been no public funding of the Captain Euro campaign by either the UK Government or by the European Parliament.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the most recent meeting of the Standing Committee on preparations for EMU; and what preparations have been made by public authorities to prepare for the launch of the euro in other member states on 1 January 1999. [47897]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Standing Committee on preparations for EMU met for the second time on 20 May. A copy of the minutes of the meeting has been placed in the Library of the House. Government departments and other public authorities have been engaged in a wide range of preparations for the launch of the euro in other member states on 1 January 1999, especially to help 610
  businesses in the UK meet the challenges of responding to the change in the business environment across Europe. A copy of a booklet, "EMU: Steps for 1999", published by the Treasury on 18 May which describes these activities and which responds to recommendations made by the Business Advisory Group on EMU has also been deposited in the Library.

  Pensions
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met pensioner organisations to discuss the effect on pensions of his fiscal policy; and if he will make a statement. [46169]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend and I receive representations from and meet with a number of organisations on this and other issues relating to the effects of fiscal policy.

  Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed tax harmonisation with fellow members of ECOFIN; and if he will make a statement: [46174]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's view is that direct taxation is a matter for national Governments. Decisions on all European tax issues are subject to unanimity.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have completed the review of taxation of offshore oil and gas production. [46175]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A consultative document on the North sea fiscal regime is expected to be issued shortly. Industry and other interested parties will be able to give their views on the options for change.

  Financial Incentives to Work
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to increase the financial incentive to work. [46176]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Budget contained a number of measures to help ensure that work pays, including the Working Families Tax Credit and reform to National Insurance Contributions.

  Asian Financial Crisis
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the likely impact of the Asian financial crisis on his forecasts for the UK and other European Union economies. [46178]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Recent developments in Asia pose considerable risks to the world economy. The March 1998 FSBR took account of these in its forecasts for the UK and Europe. It incorporated a reduction in UK GDP growth in 1998 of up to half a percentage point due to the likely impact of financial difficulties in Asia. The Treasury and the Bank of England continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Inflation
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on his latest inflation forecasts. [46180]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer receives numerous representations on all aspects of UK economic developments, including inflation prospects.

  Foreign Earnings Deduction
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the charitable sector regarding the foreign earnings deduction. [46182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Representations have been received from several charities, each concerned that the ending of the foreign earnings deduction might make work abroad less attractive to certain of their employees. The Inland Revenue have met with representatives of various organisations and it is clear that, despite the original fears of the charities, very few overseas aid workers will actually be affected by the abolition of the foreign earnings deduction.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Department for International Development was consulted on Clause 63 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill as regards the implications for overseas aid workers of foreign earnings taxation. [47030]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All discussions regarding the tax treatment of overseas aid workers have been directly between the Inland Revenue and charities and their representatives.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the working families tax credit on low-paid families. [46183]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit will provide an income guarantee of at least £180 per week for low-income families working full-time, and mean that no family with earnings below £220 a week will pay net Income Tax. Together with the introduction of the National Minimum Wage and reform to National Insurance Contributions, it will make work pay and encourage the move from welfare to work.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received with regard to the impact of his working families tax credit on part-time employees. [46156]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The WFTC has been welcomed by a wide range of individuals and organisations.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how payments made by the Inland Revenue under the working families tax credit scheme will be classified for the purpose of calculating(a) net taxes and social security contributions, (b) total managed expenditure, (c) annual managed expenditure and (d) public sector net cash requirement; and if he will make a statement on the rationale of the proposed system. [47122]
  612
  Mr. Darling
  The WFTC is to be part of the Income Tax system. It will be paid by the Inland Revenue through the pay packet as an Income Tax Credit. Accordingly, as stated in the FSBR, the Government will treat the whole of the WFTC payments as Income Tax credits in the calculation of Net Taxes and Social Security Contributions.

  When the results of the Comprehensive Spending Review are published, the presentation of the provision for Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) in the expenditure measures will continue to follow established national accounts practice. As set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR March 1998 HC.620 paragraph B.59) some of the WFTC payments will be scored as expenditure in national accounts. Provision for these payments will be found in Total Managed Expenditure and within the Accounting and Other Adjustments in Annually Managed Expenditure.

  All payments of WFTC are determinants of Public Sector Net Borrowing and of the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to counter smuggling. [46185]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise give high priority to tackling the commercial smuggling of drugs, to the detection and forfeiture of drugs-related money, and to the smuggling of firearms, paedophile material, alcohol and tobacco. Their enforcement work is based on the deployment of frontline anti-smuggling officers at ports, airports and elsewhere, backed up by specialist investigators and intelligence staff and systems. Customs work closely with the police and other agencies, both in the UK and abroad.

  Income Tax
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people pay income tax at(a) 20p in the ££ (b) 23p in the £ and (c) 40p in the £ in (i) Wales, (ii) Scotland, (iii) England and (iv) Northern Ireland. [46452]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 June 1998]: Estimates of the number of taxpayers who are liable to pay tax at the lower, basic and higher rates of tax are given in the table for 1995–96, the latest year for which this information is available. The estimates are based on the 1995–96 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Number of people liable to tax

  Thousands

  at lower rate(20%)

  at basic rate(25%)

  at higher rate(40%)

  Wales

  300

  820

  60

  Scotland

  500

  1,600

  170

  England

  4,800

  15,000

  1,900

  Northern Ireland

  160

  390

  35

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received about debt relief for the poorest countries; and if he will make a statement. [46171]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since 1 January 1997, the Treasury has received over 12,000 letters and postcards on the subject of Third World debt.

  Government Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is held about the numbers of vehicles and types of vehicle owned or leased by each department and agency. [47564]

  Mr. Darling
  The National Asset Register provides, inter alia, information on the number and types of vehicle operated by each department and agency. It is the responsibility of each department and agency to keep information about the number and types of vehicle they own or lease.

  Copies of the National Asset Register are available in the Library of the House.

  Taxation (Church of England)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the indirect and direct tax regimes on Church of England parochial church councils; and if he will make a statement. [46177]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have made no assessment of the impact of the indirect and direct tax regimes on Church of England parochial church councils. Views from the Church of England on aspects of the tax regime are being considered in the Review of Charities' Taxation.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the level of UK interest rates. [46164]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We receive many representations on the monetary policy stance—some from borrowers wanting lower interest rates and some from savers wanting higher interest rates. None of them want a return to the boom and bust monetary policies of the past.

  Tote
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) consultations he had with or (b) representations he received from the horse racing industry prior to his announcement about the Tote of 11 June 1998. [47528]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise officials have regular discussions with members of the horseracing industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer received in January 1998 a copy of the British Horseracing Board's Financial Plan for British Racing.

  Taxation (Tourism)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) representations he has received and
  614
  (b) consideration he has given to a reduction in the VAT rate for the tourism industry to a level comparable with that in the Irish Republic. [46253]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received a number of representations in favour of a reduced rate of VAT for tourist accommodation, and have seen a recent report on the subject prepared for the British Tourist Authority. The United Kingdom has a strong and well established tourism industry, attracting record numbers of overseas visitors and high visitor spending. Our position is not comparable with the circumstances of Ireland's package of measures to boost tourism, which included a reduced VAT rate for tourist accommodation.

  Public Sector Investment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of net public sector investment in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 2003–4, expressed in 1997–98 prices. [46404]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: Projections of public sector net investment in 1997–98 and 2003–04 are published in table 4.4 of the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report". They can be converted to 1997–98 prices using projections of the GDP deflator in table 4.1 of the same publication.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the hospitality received by the Director of the Financial Regulation and Industry Team since 1 May 1997. [46948]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: The Director, Finance, Regulation and Industry, has extensive dealings with organisations in both the public and private sectors. These are conducted in line with Treasury guidance to its staff.

  Saving
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage more people to save. [46184]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor recently released the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report" which sets out our economic policy to achieve stability and the right conditions in which individuals will be encouraged to save with confidence.

  In addition, we are introducing plans for the Individual Savings Account (ISA) specifically to develop and extend the savings habit. To help savers to find good value for ISAs, the Government are currently consulting on proposals to introduce standards to ensure reasonable charges, easy access and fair terms, to be known as the CAT standards.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the basis of what research he calculated the figure of six million likely new savers who will take up the new ISAs. [47084]
  615
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 22 December 1997, Official Report, column 473.

  Budget Surpluses
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the cyclically adjusted current budget surpluses for 1998–99 to 2002–03 on the basis of gross domestic product growth figures of(a) 2.25 per cent. for 1998, (b) 2 per cent. for 1999, (c) 2.50 per cent. for 2000, (d) 2.50 per cent. for 2001, (e) 2.50 per cent. for 2002 and (f) 2.50 per cent. for 2003; [46360]

  (2) what is his estimate of the cyclically adjusted current budget surplus for (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02 and (e) 2002–03, based upon gross domestic product of (i) 1.5 per cent. for 1998–99. (ii) 1 per cent. for 1999–2000, (iii) 2 per cent. for 2000–01, (iv) 2.25 per cent. for 2001–02 and (v) 2.25 per cent. for 2002–03. [46376]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: Forecasts of the cyclically adjusted surplus on current budget are set out in Table 4.6 of the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998". Changes to the forecast of GDP growth would change the forecast of the unadjusted surplus on current budget but not the cyclically adjusted surplus.

  Control Total
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what the control total would be for 1998–99 if the welfare-to-work programme, spending funded by capital receipts programme and expenditure funded by the National Lottery were included. [46437]

  Mr. Darling
  Figures for Welfare to Work expenditure and the Capital Receipts Initiative are given in table 3A.2, and expenditure financed by the National Lottery in table 3A.1, of the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report".

  VAT
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of value added tax receipts in relation to(a) the latest Customs and Excise VAT forecasting equation and (b) the assumptions underlying the public finance forecasts. [46515]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The receipts forecast published in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report were an update of the budget forecasts taking account of the latest outturn data. The underlying economic assumptions are unchanged and the Customs and Excise equation was not run again. The forecast of VAT receipts for 1998–99 was reduced by £0.3 billion because the outturn for 1997–98 was lower than expected.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact, net of deductions and benefit changes, on household income of hourly rate increases of(a) 10 pence, (b) 20 pence, (c) 30 pence and (d) 40 pence for workers on average
  616
  hours with (i) one and (ii) two dependent children in one-earner households. [47238]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The net gain from an increase in hourly wage will depend on a range of factors. These include the rate of income tax faced, which will in turn depend on the hourly wage before the increase; the rate at which National Insurance Contributions (NICs) are paid; and the benefits received, which will in turn depend on family income, the age of children in the family, and the level of the family's rent (if any) and council tax.

  The Working Families Tax Credit and the NICs reforms announced in the Budget will substantially reduce the number of families facing very high marginal deduction rates—that is, families will keep more of any increase in their earnings.

  Budget Underspend
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he first was informed that(a) there was likely to be an underspend in the Budget for 1997–98 and (b) that it was likely to be of the order of £750 million. [47036]

  Mr. Darling
  The Treasury monitors public spending against plans continuously through the year. Data are collated from a wide range of sources and estimates of the outturn for the year as a whole are liable to fluctuate as new information comes in. As far as public spending in 1997–98 is concerned, the position at the time the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report was published as described in section 4.3.3. Some uncertainty remains, mainly because final data for local authority spending are not yet available and will not be for some time. £750 million of the underspend has been carried forward into 1998–99.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the difference between the estimates of General Government Expenditure as compared to Total Managed Expenditure for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02 and (e) 2002–03. [47120]

  Mr. Darling
  The differences between General Government Expenditure (GGE) and Total Managed Expenditure (TME) are: GGE is based on general government (GG), while TME relates to the public sector, that is GG plus public corporations (PCs); TME is made up of public sector current expenditure and public sector net investment, while GGE includes not only current and capital expenditure, but also two financial transactions: net lending and transactions in company securities (net); and TME nets of receipts of capital transfers, which are treated as revenue not reducing GGE.

  Taxation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of individuals with income below that necessary to pay the lower rate of income tax in the tax year(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [47227]
  617
  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on the number of individuals with no income tax liability is given in the following table.

  Year

  Number of individuals with no income tax liability (000)

  1996–97

  19,800

  1997–98

  19,600

  1998–99

  19,800

  An individual is defined as any person aged 19 or over and any person aged 16–18 who is not in full-time education and, hence, is not eligible to have child benefit received on their behalf.

  These estimates are based on projections taken from the 1995–96 Survey of Personal Incomes, population estimates provided by the Government Actuary's Department, and case load estimates of the numbers of children for whom child benefit is received provided by the DSS.

  Historic Buildings (VAT)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue has been collected by levying VAT on the repair of historic buildings in each of the last three years. [47033]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to estimate revenue collected by levying VAT on the repair of historic buildings.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the latest available estimates of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area in England and Wales, together in each case with the equivalent electoral registration figures expressed as a percentage of these figures. [47710]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 25 June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on electoral registration figures.
  ONS have published 1998 electoral statistics for local districts in England and Wales, these are in respect of the electoral roll that became operational on 16 February 1998. The electoral statistics were published on 23 April 1998 in an ONS Population and Health Monitor Series EL 98/1, Electoral Statistics 1998–parliamentary and local government electors.
  The mid-97 population estimates that are required to provide the answer to your question and to update statistics that have already been supplied in respect of the 1997 electoral statistics and mid-1996 population estimates, will be published on 27th August 1998. I will write to you with a full answer to your question shortly after that publication, and arrange for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many drug-related deaths occurred in each of the past 10 years. [47510]
  618
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 25 June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of drug-related deaths occurring in each of the past 10 years.

  The data requested are shown in the table below:

  Deaths from drug-related causes in England and Wales, 1988–97

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1988

  2,061

  1989

  1,942

  1990

  2,041

  1991

  2,053

  1992

  2,287

  1993

  2,252

  1994

  2,405

  1995

  2,563

  1996

  2,722

  1997

  2,816

  Note:

  Deaths data for the years 1988–1992 and 1997 correspond to deaths registered in the year, deaths data for the years 1993–1996 relate to deaths that occurred during the year

  The deaths correspond to those with an underlying cause of death of drug psychoses, drug dependence, non-dependent abuse of drugs, accidental poisoning by drug or medicament, suicidal poisoning by drug or medicament, poisoning by drug or medicament undetermined whether accidentally or purposefully inflicted, or assault by poisoning-drugs and medicaments.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was informed of the investigation into Sandline by HM Customs and Excise. [41914]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date(a) the Financial Secretary's private office and (b) the Financial Secretary were told that allegations of a breach of the UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone had been referred to HM Customs and Excise. [41883]

  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Treasury Ministers were first informed that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise were undertaking an inquiry into the allegations that Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials may have acted unlawfully in connection with the coup in Sierra Leone. [42340]

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date a Minister in his Department was first advised by officials that Customs and Excise had been asked to investigate the allegations against Sandline International; and who was the Minister in question. [43929]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 14 and 18 May and 3 June 1998): I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the statement made 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

  619
  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 and Commonwealth Secretary intends to publish the report of the investigation.

  Asset Disposals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the level of asset disposals, at real 1997–98 prices, for each year from 1985–86 to 2001–02 for(a) central Government, (b) local authorities and (c) other public bodies. [46379]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: Figures on the receipts from the sale of total fixed assets by both central government and local authorities for 1992–93 to 1998–99 were published in Public Expenditure statistical Analyses 1998–99 (Cm 3901), Table 1.6.

  Receipts from the sale of fixed assets by public corporations from 1992–93 to 1998–99 are shown in cash terms in the table.

  Year

  £ billion

  1992–93

  0·7

  1993–94

  1·0

  1994–95

  0·9

  1995–96

  0·9

  1996–97

  0·9

  1997–98

  0·7

  1998–99

  0·6

  Data on receipts from the sale of assets in earlier years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report" 1998 (Cm 3978) said that the Government were now projecting fixed asset disposals in the future years in question of around £1 billion a year for central government and £2¾ billion for local authorities.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Worcester)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) pensioner households and (b) pensioners there are in Worcester. [46113]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Retirement Pension is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Michael J. Foster, dated 24 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many (a) pensioner households and (b) pensioners there are in Worcester.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Records do not show the number of pensioner households. Data is available for the number of pension accounts held by each Benefits Agency (BA) office. Records show that the BA office in Worcester maintains the pension accounts of 27,199 pensioners. This figure
  620
  does not include pensioners paid by Automated Credit Transfer (ACT). However, the national ratio of order book cases to ACT payments is approximately 2:1.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits (Minimum Wage)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her Department's estimate of the likely savings in benefits paid to people in work from the introduction of the minimum wage. [47520]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimates of the effect on the Department's benefit expenditure of the introduction of the minimum wage

  £ million

  Benefit

  Savings 1999–2000

  Income Support

  10

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Income-based)

  10

  Housing Benefit

  110

  Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit

  185

  Council Tax Benefit

  25

  Total

  340

  Notes:

  1. Savings figures are calculated by raising the earnings of current benefit recipients to the level of the minimum wage. No other factors are taken into account

  2. Estimates are based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey, imposing the 1999–2000 tax and benefit structure, assuming 1998–99 levels of caseloads, prices, benefit rates and earnings. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million

  3. Family Credit will be replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999, assuming the approval of relevant legislation

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the rates of benefit withdrawal are to be altered when the minimum wage is introduced. [47522]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The national minimum wage is a key element in a range of policies introduced by the Government to help make work pay. There are two other main measures in this area:

  First, a more generous Working Families Tax Credit will be introduced, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, to replace Family Credit from October 1999. The Working Families Tax Credit will reduce the rate of benefit withdrawal from 70p in the pound in Family Credit, to 55p in the pound; and is accompanied by a child care tax credit which provides significant extra help with child care costs for low and middle-income working families with children.

  Secondly, the introduction of major changes in the National Insurance system from April 1999 will reduce contributions for lower paid workers and simplify the system.

  There are no plans to make further changes to the Social Security system as a consequence of the introduction of the national minimum wage.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement as to the scale of the use of bogus national insurance numbers in the claiming of benefits. [46411]
  621
  Mr. Field
  National Insurance numbers play a key role in identifying individual accounts held on DSS and Inland Revenue systems.

  Under the previous Administration, the Social Security Select Committee identified a number of concerns about the security of national insurance numbers. The Government are now taking action to improve the security of the way numbers are issued and maintained.

  This work is at an early stage, and will provide us with the best assessment of the scale of the use of bogus numbers in the claiming of benefit.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the total number of national insurance numbers in circulation. [46412]

  Mr. Field
  There are 79 million accounts on the Department's central register (including 11 million accounts in respect of children for whom child benefit is in payment and who are due to be issued with a national insurance number shortly before they reach the age of 16).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her assessment of the reliability of the national insurance database. [46413]

  Mr. Field
  National Insurance numbers play a key role in identifying individual accounts held on DSS and Inland Revenue systems.

  Under the previous Administration, the Social Security Select Committee identified a number of concerns about the security of national insurance numbers. The Government are now taking action to improve the security of the way numbers are issued and maintained. This work is at an early stage, and will provide us with the best assessment of the reliability of the national insurance database.

  We cannot, at this stage, provide the assessment requested.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the number of birth certificates of dead people being fraudulently used for national insurance purposes. [46414]

  Mr. Field
  The Government have not estimated the number of birth certificates of dead people being used fraudulently for national insurance purposes. The Government are taking action to improve the security of the way numbers are issued and maintained. This work is at an early stage, and the initial results will determine the action necessary to tighten up the security of national insurance numbers, including action specifically surrounding the use of birth certificates.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the number of persons who are fraudulently claiming benefits where the national insurance number in use has formerly been used by a person who has left the United Kingdom. [46416]

  Mr. Field
  The Government have not yet estimated the number of persons who are fraudulently claiming benefits where the national insurance number in use has formerly been used by a person who has left the United Kingdom.
  622
  The Government are taking action to improve the security of the way numbers are issued and maintained. This work is at an early stage, and the initial results will determine the action necessary to tighten up the security of national insurance numbers, including action specifically surrounding the use of numbers formerly used by persons who have left the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the number of persons who have acquired national insurance numbers illegally with the complicity of a member of her Department's staff in the last two years. [46417]

  Mr. Field
  The Government do not yet have an estimate of the number of persons who have acquired national insurance numbers illegally with the complicity of a member of the Department's staff.

  The Government are taking action to improve the security of the way numbers are issued and maintained. This work is at an early stage, and the initial results will determine the action necessary to tighten up the security of national insurance numbers, including action specifically surrounding numbers illegally obtained with the complicity of Departmental staff.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many numbers have been removed from the national insurance database in each of the last 48 months. [46419]

  Mr. Field
  The information is set out in the table.

  Numbers of National Insurance numbers which have been removed from the database since the start of the cleansing programme

  Month

  Duplicate accounts removed

  November 1995

  150

  December 1995

  154

  January 1996

  297

  February 1996

  563

  March 1996

  766

  April 1996

  1,166

  May 1996

  1,277

  June 1996

  1,051

  July 1996

  2,309

  August 1996

  1,980

  September 1996

  3,844

  October 1996

  4,664

  November 1996

  3,550

  December 1996

  2,118

  January 1997

  4,580

  February 1997

  4,106

  March 1997

  4,112

  April 1997

  4,167

  May 1997

  2,739

  June 1997

  3,621

  July 1997

  4,593

  August 1997

  3,965

  September 1997

  4,200

  October 1997

  590

  November 1997

  658

  December 1997

  432

  January 1998

  1,017

  February 1998

  817

  March 1998

  416

  April 1998

  154

  May 1998

  315

  June 1998

  168

  Total

  64,539

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the number of asylum applications where documents supplied as a result of rejected applications were used for the purposes of fraudulent benefit claims in the last two years. [46415]

  Mr. Field
  The Government have not estimated the number of asylum applications where documents supplied as a result of rejected applications are used for the purposes of fraudulent benefit claims. The Select Committee on Social Security under the previous Administration identified a number of concerns about the way asylum applications were handled. The Government are taking action to improve the security of the way numbers are issued and maintained. This work is at an early stage, and the initial results will determine the action necessary to tighten up the security of national insurance numbers, including action specifically surrounding asylum applications.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the number of persons who are claiming benefits on behalf of other persons who are unaware of benefits being claimed in their name. [46418]

  Mr. Field
  The Government do not yet have an estimate of the number of persons who are claiming benefits on behalf of other persons who are unaware of benefits being claimed in their name.

  The Government are taking action to improve the security of the way numbers are issued and maintained. This work is at an early stage, and the initial results will determine the action necessary to tighten up the security of national insurance numbers, including action specifically surrounding persons claiming benefits on behalf of other persons who are unaware of benefits claimed in their name.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her current estimate of the extent of family credit fraud. [46203]

  Mr. Field
  Tackling fraud and abuse is a top priority for the Government. Operational issues are the responsibility of Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Goggins, dated 24 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for current estimate of the extent of Family Credit (FC) fraud.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) carries out a Benefit Review Programme in order to reach reliable estimates of the level of fraud on BA benefits. In 1997 the Agency (BA) conducted a pilot Benefit Review of FC in preparation of a main review. The pilot gave us information on methodology and indications about types of fraud, but was a test sample with no statistical validity. Work on the main Benefit Review of FC has been suspended for the present following the decision to move to a Working Families Tax Credit next year.
  The BA is now in discussion with the Inland Revenue over the results of the pilot review and to explore whether any additional work is needed to further assist and inform the security of Working Families Tax Credit. Although the results from the pilot were not
  624
  statistically valid, we have put work in hand to follow up weaknesses highlighted by the pilot review, in order to make Family Credit more secure. The "Securing Family Credit" project was initiated in January this year in order to do this.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact of Section 20 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which confers powers to require postal services not to redirect mail and return it to the issuing authority, on benefit fraud detection. [46267]

  Mr. Field
  This Government are committed to taking tough action against all benefit fraud. These new powers will permanently stop the abuse of the postal redirection service by organised fraudsters. The Department is currently concluding negotiations with Royal Mail and the Local Authority Associations on the application of Section 20 powers to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit post issued by local authorities. We plan to implement the powers nationally from this summer and will monitor their impact. In addition, Royal Mail will carry out regular quality assurance checks to ensure that items of Social Security post are not being redirected.

  At the same time, the Department is actively considering the best practical application of Section 20 to other Social Security post. In addition, the Department, together with local authorities, is looking at the use of Section 21 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 which provides for the Post Office to supply information about postal redirection to the Secretary of State and local authorities.

  Motability
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what basis the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, having been approached for her approval for the proposals contained in the paper, "Motability: MFL's Maintenance and Residual Value Proposals", indicated that she was generally content; [47291]

  (2) what consultation she or her Department have held with hon. Members who have constituents who believe their jobs are at stake if the proposals in the paper, "Motability: MFL's Maintenance and Residual Value Proposals", are implemented; and when such consultations took place; [47247]

  (3) to whom and when the paper, "Motability: MFL's Maintenance and Residual Value Proposals", was released by (a) Motability Finance Ltd. and (b) her Department; [47244]

  (4) when copies of the paper, "Motability: MFL's Maintenance and Residual Value Proposals", were sent to the motor manufacturers who supply motability cars. [47245]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: Motability and Motability Finance Limited have presented their proposals in outline to Ministers in this Department for their information and have consulted widely with motor manufacturers and other interested parties. We understand no final decision has been made by Motability as yet regarding their plans. Officials forwarded details of Motability's proposals to Department of Trade and Industry officials who copied them to the National

  625
  Franchised Dealers' Association on a confidential basis. No papers have been released to motor manufacturers and there has not been any formal consultation with hon. Members about the proposals.

  Benefits Agency (Complaints)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many complaints per client have been made about each Benefits Agency office in London in each year over the past five years; [46188]

  (2) how many complaints have been made about each Benefits Agency office in London in each year over the past five years. [46187]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 24 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many complaints per client and how many complaints have been made about each Benefits Agency (BA) office in London in each year over the past five years.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency defines complaints as any expression of dissatisfaction either written or spoken about the service provided that needs a response. Collation of complaints data was introduced in October 1997. Such information as is available is shown in the attached table.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number of complaints received for the period 1 October 1997 to 31 March 1998 for those Benefits Agency (BA) districts with London offices

  BA districts

  Total number of complaints

  Barking and Havering

  393

  City

  58

  Newham

  347

  Hackney and Islington

  240

  Leaside

  739

  Lea Roding

  335

  Barnet

  79

  Ealing/Euston

  1,154

  Harrow

  308

  Neasden

  444

  Thames Valley

  45

  West Hertfordshire

  52

  Palace1

  104

  Parkside2

  1,172

  North West Kent

  553

  Riverside

  1,990

  Surrey

  433

  1For the period 1 October 1997 to 31 December 1997

  2Includes data for Palace District from 1 January 1998

  Note:

  Data is provisional and subject to change

  Disability Living Allowance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when an internal audit of DLA reviews and appeals was last conducted; and if she will publish the result. [46238]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  626
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 24 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when an internal audit of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reviews and appeals was last conducted and if she will publish the result.
  There has not been an internal audit specifically aimed at DLA reviews and appeals. A review of appeals and reviews covering a number of benefits, which included DLA, was conducted in 1996–97. The results of this internal review were reported to Managers in 1997
  It may be helpful if I explain that under current legislation there is ongoing monitoring of the standards of decision making. The Chief Adjudication Officer (CAO) is responsible for monitoring the operation of the decision making system, including decisions on DLA. The CAO reports his findings annually to the Secretary of State. His last annual report for 1996–97 was published in July 1997.
  In addition, The Social Security Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 21 May, contains important changes to decision making and appeals procedures for all benefit and child support customers. These measures form a key part of the Government's programme to build an active, modern social security system and are expected to be implemented during the second half of 1999. Amongst other measures the changes will streamline the decision making procedures, making easier to understand; allow Agencies to correct errors early; simplify and streamline the appeals system; and speed up the clearance of appeals.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons reports by the Benefits Agency Medical Service are no longer available to individuals who are appealing against a decision of the Benefits Agency until tribunal stage. [46215]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Barry Gardiner, dated 24 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for what reasons reports by the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS) are no longer available to individuals who are appealing against a decision of the Benefits Agency (BA) until tribunal stage.
  No changes have been made to the instructions covering the availability of medical reports to individuals who appeal to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) against a decision by an Adjudication Officer. Once an appeal is made the local BA Office will pass all the documents to the ITS. This will include a copy of the BAMS report where appropriate. An information package which includes a set of the appeal documents is sent to the individual by ITS, and any representative, at least seven days before the date of the hearing. This is the minimum period required by law.
  ITS advice is that appeal documents are on average issued three to four weeks before the appeal hearing date, but that in some areas the documentation is issued in accordance with minimum legal requirements. We are aware that some BA Offices provide additional copies of All Work Test medical records but this is not standard practice.
  In light of these inconsistencies we are undertaking a review of current procedures. This will aim to meet the requirements of "Open Government" and the emerging requirements of the Social Security Act 1998. The aim of making these changes is to make the information timeously available.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases have been referred to the Child Support Agency independent case examiner in each month since its inception; [46086]

  (2) how much has been paid in total in compensation by the CSA to people who have been successful in claims against the agency. [46107]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients. We are looking closely at all aspects of the child support scheme to see where improvements can be made and we aim to bring forward a consultation document on our proposals.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Bill O'Brien, dated 24 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency cases referred to the Independent Case Examiner and Child Support Agency compensation payments.
  The Office of the Independent Case Examiner commenced work in April 1997. When the Agency responds to a complaint the customer is given details about the services of the Independent Case Examiner to enable them to contact her directly.
  Between I April 1997 and 31 May 1998, 1305 customers of the Agency made applications to the Independent Case Examiner. A monthly breakdown is shown in the attached table.
  The Agency is committed to providing a good quality customer service and is continuing to develop a close working relationship with the Independent Case Examiner and her staff to identify ways in which their expertise may best be used.
  The Agency's Business Units adopt a case study approach with cases referred to the Independent Case Examiner whereby the Business Unit Manager and staff involved with the case identify lessons learnt, introduce improvements and good working practices and regularly liaise with the office of the Independent Case Examiner.
  Compensation payments are normally referred to as special payments. A special payment is considered where a clear and unambiguous error by the Agency has resulted in distress or in actual financial loss to the customer which is not recoverable through other means.
  From its launch in April 1993 to 31 May 1998 the Agency has paid out a total of—2,168,485 in special payments. The number of payments made (3,235) is relatively small compared with our overall caseload of over 770,000 live and assessed cases (less than half of one per cent.). The numbers of payments have risen recently as a result of increases in the Agency's current workloads and of our actions over the past year to clear the backlog of maintenance applications which had accumulated in the Agency during its first 2–3 years. In 1997–98 the Agency cleared 595,000 maintenance application compared with 357,000 in 1996–97 and reduced the number of maintenance applications over 52 weeks old from 225,000 to 110,000.
  I am conscious that there are still far too many complaints about the standards of basic customer contact and the service we provide, and we recognise that doing things right first time is the key to preventing complaints. We are aware that as we further tackle our backlog of cases from the Agency's first 2–3 years, there is potential for the volume of complaints to rise in the short term. During 1997–98 we developed the Customer Service Strategy, our customer
  628
  service improvement plan for the next four years. The Strategy will improve performance standards; information and openness; consultation and choice; courtesy and helpfulness and provide value for money. We have begun action on some of our customer service initiatives but it will take three to four years to deliver everything. However, we expect customers to see some real improvements by the end of 1998–99.
  I hope this helpful.

  Number of Child Support Agency customers who made applications to the Independent Case Examiner

  Number

  1997–98

  April

  21

  May

  48

  June

  69

  July

  72

  August

  82

  September

  94

  October

  137

  November

  110

  December

  108

  January

  112

  February

  108

  March

  126

  1998–99

  April

  116

  May

  102

  Total

  1,305

  Marginal Deduction Rates
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the marginal deduction rates that will apply from October 1999 to a married couple receiving(a) the working families tax credit, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit with gross weekly earnings of (i) up to £49, (ii) £50£299, (iii) £100£149, (iv) £150£199, (v) £200-£249, (vi) £250£299 and (vii) £300 and over; and what are the numbers expected to fall into each category. [45999]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Working Families Tax Credit will be withdrawn at a rate of 55p for every £1 of income, net of income tax and National Insurance Contributions (NICs), over £90 a week. Housing benefit is withdrawn at a rate of 65p in every £1 of net income (including Working Families Tax Credit) over an 'applicable amount' (which depends on the composition of the recipient family). Council tax benefit is withdrawn at a rate of 20p in every £1 of net income (including Working Families Tax Credit, but excluding housing benefit) over an 'applicable amount' (which depends on the composition of the family).

  The exact marginal deduction rate a given family will face will depend on a range of factors, in addition to the level of their earnings. These include the rate of income tax they face, the rate of NICs they pay, and the combination of benefits they receive—which will in turn depend on the number and age of children in the family and the level of their rent and council tax.

  Available estimates of the number of families facing high marginal deduction rates can be found in table 3.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Strategic Defence Review
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to announce the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, a package of proposals has been submitted to the Cabinet. Once decisions have been taken, the review's conclusions will be published in a White Paper as quickly as possible thereafter.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that disappointingly cautious reply. Does he agree that the longer by every day that the announcement is delayed, the greater the danger that the uncertainty which has beset the Armed Forces for so many years will persist, seriously affecting morale and retention in particular with the rumours and leaks flying around? Secondly, does he agree that, despite the Government's efforts to make the review foreign policy and commitment led, it will end up like many others in the past on the Treasury cutting room floor?
Finally, if, with the indispensable support of the Prime Minister, an announcement can be made fairly shortly, as the noble Lord predicts, will the noble Lord assure the House that it will not be on the last day before the Summer Recess when there is no time to discuss the matter either here or in another place?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps the noble and gallant Lord knows something about the date of the Recess that I and noble Lords on the Front Bench do not. I am sure many noble Lords would like to hear from him.
I know that the noble and gallant Lord will agree that it has been a root and branch examination of our defence and security priorities. We are reviewing the needs of the Armed Forces into the 21st century.
Perhaps I may confirm that the review has been foreign policy led throughout; and that is our aim. However, I say again to the noble and gallant Lord that we expect to be able to publish the White Paper on the outcome of the review shortly.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that "root and branch" was an unfortunate phrase? We are worried that everything will be pulled up by the roots.
There is serious cause for concern not only on the major issue of morale—a point raised by the noble and gallant Lord—but also as regards contracts which are being held up. They will cost a great deal more when
342
they are finally agreed. That will come out of the MoD's budget. Another serious issue is that many major, costly plans have been in suspense for many months.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness. It is not a case of pulling everything up by its roots, but rather of being constructive in looking at the needs of our defence forces and our needs as regards peace-keeping throughout the world. I appreciate what the noble Baroness says about the delay and possible consequences. However, I am sure she will agree that it is essential that we get it right.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister reiterated that it is to be a foreign policy led Strategic Defence Review. Can the noble Lord tell us when the Government intend to publish the foreign policy principles which will lead it?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I believe that the Government have already done so. The Foreign Secretary clearly laid out the aims. The defence review will be based upon those.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the defence review tell us what steps the Government propose to take to bring about the elimination of nuclear weapons?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate that it was a manifesto commitment to retain Trident. That received the overwhelming support of the electorate. Along with the European fighter, that is one of the policy principles on which the review is founded. However, the review has examined all aspects of a deterrence posture to ensure that it reflects changing circumstances.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in the past decade the number of uniformed personnel in the Armed Forces has been halved. Yet we still seem incapable of recruiting and retaining sufficient to meet the reduced numbers. To what extent will the Government take into account the availability of manpower in order to avoid the persistent and difficult problems of overstretch which have beset us for so many years and which have led to poor recruiting and retention?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the issue of overstretch and under-manning is one of the primary aspects being examined. We are determined that restoration of the manning balance is given the highest priority for our forces, in particular the Army.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the Cabinet is told that we could not have won the Battle of Britain or the First World War without having strong Territorial and Volunteer Reserve Forces? They have also played a valuable part in recent wars such as the Gulf War. To reduce their present modest size would be crazy.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, of course we recognise the valuable role played by the Reserves. We aim to keep

343
substantial Reserves in the future. But we believe that those Reserves must be structured for the tasks that are relevant to the new strategic setting. They must also be an integrated part of our forces; and must be usable in support of our foreign policy aims.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the irritation felt in another place in the previous Parliament when the Government repeatedly blocked a debate, for example, on the Royal Air Force? In view of the irritation that that caused, will my noble friend ensure that a sympathetic view is taken of the arrangements for the debate of the SDR when it is published?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I shall take on board my noble friend's comments.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that uncertainty breeds discontent; and that hope deferred makes the heart sick?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am aware of what the noble Baroness says. I agree that we must end the uncertainty as soon as possible. I repeat that we hope to be able to make our views, and the SDR, available very shortly.

Vehicle Excise Duty: Budget Proposal
3.10 p.m.
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the tax concession for vehicles over 25 years old was withdrawn in the recent Budget.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced his intention of introducing a new, fairer and more environmentally sensitive system of vehicle excise duty. In the meantime, the level of vehicle excise duty has been frozen for all vehicles and the rolling forward of the exemption for vehicles over 25 years old has been stopped so that only vehicles manufactured before 1st January 1973 will be eligible for the exemption. A consultation document setting out the options for reform will be published soon.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which seems useful. I have in front of me a document entitled Budget 98, HM Treasury 16, which gives environmental reasons for the decision. Can the Minister comment on the fact that when a Boeing 747/436 takes off for a United States west coast destination in the first three minutes it uses fuel at the rate of more than 19 gallons a second which makes the Deputy Prime Minister's Jaguar look like a fuel miser?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the aeronautical information which the noble Lord gives me in his supplementary question. The fact
344
that other people use a lot of fuel does not reduce in any sense the obligation on us to ensure that our cars are as environmentally sensitive as possible.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as vehicles over 25 years old are normally in the hands of collectors and probably travel only 1,000 miles a year, perhaps a little more, it is unjust to expect the owners to pay for the full licence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if such cars are off the road for a large part of the year it is always open to the keepers of the vehicles to apply for the vehicle excise licence to be suspended and to be given a refund for the period of the suspension. Therefore, there is no discrimination against those who use their cars for a short time.

House of Lords Reform
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham Lord Denham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they had been prepared to discuss without preconditions fully comprehensive single stage Lords reform before talks with Her Majesty's Opposition were broken off.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, yes, on the basis of our manifesto.
Lord Denham: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that he would be far more likely to be able to reach the best agreement among all parties in both Houses over a single package than by first removing the hereditary element and only then starting to argue about what to put in its place?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto was perfectly clear on the issue. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me at least on that. We said that we would reform your Lordships' House in two stages. The first stage would be a discrete stage standing on its own, which would be the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. As to whether a different posture on the part of Her Majesty's Government would make an agreement more or less possible, that must be a matter of judgment.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if, as it seems, the Lord Privy Seal is underlining the Government's total commitment to a two-stage process, can he say when they will announce their intention as regards the second stage? Will it be before the first stage legislation is introduced, at the same time or somewhere in the distant future?
Lord Richard: My Lords, if matters proceed in the way set out in the Labour Party manifesto there will be the first stage, which is the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers in this House to sit and vote. There will then be a period, as I have described in the past, of full-scale public consultation. The manifesto mentions

345
that taking place by means of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Another possibility might be a Royal Commission. In the course of that process Her Majesty's Government will have to make their views clear.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the manifesto a sacred cow? No item in the manifesto is loaded with respect to who voted for it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course the manifesto is not a sacred cow. If it had been a sacred cow I would not have been talking to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to see whether it was possible to reach agreement on a single stage. Just as it is not a sacred cow, it is impossible, with great respect, for noble Lords in this House to ignore the fact that that was the policy which we put before the electorate upon which we were overwhelmingly elected.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, if it is not a sacred cow, is it a Papal bull?
Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, it is neither. It is a strong piece of evidence as to the views of the British electorate on the reform of your Lordships' House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Leader of the House discover what was the opinion of the Opposition on the two proposals that he mentioned, the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee of both Houses?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the noble Lord's question. Is he asking whether I know what the Opposition's view is?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, quite right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord must ask the Opposition.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord the Leader of the House in forming the judgment to which he referred in answer to my noble friend Lord Denham. I suggest that the answer might be yes. Can he give a guarantee that after the Government have introduced the stage 1 Bill, which he has promised, they will proceed with all due expedition to stage 2, bearing in mind that the last time a rapid stage 2 was promised was in 1911 and we are still waiting?
Lord Richard: My Lords, if we have been waiting since 1911 that underlines my view that this is unfinished business since 1911. We committed ourselves in the manifesto—I do not want to use it as a sacred text—to the first stage being precisely that; namely, the first stage.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, understandably, such exchanges are becoming very repetitive at Question Time because there is concern in all parts of the House about where the future lies.
346
Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House indicate when the debate that he has promised will take place? If we knew that it would be before the Summer Recess a good deal of your Lordships' time could be saved.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the date of the debate is a matter for discussion between the usual channels. I can tell the noble Lord that those discussions are taking place. What I cannot do today is give him a definite date upon which the debate will take place. But he is right; we have promised a debate and it will take place.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is little or no demand by the general public to do away with the hereditary peerage in toto? If that is so, why the headlong rush? Does he agree that it might be better to look at the possibility of making this House totally independent in mind and view by abolishing the whipping system so that we can all speak our own minds, give an independent view and vote for or against the argument on merit rather than by whipping?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I note the joy with which the noble Lord enjoys the freedom that he now possesses, having given up the Whip on the Conservative Benches and moved to the Cross-Benches.
The noble Lord speaks of a headlong rush. It has been 87 years! That can hardly be a rush, even at the snail's pace which constitutional reform usually takes in the United Kingdom. I cannot help but remind the House that on at least three occasions during those 87 years this House accepted that the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote should no longer persist. That was in 1917, in 1948 and in 1968, when, if my memory serves me correctly, the majority in this House in favour of a package which deprived hereditary Peers of the right to sit and vote was five to one. In those circumstances, for us to be accused of indecent haste in respect of what this House has accepted three times in those 87 years seems to me to be pushing it a bit!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Lord Cockfield: My Lords—
Lord Richard: My Lords, in my other capacity I should say that we are entitled to one question from this side.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure he is—that parliamentary government is, whether we like it or not, an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary process? Is it not also the case, as the Fabians pointed out some time ago, that evolution is inevitably gradual?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am in favour of a long period of gestation. However, I believe that that period has been very long and it is time that the birth took place.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sorry to have interrupted earlier. I had not realised that the noble Lord's

347
own supporters were prepared to support him. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House take time out to read Standing Order No. 20? It needs to be read in the original because it is not correctly transposed into the Companion. But if that standing order were correctly and rigorously enforced, it would largely solve the problem which worries the noble Lord and the Government and would thereby give them sufficient time to make up their minds as to what to do about the problem as a whole.
Lord Richard: My Lords, for the benefit of the House, and indeed for my own benefit, as perhaps my bedside reading is not the same as that of the noble Lord, Standing Order No. 20 deals with leave of absence from the House by Peers. I do not believe that there could be compulsory leave of absence and, as far as I know, that has not been proposed.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I was rather thrown by the noble Lord's original Answer. My question was:
''To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they had been prepared to discuss without preconditions fully comprehensive single stage Lords reform".
The answer that I received was yes. Since then, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has been suggesting that he is going to go ahead with his plan to take away the hereditary principle first before going on with the second stage. That is neither comprehensive nor a single stage. I ask him to consider whether it would not be better to discuss first whether there is any way to achieve universal agreement before possibly punishing this House for what he no doubt considers to be its intransigence. Is he or is he not prepared to discuss single stage reform?
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, I am not saying that this House is intransigent. Of course I am not.
Noble Lords: Answer the question!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I shall answer the question but I shall answer it in my own way and not perhaps in the way that the Opposition would like me to. I cannot forbear from making the point that the party opposite was in government for no fewer than 18 years and that in those 18 years we heard nothing whatever from it about reform of your Lordships' House.
My party has been committed to that reform for a very long time. We included the matter very clearly in the manifesto and we were elected on it. Therefore, we are committed to that course of action. The noble Lord asked me about the reform being undertaken in a single stage rather than in two stages. I entered into discussions—somewhat desultory discussions, if I may say so—with the noble Viscount and members of the Opposition to see whether there would be sufficient support for an agreed reform which could take place in a single stage. Unfortunately, there was no such agreement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that this House contains many hereditary Peers who will make no effort to defend their continued membership of this House but nevertheless feel a
348
legitimate curiosity about the nature and quality of their successors? Does he agree that he might have a quieter life if he were to do a little more to satisfy that curiosity?
Lord Richard: My Lords, anybody who takes on the leadership of your Lordships' House when there is a Labour Government cannot, by definition, expect a quiet life. There are ways in which my life could be made quieter, less frenetic and less wearing. The suggestion that the noble Earl has made is obviously one of those that I shall consider for my future better health.

Israeli Settlements
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of Israel with regard to plans for further expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law. They are also an obstacle to peace, pre-empting final status talks and destroying hard won trust between Israelis and Palestinians. EU missions in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem carefully monitor the situation on the ground and produce quarterly reports summarising settlement activity. Those reports are then put to the Israeli Government.
As EU presidency, we issued a statement on 21st June expressing concern at the Israeli Government's endorsement of plans to expand the boundaries of the Jerusalem area. We also issued a statement on 12th June urging the government to take urgent measures to prevent provocative settlement activity in East Jerusalem.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for the steps already taken by the UK presidency within the European Union. Does she agree that the state of Israel is a key factor in the economic and political development of the Middle East? In those circumstances, does she agree that abiding by the Oslo accords is crucial to making that contribution? Will she assure the House that in addition to the representations that she has described on settlements, the Government are making representations, together with the United States, on the issue of the bulldozing of Arab housing and the unilateral extension of the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I can agree with what the noble Baroness said. The United States has indeed been a prime mover in working to get the Oslo accords implemented. In recent months it has worked hard to get the parties to agree to a package of ideas designed to restore confidence in the negotiating process and to break the current deadlock. That is based on the Oslo process and backed by key players in the region and by the international community. We continue to urge the United States to come forward with its

349
proposals to which the Palestinians have agreed in principle. We urge it also to stand by that package despite domestic pressures in the United States. While the Americans feel that they are still in with a chance, we all agree that our role should be to back them up. We want to keep international activity focused on the need for Mr. Netanyahu to sign up to the American package. That is a view shared by the regional leaders.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome very much what the Minister said about the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem. However, will the Government ask the European Union to remove Israel's trade privileges for as long as the illegal settlements continue to be built, contravening the Geneva Convention and the Oslo agreements?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we agree that the status of Jerusalem must be determined in the final status talks. We believe that neither side should pre-empt that and we have condemned Israeli policies which are aimed at altering the demographic balance in East Jerusalem, including the settlement building, confiscation of Palestinian identity cards and house demolition. But we do not believe that a confrontational approach would help the peace process. A comprehensive settlement needs to be based on trust and co-operation and in that context the measures which the noble Lord describes would be counter-productive.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's strong and wise words. Does she not believe that it is time for Europe to take some action in view of the fact that, as I recently saw for myself, illegal settlements and robbery of Palestinian land are continuing every day. Surely, it is high time that there was a confrontational approach because clearly the United States Government are in thrall to the current Israeli Government because of the strength of the Israeli lobby. Therefore, some additional action is now needed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe I have made the position clear as regards the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. There was full discussion of the Middle East peace process at the EU summit at Cardiff. EU partners shared Her Majesty's Government's grave concern at the continuing deadlock and the threat that that poses to the stability of the region. We reiterated our strong support for the efforts of the United States to gain the agreement of the parties to the packages of proposals. We welcomed Palestinian acceptance of the proposals. We must continue to call upon the Government of Israel to give a clear and positive response.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what project work is going on in this difficult area? I am sure the Minister will know that people on the West Bank are extremely deprived as a result of actions taken by the Government of Israel. Some two years ago there was a great deal of planning for project work, backed by the
350
European Union, to try to make the lives of those poor people on the West Bank a little more bearable. What has happened?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Ministers agreed at the 23rd February General Affairs Council to renew the EU aid package to the Palestinians and discussed proposals for improving the efficiency of our assistance. The EU remains the largest aid donor to the Palestinians—£1.68 billion in grants and loans committed for 1993–98—plus, of course, bilateral contributions from member states. The UK contributes 16 per cent. of the EC aid budget. Our bilateral programme provides £10 million a year towards the elimination of poverty on the West Bank and Gaza to help underpin the peace process. The priority sectors include technical assistance to improve basic services such as health, education, good government, water and micro-finance.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many like myself, who are both Jewish and loyal friends of Israel, completely support the policy of the British Government in resisting any further expansion of settlements in the West Bank? We support withdrawal from the West Bank and the giving of full rights to Palestinians in that area as being in the best interests of Israel and its future.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that that is the case. Recent opinion polls have shown that 70 per cent. of Israelis back the peace process. The actions of the Israeli Government last weekend have been criticised by many people within Israel, including President Weizmann.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at the conclusion of proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill today my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the energy review.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.32 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 11,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 12 to 20,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 21 and 22,
Schedule 3,
Clause 23,
Schedule 4,
Clause 24,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 25 to 30,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 31 to 33,
Schedule 7,
Clause 34,
Schedule 8,
Clause 35,
Schedules 9 to 11,
Clause 36,
Schedule 12,
Clauses 37 to 39,
Schedule 13,
Clauses 40 to 48,
Schedule 14,
Clauses 49 to 51,
Schedule 15,
Clauses 52 to 54,
Schedule 16,
Clause 55,
Schedule 17,
Clauses 56 to 67,
Schedule 18,
Clauses 68 and 69,
Schedule 19,
Clause 70,
Schedule 20,
Clauses 71 to 74,
Schedule 21,
Clause 75,
Schedule 22,
Clauses 76 to 92,
Schedule 23,
Clause 93,
Schedule 24,
Clause 94,
Schedule 25,
Clauses 95 to 120,
Schedule 26,
Clauses 121 and 123,
Schedule 27,
Clauses 124 to 132,
Schedule 28,
Clauses 133 and 134,
Schedule 29,
Clauses 135 to 142,
Schedules 30 to 32.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Number of MEPs, electoral regions and electoral system]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("registered").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to remove the word "registered" from the Bill where it refers to registered political parties. This is a fairly small point and it is a probing amendment. It is a little odd that this Bill should depend on another Bill which we shall discuss later. I have mentioned that point on a number of occasions and I do not wish to labour it today. Can the noble Lord give us some indication when the Government think the Registration of Political Parties Bill will arrive in this Chamber, and when it will therefore receive Royal Assent? Is it the Government's intention that the Registration of Political Parties Bill will receive Royal Assent before the Welsh Bill? If it is done the other way round, that would seem to me—if I may say so in the context of a Welsh debate—a little Irish, because this Bill depends entirely on the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I hope that the noble Lord can enlighten me on that matter.
If something happened to the Registration of Political Parties Bill which is still in another place, would we be able to go ahead with the Welsh assembly, or are there powers within this Bill to bring forward a registration system by regulation? I am not certain about that. I should be grateful for the noble Lord's advice on these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord has not spoken to his amendment at all, for which mercy I offer grateful thanks. Therefore, I shall not deal with what he might have said. As regards the timetable, that is a matter for the usual channels. I have no precise knowledge of the stages involved. However, I have the moral certainty that all will be in perfect order by the time the Welsh assembly elections take place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: When the noble Lord replies in such a manner I am never sure whether he wants me to make a slightly longer speech. I do not intend to do so, but the next time I move a probing amendment and explain what it is probing rather than what the amendment may or may not seek to achieve, I might be tempted both to probe and to explain what the amendment seeks to achieve. With that warning I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 26A:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ELECTION OF MEPs
(".—(1) Within six months of the first election held under this Act, the Secretary of State shall appoint an independent

353
commission to consider and report within two years on the relative merits of—

(a) the method of election of MEPs in force before this Act was passed, and

(b) the method of election of MEPs provided for by this Act.

(2) The commission's report shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 26A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26B, 26C and 27A. These amendments ask the Government to appoint an independent commission to consider and report within two years on the method of election of Members of the European Parliament which has existed in this country up until now, and the new method of election which will be introduced as a result of this Bill. However, after the discussion last night in this Chamber I am in some doubt as to whether it will be the method of election favoured by the Government, given the considerable expressions of doubt as to the wisdom of the closed Member system.
These measures contain two variations of the same theme. The reason I think we ought to reconsider the position after the European elections is the following. As the Committee knows, we have had a long tradition of first-past-the-post single Member constituencies in this country. However, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is present and I must concede that quite a long time ago—yet still in my lifetime, although at a young stage in that life—a few constituencies in this country had two Members. However, they were not elected by any fancy electoral system but simply through inviting electors to mark two crosses. Indeed one constituency, known as the Scottish university seat, was elected by single transferable vote, presumably on the assumption that graduates from Scottish universities could understand such complicated systems. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, and I would certainly agree with that.
Essentially, for half a century we have had single-member constituencies and first-past-the-post in parliamentary elections and local government elections. Although there are some places with multiple councillors, the system for election is the one I have described which was used for the double seats that we used to have. For the European Parliament we opted for the single-member constituency and first-past-the-post.
So the provision in this Bill is novel. We are introducing very large constituencies—in fact, I shall not call them constituencies at all; a constituency has a link to one Member. We are introducing large areas where there will be a number of Members: I suspect every number from four to 10 or 11 is represented in the scope of the number of Members per area. That is a major change from our normal method. In future, Members of the European Parliament will not have a one-to-one identity with a particular geographical area or with the people who live in it.
That means that we shall lose one of the great strengths of the system that we have employed in this country over many decades. It will certainly be an enormous change. I suspect that the governing party has not even understood the nature of that change. However much the individuals who succeed for one party decide to divide up the area, I suspect it will mean Members of
354
the European Parliament having to tramp about very large areas. Many of the ways in which we expect our Members of Parliament or MEPs to deal with constituencies will no longer be valid—or will be valid only in so far as the Members will be in competition with each other. Labour Members will compete with each other in the strong Labour areas, and the same will apply to Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members.
There will be a huge difficulty for individual Members. Where a party has only one person elected, I hope that that person will be prepared for what will happen. He or she will suddenly find themselves the Member for the whole constituency for members of their party. I rather fear that as a consequence the link between a Member and people who voted for other parties in the constituency will be broken. Human nature being what it is, if someone came to my surgery if I were the European MP for the whole of Scotland and told me that he or she was a strong Scottish Nationalist, I think I might invite them to take their complaint to the Scottish Nationalist Member of the European Parliament. I suspect I should find myself overwhelmed by the problems and complaints from Conservative voters for the European Parliament for the whole of Scotland.
Even if, as I believe, two or three Conservatives are elected, the net result will still be that we shall have to look after the whole of these huge areas, whether it be Scotland, the north-west, Wales or London. It will introduce a huge complication in the lives of Members and the relationship with voters. I believe constituents will be "switched off" from the whole idea by the break in the link with the constituency Member.
It always amazed me how the great majority of my constituents seemed to know very well the name of their MP when it came to writing me a letter or telephoning me. I am not vain enough, like some, to think that that was because everyone knew me intimately. It is something I discovered, as did my colleagues in the House of Commons. People who would never consider voting for us knew who we were when it came to writing us letters. Very few letters began, "Dear MP". Whether they liked us or not, most constituents named us. The relationship will be extraordinarily difficult once we make the change to the proposed large constituencies. That is the first big change that we are making.
The second is the change to a closed list—if that is indeed what the Government eventually drive through both Houses—and how that list works. Many noble Lords expressed considerable reservations in the debate yesterday as to how the closed list would work and the centralising power that it will give to the various parties. Interesting discussions arose as to the difference between the Belgian system, my suggestion of a fully open list, and the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of moving to a single transferable vote system. Undoubtedly, whatever we do, it will represent a dramatic change from anything that has been done in the past.
Surely, therefore, if we are to try this experiment we ought to do something to see whether we can validate it after it has been completed. After the elections have taken place, we should look back and examine the decisions taken at this time to see whether they were wise: whether or not it was wise to move away from a constituency-based system, whether it was wise to move to a list system. We should be doing the people of our country a service, and indeed those who will be elected to the European Parliament, if we do something along the lines of these amendments. Within six months of the first election, the Secretary of State could appoint an independent commission to examine the method of election of MEPs that was previously in place and compare it with the method set out in this legislation. That report could be laid before Parliament, and then Parliament could have a good discussion, based on the report of an independent commission, on how the new method contrasted with what had happened previously.
It may well be that those who advocate this new system will be vindicated in their view and that the percentage poll will dramatically increase. However, it may well be the case that those of us who are less persuaded by the new systems will be vindicated and we shall see the percentage poll decline again. In the one case, that would be to the advantage of the Minister. It would indicate that his arguments had worked. In the other case, and if the percentage poll went down further, it would be perfectly valid to look seriously at whether we had made a correct decision.
I shall no doubt be told that at any time in the future Parliament can review the electoral system that it puts in place. I know the way of government. That is not only the long grass; that is the long grass on the other side of the river. The only way to make absolutely certain that a review and reconsideration of the new method of voting and a comparison with the previous method take place is to opt for some form of independent commission. I offer the Minister a number of ways to proceed.
I am a realist. I know that down the corridor there is an enormous government majority. We need to persuade people by argument. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, listens to argument. I am grateful for the way he has listened in relation to some of the Bills that we have dealt with and has taken on board some of the arguments from all sides of the House. However, in this case I rather fear that even if we persuade the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, we shall not be able to persuade his parliamentary colleagues, who take a more—I was about to say "masochistic" view; perhaps they do: perhaps they like being defeated by the House of Lords—a more "macho" view of riding roughshod and not changing their minds.
I am therefore being realistic in considering that next year's parliamentary elections will probably be done in the way the Government want. In that light, we ought to set in place now a mechanism for a review of what has happened. If it has gone swimmingly and excellently, the Government have nothing to fear at all. Indeed, it will reinforce the judgments that they have made about changing our system. If, however, it is
356
proved to be less than a total success, the Government and Parliament will have an opportunity to change matters before the following European elections. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: There is certainly a very strong case for having an election commission in this country to deal with the very large number of issues which arise in a democratic society with regard to the conduct of elections. That was the conclusion of the commission of the Hansard Society chaired by the right honourable Christopher Chataway on an all-party basis. Indeed, it was a manifesto commitment of this party and, I think, of the Government that there should be established an independent election commission to deal with a range of matters, including the efficacy of voting systems, the conduct of elections, broadcasting and other matters which are otherwise argued on a wholly partisan basis. We on these Benches very much support the idea of such a comprehensive election commission rather than having these matters reduced, as they so often are, to partisan sharp elbows. When the Minister replies, I shall be interested to know whether it is still the position of the Labour Government that there should be an election commission of that kind.
I find it more difficult to support the proposal in the amendment that there is something so idiosyncratic about this particular election that it needs a particular commission to look into it. When the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, replies, he might substantially affect my views by telling me whether the Conservative Party supports an election commission with a wider general role rather than a commission which is slipped in when there is a particular Bill that it does not like the look of.
Earl Russell: I am in entire agreement with my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham. If I were to think of a text to apply to this amendment, I fear I would choose:
"Use not vain repetitions, as the [Pharisees] do".
The amendment addresses a task which can already be done three different ways. I do not think we need a fourth.
The noble Lord should be aware of an article written by Edward McMillan-Scott, leader of his own party in the European Parliament, in the House magazine of 25th May. The European Parliament is itself reviewing its methods of election with a view to reaching a common system. I notice that the noble Lord's party is proposing the outlawing of the closed list through that system. That would bring about change without any need of this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, so carefully explained to the House with regard to Gibraltar, a British Parliament cannot alter European law. If the matter were addressed as the noble Lord's party wishes, it would make the amendment entirely redundant.
Secondly, there is a case for making a greater degree of uniformity between the different electoral systems which we are setting up in the British Isles. Before the next European parliamentary election, the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead will have reported. The electorate will have formed a

357
view upon it. That might give guidance to what type of electoral system would be most appropriate if there were a change.
Thirdly, the noble Lord's attachment to first-past-the-post appears to be totally immutable. He has been accused of having learned nothing and forgotten nothing. I am certain that if the noble Lord's party should by any chance be in office at that time, it would then, using the sovereign power that Parliament has until European law restricts it, achieve the distinction of being the first government ever to introduce first-past-the-post anywhere since the invention of political parties.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I fully appreciate and understand the intention behind the amendments and I am grateful for the way they were described. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 26A and 26B. We do not believe that these are necessary devices. We already have a working group which has been set up on the basis of past experience with other elections. It is chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. It is now reviewing all aspects of electoral procedure in the light of last year's general election. In response to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the discussions of that working group will include consideration of whether or not there is a case for establishing an electoral commission.
The European parliamentary election in June 1999 will be the first to be held under a new electoral system. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Obviously, we shall want to review the conduct and operation of that election. I am happy to tell the Committee that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an assurance when the Bill was in another place that such a review would take place and, importantly, that the results would be placed before Parliament. There will therefore be an opportunity for parliamentary review and scrutiny.
We do not believe that it is right to prescribe by statute that a particular kind of review should be established. We believe that it is best to leave the procedure as it has been in the past; namely, that the most appropriate review is decided by the government and then discussed by Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 26C and 27A would have the effect of preventing the new Act coming into force until an independent commission had, first, met; secondly, considered the relative merits of first-past-the-post and the system provided for in the Bill; and, thirdly, reported. That would mean that the new electoral system could not be in place for the next European parliamentary election on 10th June 1999. That would be quite impossible. I am sure that that is not the consequence desired by the noble Lords who put down these amendments. We have a clear manifesto commitment to have a proportional voting system for European parliamentary elections. That is what we seek to deliver in the Bill.
Amendment No. 27A is a little different. It requires both Houses to affirm that legislation, which both would have passed, should come into force. We do not believe
358
that that is necessary. There are limited precedents for this. The Easter Act 1928 springs immediately to mind. That introduced a fixed date for Easter, subject to an affirmative resolution, so that Parliament could consider whether religious objections to the fixed date had ever been overcome. As far as I have been able to detect, they have not been overcome and that provision has never been brought into force. There is also the Representation of the People Act 1985 which contained similar provisions relating to absent voting in Northern Ireland which could be commenced if the issue became a problem there. Those provisions were also subject to affirmative resolution and have never been used. The precedents depend on contingent events. There are no contingent events in this case.
We shall have the reviews, and they will be discussed by Parliament. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the Committee on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and on the point on the electoral commission raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance that there will be reviews, although, if the reviews are to be chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, I am not sure that they will be of quite the status that I asked for, nor that they will have the independence that I should like to see. I leave that aside because, of course, I accept that all Ministers of the Crown are entirely independent when they chair committees of this nature and that they do not bring any political baggage with them. At least, that is what happened in the previous government, and the opposition always believed it.
I am not sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right about nobody starting first-past-the-post. As I understand it, the New Zealanders are trying desperately to get back to it as quickly as they possibly can, having gone down this road. Although I would have to check, I think that the Italians have gone at least part of the way back to first-past-the-post from the electoral system they used to have. The noble Earl dissents, and I accept his dissent. I know that it was the intention of the Berlusconi Government to try to get back to first-past-the-post and that they made some changes to the electoral system.
I am not one of those who thinks that in Britain we should ape what is done in other countries. If we did that, our history would be very different. Indeed, the history of the world might be quite different and a deal more unpleasant when it comes to most of this century. I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing that we do things differently in this country; nor do I think that it is a bad thing that other countries do things differently from the way we do them. As someone said yesterday—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—uniformity is a bit like silence; it is what you get in a graveyard. I am not too bothered about the fact that we do things differently from the way other countries do them. I am prepared to learn from them, but I am not prepared to work on the assumption that

359
they must always be right, and I must always be wrong. It is possible that our system suits us and their system suits them.
Turning to the commission, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, may recollect that last summer, when we were dealing with the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, I was keen that the Government should set up a commission and introduce a proper Bill dealing with referendums. That would involve a commission studying those referendums. To say therefore that I am a "Johnny-come-lately" to this matter omits many happy hours we spent last July on these issues.
However, whether it be this Bill, the Scottish Bill or the Welsh Bill, we will have three different systems—I know that the Scottish and Welsh systems are almost the same, but they are not quite because of the number of additional members in each constituency. I am still attracted to the idea of setting up an independent commission to look at all of those elections, not just this one. I accept that Amendment No. 26A concerns just this one, but one must ride one's hobby horses on the vehicle available and it is the European Parliamentary Elections Bill that is before us.
Perhaps at a later stage we can explore the possibility of the Government setting up an independent body to look at all the electoral systems that will be in being in this country by the end of next year, thus giving us a chance of an independent report. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would like to intervene.
4 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry that I am unable to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on behalf of the Opposition. In particular, the instrument of this Bill does not seem to me to be the correct place in which to put the idea that we should appoint a commission. We do not need to prevent the operation of the Bill by insisting on the insertion that we should now appoint a commission to do something after the Bill has come into operation. That will be a matter to consider after the Bill has come into operation and after the forthcoming elections have been held.
At the same time, I urge my noble friend to realise to the full the implications of what we are about to do, particularly in relation to the existing political divisions—both the Westminster constituencies for the election to our own British Parliament and also the existing constituencies for the European election that will be subsumed in the new arrangements.
The dislocations will be considerable. In that connection I tried to do some research as to the effects that will occur when redistribution of seats takes place. It has been a little difficult for me—I suspect for other members of the Committee also—to obtain copies of the precise boundaries involved in the various divisions. I found considerable difficulty in obtaining maps that show the three positions to which I refer—the Westminster constituencies, the European constituencies as they now exist and the European boundaries as they
360
will exist on the assumption that this Bill is passed. It would be nice if one could be furnished with copies of the maps that show the precise divisions.
In so far as one has been able to make an examination, there can be no doubt that the effects on constituency parties will be considerable. If one endeavours to superimpose one map upon another, the constituencies that will be affected and the members of the constituency parties that will be invited to work the new constituencies—very much larger ones than the European Parliament—are as follows: Hampshire North West will be split; Newbury will be split; Penrith and The Border will be split; in the London constituencies there will be cuts in Hertsmere, Broxbourne, Brentwood and Ongar, Enfield, Chingford and Woodford, Upminster, Orpington, Epsom and Ewell, Hayes and Harlington and Twickenham.
All those areas will be split in their membership allegiance across the final constituency boundaries with all the consequences that I ventured to suggest last night. They will be torn as to which lists they will vote for—those with which they formerly had some parliamentary matters in common or those about which they know nothing. Complications will arise. Similarly, when the present European parliamentary constituencies are spread around over the new series of 71 (or 81 in total), once again existing constituencies will be split and transfers will take place from one to another. That will produce further enormous complications.
What I am troubled about and venture to reiterate is that, in view of the fact that most of the active work in all the new European constituencies will be carried out by members of existing constituency parties returning candidates to Westminster, a degree of apathy and uninterest may be produced which will reflect badly upon the whole election. I ask the Government to consider the point very seriously. I express no hope in the matter; I am all for full participation in the democratic process. But if, in the event, the total amount of the electorate that participate is as low as 15 per cent. nationwide, then somebody's face would be extremely red and there would be no anxiety to continue the system.
I therefore urge that these matters be considered now before we commit ourselves irrevocably. I do not believe however that at this stage we can put anything in the Bill. Rather, the Government should themselves prepare for what is likely to occur after the election.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was beginning to feel pleased to have given way to the noble Lord because it gave him a chance to support his noble friend on the Front Bench. But towards the end I believe he was coming round to my view that we should be prepared to look at these matters after the elections are over.
We have had an interesting debate. I listened to the assurances of the Minister. It would be helpful if we were to find some way—perhaps the Minister will think about this from the Government's point of view—to set up a review of all the different systems after the events are over in order for Parliament to have a reasonable

361
and well-balanced report on how they all operated. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26B to 27A not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [New Schedule 2 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Boundary Commission for England").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 36, 39 and 41. This is a simple group of amendments which I trust will receive a degree of support from the Government and other parts of the Chamber. It replaces the Home Secretary—the Secretary of State—as the person who makes adjustments to the various regions which might become necessary in the course of time with the Boundary Commission.
The Bill sets out what the regions will be. In fact, I shall have something to say about the shape of the regions in due course, particularly when I come to deal with other amendments standing in my name. It is important that we discuss the shape and size of the regions for which those MEPs will be sitting. The Bill also sets out how many Members of the European Parliament shall be elected for each of those regions. But the Bill then gives the Secretary of State the power by order to change those. That is set out in paragraph 4(1), and specifically in paragraph 4(1)(a), and (b). Paragraph 4(1) states that the,
"Secretary of State shall … consider whether the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same for every electoral region in England, and, … make by order such amendments of column (3) of the Table as he considers necessary to ensure that result".
That order—the order, as always, will not be amendable—will be subject to the negative procedure. I cannot remember whether the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made any comment on this issue but it seems to me that this should be done not by the negative procedure but would be more appropriately dealt with by the affirmative procedure.
I maintain that the Secretary of State is not a proper person to make such adjustments; or if he is the one to make such adjustments, he should make such adjustments on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, as happens in the case of parliamentary elections. The Boundary Commission acts in a totally independent and non-political way and brings forward its recommendations to Parliament. As far as we know, those recommendations are virtually always followed. My noble friend Lord Waddington, who very much regrets that he cannot be here today, made the point that there had been occasions, which some noble Lords might remember, when the recommendations of the Boundary Commission were not followed quite as faithfully as they might have been. Those noble Lords who can remember 1969—it is sad that the then Home
362
Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is not present today—will recall that, on that occasion, though he laid the order before the House, the then government issued a whip to their members and ordered them to vote down the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, recommendations which, as we all know, were long overdue, the previous alterations to the boundaries having taken place as long before as 1951. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, remembers that case.
Our view is that it would be proper to allow the Boundary Commission to make the recommendations and trust that, as always, the Home Secretary would then lay the recommendations before the House and make the appropriate order. Both Houses could then, as our amendments do, make sure that those were dealt with by the affirmative procedure.
These matters are not purely about the ratio of electors to the Members of the European Parliament as set out in paragraph 4(1)(a). It is also important that we consider the size of the regions. As my noble friend Lord Mackay made clear at Second Reading, it is much harder to achieve true proportionality with very small regions. It is interesting to note that some of the very small regions—for example, the North-East—are very much Labour strongholds whereas the Conservative strongholds are not quite such small regions. That might merely be chance but it is certainly a matter we can come to in later amendments.
My principal point on this group of amendments is that we should involve the Boundary Commission in looking at these matters and not the Home Secretary and that they should be dealt with by the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with a little surprise because, as the Minister will also no doubt point out, the amendment is entirely misconceived. The power of the Secretary of State under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is not a power to alter the boundaries of the regions; it is a power to alter the number of MEPs returned by each region. The result is that what the Secretary of State is required to carry out by paragraph 4 is a simple mathematical calculation which could be carried out by a computer. Therefore, it seems wholly inappropriate to require that to be transferred to the Boundary Commission. In those circumstances, we are unable to support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right. In fact, I sympathise with the motive behind the amendments, but they are not necessary. It is important that one should understand that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State power to change the boundaries of the regions. All the Secretary of State has to do is carry out a purely mechanical, arithmetical calculation.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I spent a moment on the background. The total number of English electors was divided by 71—that is the number of MEPs.

363
That produced an average figure of electors per MEP of just over 520,000. In fact it was 520,475. Then the MEPs were simply allocated to regions to ensure that the divergence was as low as possible. This is entirely arithmetical. There is no discretion available to the Secretary of State. The formula is provided in paragraph 4 of the schedule. It can produce only one result. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the computer's calculation will be exactly the same as that of an official in the Home Office doing it with pencil and paper.
Therefore, there is no purpose in involving the Boundary Commission, which has a very delicate role in adjusting boundaries. This has nothing at all to do with boundaries. There is no good reason to invoke the affirmative resolution procedure. I specifically checked the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not see any reason for objecting to the negative resolution procedure, given the purely mechanistic nature of the procedure involved. It is entirely an arithmetical calculation. If the Secretary of State were to get his decimal point in the wrong place, there is one at least among us who would be able readily to correct him. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the Committee with my reply.
Lord Henley: I am not totally satisfied and it is a point to which I shall probably want to come back at a later stage. The noble Lord said that the Home Secretary has no discretion whatever in this matter, that it is entirely mathematical and that he must merely follow the answer which his pocket calculator gives him. However, paragraph 4(1)(b) states:
"make by order such amendments of column (3) of the Table as he considers necessary to ensure that result".
It strikes me that the words "as he considers necessary" allow him a degree of discretion. The point I am making, if I may put it in the politest terms, is that the history of the noble Lord's party, particularly going back to 1969, is not entirely a clean one on these matters. I think it would be right to involve an independent outside body such as the Boundary Commission. It should be allowed its input into these matters so that Parliament can see that it has exercised the appropriate mechanistic discretion.
I appreciate that the changing of boundaries is another matter and is one that would have to be left to Parliament itself. Parliament is setting out the boundaries in the Bill and it is Parliament which on some later occasion will have to change them. Therefore, from that point of view, I accept that that limits what I consider to be the excessive powers of the Secretary of State to gerrymander these matters should he so wish. But, obviously, he would not be able to do so without the agreement of Parliament. I shall come back to that point on a later amendment. In the meantime, I wish to withdraw my amendment at this stage but assure the noble Lord that I will want to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 41 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 50 on page 7 and insert—

("North East

Darlington Unitary Authority

4

Durham County

Hartlepool Unitary Authority

Middlesbrough Unitary Authority

Redcar and Cleveland Unitary Authority

Stockton-on-Tees Unitary Authority

Northumberland County

Tyne & Wear Metropolitan County

North West

Cumbria County

10

Cheshire County

Halton Unitary Authority

Warrington Unitary Authority

Greater Manchester Metropolitan County

Blackburn with Darwen Unitary Authority

Blackpool Unitary Authority

Lancashire County

Merseyside Metropolitan County

Yorkshire and the Humber

East Riding of Yorkshire Unitary Authority

7

Kingston-upon-Hull Unitary Authority

North East Lincolnshire Unitary Authority

North Lincolnshire Unitary Authority

North Yorkshire County

York Unitary Authority

South Yorkshire Metropolitan County

West Yorkshire Metropolitan County

East Midlands

Derby Unitary Authority

6

Derbyshire County

Nottingham Unitary Authority

Nottinghamshire County

Leicester Unitary Authority

Leicestershire County

Northamptonshire County

Rutland Unitary Authority

Lincolnshire County

West Midlands

Herefordshire Unitary Authority

8

Warwickshire County

Worcestershire County

Shropshire County

Staffordshire County

Stoke-on-Trent Unitary Authority

Telford and the Wrekin Unitary Authority

West Midlands Metropolitan County

Eastern

Bedfordshire County

8

Hertfordshire County

Luton Unitary Authority

Essex County

Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority

Thurrock Unitary Authority

Cambridgeshire County

Norfolk County

Peterborough Unitary Authority

South East

Bracknell Forest Unitary Authority

11

Buckinghamshire County

Milton Keynes Unitary Authority

Oxfordshire County

Reading Unitary Authority

Slough Unitary Authority

West Berkshire Unitary Authority

Windsor & Maidenhead Unitary Authority

Wokingham Unitary Authority

Hampshire County

Isle of Wight Unitary Authority

Portsmouth Unitary Authority

365

Southampton Unitary Authority

Kent County

Medway Towns Unitary Authority

Brighton & Hove Unitary Authority

East Sussex County

Surrey County

West Sussex County

Suffolk County

London

Greater London

10

South West

Bath & North East Somerset Unitary Authority

7

Bristol Unitary Authority

Gloucestershire County

North Somerset Unitary Authority

South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority

Swindon Unitary Authority

Wiltshire County

Cornwall County

Devon County

Isles of Scilly Council

Plymouth Unitary Authority

Torbay Unitary Authority

Bournemouth Unitary Authority

Dorset County

Poole Unitary Authority

Somerset County")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall touch on Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall not be moving those two amendments. They are matters that I prefer to return to at a later stage. It may be that some Members of the Committee, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, might wish to follow me in some of my comments.
Amendment No. 42 is a brief drafting amendment. When the noble Lord's advisers drafted this Bill and Schedule 1 they used the old names for the local authority areas. I do not know why they did that. It struck us that it would be more appropriate if the new names were used for the different areas. That is all that Amendment No. 42 does. It does not change the size or the shape of the areas.
Speaking as a true reactionary of the finest sort, I would prefer to go back to the old county names in their entirety and, as regards the North West, to speak simply of Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Cheshire and none of the nonsense about Merseyside and so on. But if we are to be modern then we should be truly modern and use some of the new areas. That is why my amendment is filled with odd bodies such as the Warrington Unitary Authority and others as they should be, rather than the older form used by the noble Lord. I merely offer that to the Government by way of a drafting amendment.
Behind these amendments there is something more serious and that is the size of the regions. We believe that it is important for the regions to be of similar size as far as possible. Since it is the purpose of the Bill, they should be of a size which allows a degree of proportionality. As regards the smallest region, the North East, it is very difficult to get true proportionality. Obviously, I have to be careful about the criticisms I make of the Government's attempt here. For the North East they have produced the smallest figure of four Members. I shall not be moving the two amendments on
366
this occasion because we have produced regions with only three for East Anglia. We would like to come back to that in due course and try to find another way.
The Government's justification for the regions that they have chosen is that we set them up when we were in government, but that was for quite different purposes. In effect, they are the DTI regions. I do not believe that simply using the regions for this purpose is good enough. They were created for an entirely different purpose and not to be parliamentary regions for the European Parliament or to be developed later into regional entities of the kind that might gradually be allowed to become regional assemblies along the lines of those being constructed for Wales and Scotland. In other words, I do not believe that we should encourage their use to allow the gradual regionalisation of England.
As we all know, the regions are entirely artificial, as my noble friend Lord Waddington made perfectly clear yesterday. There is very little community of interest in some of the different parts. I believe he mentioned the South West; it stretches from Swindon to the Isles of Scilly. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and myself know the north west well. It stretches from Cheshire to the Scottish border. There is very little community of interest, as it were, between Cumbria and Merseyside. The South East region extends from darkest Kent to Milton Keynes. The regions cover large areas and they have to if there are to have 10 or so Members of the European Parliament. I do not believe that they should necessarily be fixed in stone and remain in existence in perpetuity, particularly if that gives greater validity to them as regions and allows them to develop yet further into something which they are not. The noble Lord will say that they were first used by us for DTI purposes; then they were taken over for this electoral purpose; and later they will be developed in other ways.
It is important that we should try to find slightly different areas. They should be larger in some cases, particularly the North East with only four Members. I suspect that that will be very much to the advantage of the party opposite. In due course it should be possible to alter the size of the regions, should that be necessary. At that point one would want to involve the Boundary Commission if regions grew or shrunk according to changes in the population. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I do not wish to say anything about Amendment No. 42 itself, but since the noble Lord has touched on Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 which involve some change to the proposed boundaries, I would like to speak to them briefly. It seems that in one or two instances there is a case for boundary changes; for example, it is arguable that the northern region, including Cumbria, would be a more satisfactory region on the grounds of greater equality of population between the regions. I accept that it is desirable that the regions should be broadly equal in size.
However, it is also arguable that the main communication links of Cumbria are with the North West via the M.6 and the west coast main line, rather than with the North East via the A.69 and the Carlisle-to-Newcastle railway line. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has not spoken in detail about the

367
proposals, but those for the South East are unsatisfactory. There is a problem with that area because it is already too big. It is the largest of the constituencies. To add large parts of the eastern counties to it would simply unbalance the figures still further, let alone adding Greater London as well, as proposed in Amendment No. 43 but not in Amendment No. 44.
One could argue for weeks about the desirable boundaries between the regions, but, broadly speaking, it seems to us that the regions, if not ideal, are acceptable. Therefore, we would not support any amendment for their further variation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: On the basis of such research as I have been able to undertake, it seems to me that it is going to make very little difference to the final membership whatever the size of the new constituencies and their total representation. The South West division has seven Members; the South East has 11 and the North East four Members, giving divisors of eight, 12 and five respectively. Taking the results of the proportion of votes cast at the last European elections and those cast in the constituency elections to Westminster, the result will not be very different.
In the South West constituency, based on the results of the 1994 European elections, Labour would have five seats, the Conservatives two and the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and others would have nil. On the basis of the Westminster election results, apportioning percentage-wise the votes gained by the respective parties, once again the divisor would be eight and there would be seven Members. That would yield the result of four Labour Members and three Conservative Members. There is not a very great difference between those two results.
I turn now to the South East and North East constituencies. It is surprising that once again the results do not differ. Labour would have seven Members and the Conservatives four in the first example and in the second, Labour would have three Members and the Conservatives one. The results do not differ materially.
However, it is a bit depressing—since the impact of the figures first struck me only when I had them calculated—that if any party gets below about 16 per cent. of the vote it has no representation at all. I did not realise that when the Bill was first published. Therefore, on the basis of the same electoral percentages, party-wise in both the last European elections and in the 1993 Westminster parliamentary elections, the result would be very little difference in the number of Members per party. As I have said, it is depressing that a party with less than 16 per cent. of the vote will not get a say, whatever the distribution. I sincerely hope that that was considered when the existing calculation proposals were first incorporated into the Bill. This certainly worries me; I do not know whether it worries my party.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 42 is in a different category from Amendments Nos. 43 and 44
368
which go together. Amendment No. 42 seeks to insert the word "county" instead of "unitary authority". If that were to be the position, the table would be wholly meaningless. The Bill specifies geographical areas. A unitary authority does not refer to a geographical area; it refers to the body which administers a particular area. It is right to refer to the "County of Derby" as that is a geographical area. It is administered by the Derby unitary authority, which is now separate from the county of Derbyshire. As drafted, the Bill is correct. The term "unitary authority" does not relate to a geographical area.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not quite strangle Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 at birth, but he abandoned them very shortly after birth. As the noble Lord rightly confessed, the result of his provisions would be a region comprising three Members, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has assured us is much too small. There would have to be a minimum of four Members if it were to be at all proportional. There would be a vast region of 26 Members if we adopted Amendment No. 43 or of 16 Members if we accepted Amendment No. 44. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not dwell on those delights and I must therefore reciprocate and not pour any further scorn upon them. Amendment No. 42 is not necessary. I do not believe that the noble Lord intends to move Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
Lord Henley: I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation. I imagine that it will be news to the unitary authorities that they are not geographical areas. However, if they are not geographical areas, I do not know what they are, but that is for them to worry about. I shall take in good part the noble Lord's assurance that my amendment is unnecessary and, as I have said, I shall not press my simple, neat, little drafting amendment.
As regards the other two amendments, as I said, I shall want to return to this matter at a later stage with revised versions of the amendments—versions that do not include regions as small as those having only three Members. As I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to appreciate, getting this right is a difficult art. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the possibility of placing Cumbria within the constituency of the North East and thus increasing the number of MEPs in that region from four to five which would obviously improve one's chances of getting some degree of proportionality. As I understand it, however, if the area of Cumbria were to be included in the North East constituency not enough people would be transferred into the North East constituency to increase its Members from four to five. At the moment, Cumbria is only six-ninths of a European parliamentary constituency—in other words, Cumbria plus three other parliamentary constituencies comprise the existing European parliamentary constituency. Therefore, one would have to start transferring other areas into that North East constituency.
If, at the same time, one was trying to create a community of interest within that area or region—or whatever one wants to call it—one would have even

369
greater problems. I can speak about Cumbria with authority. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that Cumbria's links are obviously with the North West and follow the west coast mainline and the M.6. That is true, but north of Shap, people look to Newcastle whereas south of Shap, people look to Manchester—or even to Warrington, if I may dare say that to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. There is a division between the two. It would be difficult to find the right constituency into which to transfer the electors of Cumbria. I imagine that that could be true of all areas.
Therefore, I suggest that it is not necessary to look for a particular community of interest within any particular region, desirable though that may be, and that one should simply try to make the constituencies the right size, with the right number of electors and Members. We do not want to see these regions being used and being given greater validity and greater authority so that it can later be argued that it is appropriate that those are the areas that should be used for the regional parliaments, regional assemblies, or whatever.
As I said, I have no intention of moving Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, but this is a matter to which I intend to return later. Meanwhile, I thank the noble Lord for his assurances about the undesirability of including the words "unitary authority". I hope that the unitary authorities will be happy with the noble Lord's expressed view that they are not geographical entities. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 42.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 not moved.]
The Earl of Dartmouth The Earl of Dartmouth moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 7, line 41, column 3, leave out ("7") and insert ("8").
The noble Earl said: I am conscious that I shall probably be trespassing on the goodwill of the Committee in moving this amendment. However, the anomaly in the Bill which I am seeking to draw to the Government's attention is of significant concern to people living in the region of Yorkshire and Humberside. Earlier in our Committee proceedings, I disclosed my interest in that region in the European elections and in the system of election which appertains thereto.
The Yorkshire and Humberside region covers nearly 6,000 square miles. It contains large areas of social deprivation, especially in the former urban county of South Yorkshire, 85 per cent. of which has development area or enterprise zone status. Even taking the region as a whole, it has a per capita income of only about nine-tenths of the European Union average. However, under the schedules to the Bill, of all the regions in the United Kingdom, Yorkshire and Humberside has the largest number of electors per Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps I may make the same point in a more telling way: Yorkshire and Humberside has the smallest number of MEPs—namely; seven—allocated to it in relation to its electoral population of 3.8 million. The purpose of this amendment is to correct that
370
injustice. In so doing the noble Lord the Minister will earn the lasting gratitude of people resident in Yorkshire and Humberside. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl makes me an offer that I cannot refuse except with difficulty. This matter develops from the scheme I sought to set out earlier. The number of seats to which the United Kingdom is entitled is fixed. We are entitled to 87 Members—incidentally, the same as Italy and France—and no more. If we give the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which the noble Earl contends is presently a disfavoured region, one extra MEP, that MEP must be taken from another region. Someone more unkind than I may invite the noble Earl to specify which region should give up the prize of an MEP to be transferred to Yorkshire and Humberside. I am far too kind to ask that question.
England has 71 of the 87 MEPs. Schedule 1 sets out the arithmetical mechanistic calculation which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has accurately described. We have sought to get the ratio of electors to MEP as nearly as possible the same for each region. That calculation can only ever produce one result. Yorkshire and Humberside would be over-represented if I took the route that the noble Earl invites me to take. I hope that I have explained the position fairly. I shall not ask the noble Earl to specify the happy candidate that must give up one MEP.
Lord Henley: Before the Minister sits down and my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps the noble Lord with his government-issue calculator and the authority of the Government can tell the Committee about the variations between all of the English regions. Can he say how many electors there are per MEP in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Obviously, there must be a degree of variation between all of the English regions and the other parts of the United Kingdom. I should be interested to know how large is that variation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not have to hand a list of every variation in every constituency. Should the noble Lord wish it, a list can be provided without any great difficulty. I am aware that in the nature of things there are divergencies, although they are not large. As I see a number of noble Lords nodding it may assist if I send a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and place copies in the Library.
The Earl of Dartmouth: I was present for the earlier part of these gripping proceedings. I am well aware that the 87 Members of the European Parliament have been allocated by the European Union and that that figure is not readily susceptible to change. As a chartered accountant I have some familiarity with the figures. I have to hand the very list to which the Minister referred. However, the Committee will he glad to hear that I have no intention of going through it now.
The Minister referred earlier to this matter being a straightforward arithmetical calculation made by a computer without any particular judgment being made

371
upon it. I believe that, as in the drafting of the Bill, the calculation has been made in a totally direct and objective manner, just as Ernie picks out premium bond winners, or so one is told. It follows that there are certain anomalies thrown up, not least the disadvantaged area of Yorkshire and Humberside. Perhaps one should look at London where I was born. No one should accuse me of being anti-London. On the contrary, I regard London as being both a locomotive of the British economy and a jewel to the western world. London currently has an allocation of 10 MEPs, each representing 494,000 electors. If that number was reduced to nine the number of electors per Member would be 548,000. That is only 5,000 electors more than the current electorate of each MEP in Yorkshire and Humberside. I am not a Government Minister and it is not for me to make decisions. However, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to this anomaly despite the objectivity of the computer.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. I am a little surprised to hear the noble Earl suggest that one MEP should be taken away from London. As someone who hopes to become a representative of the Yorkshire region, surely the region from which he suggests there should be a deduction is the region that includes Lancashire.
The Earl of Dartmouth: I am not sure that I entirely follow the noble Lord's point. I do not suggest that an MEP should be removed from London. I simply draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that despite the objectivity of the computer these anomalies arise.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may assist my noble friend and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I have now found the answer to the question that I put to the Minister. That answer appears in a research paper prepared by the Library of another place. Page 36 makes clear that my noble friend has a point. The average electorate per MEP in Yorkshire and Humberside is 543,000. As my noble friend suggests, it would be unfair to take one away from the North West because that region has an electorate per MEP of 520,000. The United Kingdom average is approximately 508,000, whereas London is a mere 494,000. I understand that there must be some variation between the regions and that mathematically it is impossible to do it any other way, but there is a degree of disparity between Yorkshire and Humberside and, for example, London and others in terms of numbers.
The Earl of Dartmouth: I thank my noble friend for his telling and most helpful intervention. The boundaries under this system inevitably give rise to anomalies and unfairness, of which this is merely one example. I commend it to the Minister for consideration at his leisure. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments of Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, leave out lines 22 to 26.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 46 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47. In one way Amendment No. 46 is a broad brush probing amendment; in other words, it seeks to leave out a sub-paragraph and asks the Minister, "Please, what does your sub-paragraph mean?" However, the second amendment goes a little further. I believe that I may be able to help the Minister.
The Committee may be assisted if I explain my difficulty in regard to the sub-paragraph. It reads:
"Regulations under this paragraph shall, in relation to an election in an electoral region in Great Britain, make provision for the nomination of registered parties, including provision requiring a nomination to be accompanied by a list of candidates numbering no more than the MEPs to be elected for that region".
What strikes me as odd is the wording "make provision for the nomination of registered parties". One wonders what that means. It is followed by the word "including". Does it mean "including the list"? If so, what else is included? Is this some kind of failsafe provision in case something happens to the Registration of Political Parties Bill? Can the Government in some way bring in a provision by this route?
I believe that my second amendment makes the point clear. However, I suspect that it contains a drafting problem which no doubt the Minister will point out in due course. The amendment is consistent with the previous amendment and deletes the word "registered".
My second amendment, Amendment No. 47, would make the sub-paragraph read:
"Regulations under this paragraph shall, in relation to an election in an electoral region in Great Britain, make provision for the nomination from each party of a list of candidates".
I accept that that should probably be "from each registered party of a list of candidates", but that seems clearly what is going to happen. The party managers in an area or the candidates—currently, it is supposed to be the candidate and his agent, so I am not sure whether it is to be all the candidates in the list and their agents or their agent—will go along and launch their nomination papers. There is no provision currently for the nomination of a party; it is the nomination of a person with a party label.
I understand that even the changes proposed to be made to what goes on the ballot paper, such as symbols and so on, do not take away from that. It is the nomination of an individual who will stand for the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, or whatever. It is quite clear. I would have expected the wording to be, "for the nomination from each registered party of a list of candidates". In other words, one goes along and nominates a list of candidates. I wonder about the words, "nomination of registered parties". Is there some significance? That is what I am trying to glean from the Minister.
I hope I have explained the position adequately. It is quite complicated, as I found when trying to work out what to say. I hope I have made myself clear because I am puzzled as to why there are these additional words about the registered parties, including provision requiring a nomination. I am interested to know why these words appear. They seem unnecessary. The Bill would not be any the poorer—in fact it might be clearer—if they were not there. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the way the noble Lord developed his questions. It partly relates to the question the noble Lord put to me yesterday, as did the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, as to whether or not it was anticipated that on the ballot there would be a list of names as well as the party name. This contemplates that situation. That is to say, paragraph (3B) of Schedule 2, on page 8 of the Bill, requires that a party be nominated. Also, hand in hand with the nomination of the registered party, there would have to be a list of candidates, the list being limited numerically to not more than the number of MEPs it is possible to elect. This deals with the point the noble Lord raised yesterday.
I deviate slightly. The reason we wish the phrase "registered parties" to appear is that it is dependent on the Registration of Political Parties Bill, which is making good progress in another place. Committee stage has already been completed, so there is no doubt that the Bill will receive Royal Assent. So this is in no way a fallback in case the Registration of Political Parties Bill does not get through. An extremely helpful consequence of the Registration of Political Parties Bill is that we shall then be able to avoid the mischief about which the party of the noble Lord has rightly complained in the past and about which the Liberal Democrats have rightly complained because, if we have registered political parties, we will not be able to have "Literal Democrats" or "Conversatives", which are intended to mislead and sometimes do produce some feeling of "We was robbed" among various parties. I hope that that explanation is clear and that it satisfies the noble Lord's complaints or questions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I thank him too for changing "complaints" to "questions", because they were not complaints. They were questions. I believed that I had reasonably placed myself in the mindset of this new system but, clearly, I was not quite in it enough. I see the point about needing to nominate a registered party because the party name will be at the head of the column, so to speak, and people will be asked to vote for the party. I understand that and I am grateful for the explanation and for the information about the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I am pleased to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 31, at end insert (": and
(b) provide that any candidate selected to fill a vacancy from a party's list shall be a member of that party at the time of his selection to till the vacancy.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the gremlins must have got at this amendment because I rather suspect the Minister is going to tell me that it is wrongly placed. I suspect that it may relate to a previous draft of the Bill; I wonder if I have the right draft. In any event, I know what I mean and I suspect that the Minister knows what I mean because we discussed this issue in relation to the Welsh Bill.
The problem I am trying to overcome is this. In the event of someone who has been elected either dying or resigning, the way I understand the list to work here, as it will in Scotland and Wales, is that the next person on the list standing for that party who failed to be elected would, if that person was willing, be returned as the Member. There would be no need for a by-election. That is fine.
But what happens if, two years later, Joe Bloggs, let us call him, having been nominated to the list and having failed to be elected, there is a death. His is the next name but he has left the political party that nominated him. It seems to me rather daft—I believe that the Bill would inevitably lead to this—that he would then find himself as the Member of the European Parliament for the party he had just left, with no obligation to do the decent thing and fall on his sword, so to speak. He would happily go off to Brussels and join the other party despite the fact that he had been in the list of the party whose seat it was.
We discussed this matter on the Welsh Bill. The noble Lord brought forward an amendment at about the same time that I put down an amendment to get round the difficulty. As I see it, that has not happened here. I do not believe that the Minister can accept my amendment because it is wrongly placed, but I hope that he will acknowledge that this is a difficult problem and will come forward with an amendment at the next stage to deal with it. I am sure that we all agree that we are faced with an entirely unfair proposition.
There is the related issue of the person who is elected and then decides to abandon the party. Currently, we take the view that that person was elected as the individual for that constituency and that is that. However, if we move to party lists and party systems, that nice argument cannot apply. I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to that. I know that in the Welsh Bill we decided, at least in Committee, that we would not address the matter although the Minister did address the problem I am attempting to deal with here. I would be grateful if he could give me his advice on where the Government stand with regard to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and what might happen in the circumstances I have outlined.
Earl Russell: I can understand why the party of the noble Lord believes that it may be worth putting forward this amendment. His final remarks crystallised the

375
suspicion that had been forming in my mind as he was speaking that this should be known as the "Temple-Morris amendment".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not unless the noble Lord had the gift of prophecy, or at least serendipity. I take the points that the noble Lord made because I believe that they are soundly based. Perhaps I may offer this solution which the Government have in mind, at least in part. If there is a vacancy, as the noble Lord rightly says, arising from death or resignation of the candidate originally elected on a party list, that will be filled by the next eligible person on the relevant party list. Of course, he is quite right. One has to include the description "eligible and willing person on the party list". We are quite at one there.
If the person whose death or resignation caused the vacancy was originally elected as an independent, or if the relevant party list has been exhausted, then a by-election would be held. That is the general way that the system works in jurisdictions which have a similar regime to the one that we propose here.
It would of course be wrong if the person filling the vacancy, on the example given by the noble Lord, had left the original party and was in his own party or in a completely different party after the election. That is a potential problem. What we propose has been set out in an Answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place given by my honourable friend Mr. Howarth. We propose to make regulations under the Bill. That will require the regional returning officer to work down the party list to find the first eligible and willing candidate to fill the vacancy. I have dealt with that already.
There will, however, be an additional hurdle. The Registration of Political Parties Bill creates the position of a nominating officer in each party. The nominating officer or his representative, on behalf of each party, will have to signify that at the relevant date, which is triggered in the circumstances that the noble Lord posited, the candidate remains an approved candidate of the party concerned.
The question of an elected member who wishes to leave his party to join another party or his own party is different. That is a matter that should be dealt with in the usual way; if one is elected one cannot then be deselected or expelled merely because one has changed one's party allegiance. I take the point that the noble Lord put foremost in his question, and that is the way that we intend to deal with it. It means that the party can set up the additional hurdle so that one does not have absurd situations of the sort that the noble Lord feared. I hope that that is helpful.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I think we agreed about someone changing his party after he was elected. I think we agreed in the Welsh Bill that parties would just have to live with that. I think I have come to the view that on this Bill we probably have to do so as well.
376
I am pleased to hear that the matter will be put into regulations. My only concern about the rules which the Minister outlined is that it is the nominating person from the party who decides whether the party still wants the individual to be on its list. My concern about that is fairly obvious. There is a difference between someone who leaves say, the Conservative Party, and someone who remains inside the Conservative Party and who falls out of favour with the people running and controlling the party, and so being in a position to influence the nominating officer.
I am giving the Conservative Party as an example so as to be fair to everyone else. A similar situation could occur in the Labour Party, and—dare I say?—has occurred to a large degree in the selection of individuals who are allowed to present themselves as candidates for the Scottish parliament, where at least two Members of the other place have been judged to be unfit to be members of the Scottish parliament, although they have been reasonable Members of the other place for over 20 years. We will leave that aside. That is my reservation.
The Minister knows that I have that reservation. I would rather that it were simply membership of the party so that the parties would not be able to decide that someone had become too difficult a customer and could be ditched. I worry about that just as I worry about the closed list. That is a minor worry. I ask the Minister, whether it be in this Bill, the Welsh Bill or his colleagues on the Scottish Bill, to consider that worry and to ask themselves whether, in the interests of democracy and looking to the future, it might not be wiser just to make it membership of the party.
I would rather see the Minister's proposition on the face of the Bill. It is, after all, going to be on the face of the Welsh Bill. This Bill is not nearly as long as the Welsh Bill. Another two or three lines in this Bill would not come amiss. If they were there, we would all be clear as to how the system would work. Will the Minister perhaps reflect on that matter to see whether it would be possible to put it, as it will be in the Welsh Bill, and, I trust, in the Scottish Bill, on the face of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill? However, with the assurances that I have been given. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 69 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have three points. I think that the Minister answered one of my questions. I shall put the matter this way rather than put down a probing amendment. I am looking at the filling of vacancies and the question of by-elections. I was going to ask about the circumstances in which by-elections would occur, but I have had the answer that I thought I would get. I take it that when it comes to a by-election in one of these enormous seats, it will be run as—dare I say it?—a first-past-the-post election. I should be grateful for confirmation that I have worked out the system correctly.

377
Lines 15 and 16 of page 8 provide that regulations will be made about the limitation of election expenses, and then:
"(including expenses incurred in relation to a general election as a whole)".
We have not, heretofore, in this country regulated the expenses incurred in relation to a general election as a whole. I know that these are issues currently under discussion by the Neill Committee. Do I take it that the Government are just being prepared in case Neill suggests that there should be limits, or have the Government already decided that there should be limits? I should be grateful for some advice on that.
My next question might be in the way of a "daft laddie" question. One of the problems—people complained when I did it to them—about a Bill which is devoted entirely to amending a previous piece of legislation is that one has to look backwards and forwards. What lawyers describe as a Keeling schedule might have been handy here.
When I go to line 6 on page 10 I see £200 substituted for £5,000. I presume that that is the deposit. I cannot for the life of me see the deposit-saving percentage anywhere. That leads me to another question. I presume the deposit is for the party's vote.
I appreciate that it is always difficult to be asked questions on clause stand part. So if the Minister cannot find the pieces of paper and follow my questions—I am giving him a little time to do that—I shall fully understand if he writes to me. It would be easier, especially for the non-lawyers among us, if we had Keeling schedules for Bills of this nature. I hope that the Government Chief Whip is taking note of that request.
Lord Renton: I am shocked at the possibility of six Members, for example, in the East Midlands having to represent the whole of that large and well populated area when it could be divided into six constituencies with each of the Members elected responsible therefore for a particular part of that area.
I have been through the whole of the schedule. I shall not weary the Committee with my proposals for splitting up each of the areas, or regions as they are called. I shall just take the East Midlands. There the first constituency could consist of Derbyshire and Derby; the second, Leicester and Leicestershire; the third, Lincolnshire; the fourth, Northamptonshire; the fifth, Nottinghamshire and the County of Nottingham; and then Rutland could be a separate constituency. That makes six constituencies, each Member having responsibility for a particular part of the region. That is so much more sensible and democratic. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind about this, bearing in mind that the proposal is capable of improvement. I know that it means getting away with party lists for a region. I understand that that is what is intended. But having fought and won 10 general elections starting in 1945, I have to tell the Committee that generally 70 per cent. of the electorate voted, of whom no more than 10 per cent. were paid up members of the various parties; and no more than another 20 per cent. were by nature and habit party minded people, although not paid-up
378
members. That meant that less than half of the 70 per cent. who voted were party politically minded. However, under this system they would have to become so; and I think that it is absurd.
We have always had party members who were somewhat off-beat and independent—and jolly good luck to them. I see one or two in this House at present who served in that way in another place. We occasionally had independent Members elected for a constituency where a party was well organised and had produced a Member for some years.
If the Government wish to take any pride in democracy and the responsibility of elected Members of the European Parliament being answerable to the people in the county or town—or a combination of county and town—where they were elected, the Government should think again about the matter. We shall not finalise the Bill for several months. There is plenty of time for the Government to do so in the Long Recess. I implore them to think in more democratic terms.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: On past occasions, we have debated the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not wish to be unduly repetitive. We have a fixed number of MEPs. In England a fixed number has been divided into the number of electors. The injunction in the Bill is that in each region the number of MEPs should be reasonably proportionate to the population.
The regions have been chosen because they are existing, established regions currently used by government offices for the regions, and to be used in the future for the regional development agencies. The only difference is that Merseyside has been added to the North West because it was too small to form an electoral region on its own.
We have debated these matters on earlier occasions—not least the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. If one goes for a proportional representation system—I accept that the noble Lord disagrees with that in principle—one has to have a minimum level of population in the region.
I deal now with the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. First-past-the-post is retained for the by-election—really so that the noble Lord may part from this Bill somewhat happy. As regards expenses, we propose to wait for the Neill Committee to report. That is a sensible way of dealing with matters. In respect of percentage, the figure is 2.5 per cent.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we take the Statement on the energy review, I should like to take

379
this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of others.

Energy Review
5.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade on the energy review. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Government's Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and the preliminary conclusions upon which I am now consulting.
"The review was set up following the crisis in the coal industry last autumn, amid claims that the electricity market was rigged against coal. In response, the Government set up a wide-ranging review of electricity generation.
"The review has looked widely at the issues, with the assistance of independent consultants, about 150 outside representations and meetings with some 40 parties. It has confirmed that there are indeed serious distortions in the electricity market. As a result, prices have been higher than they should have been. New gas stations have entered the market, benefiting from these high prices, displaced coal and failed to bring prices down for the consumer.
"Without action to address these distortions, prices for consumers will continue to be higher than necessary and diversity and security of supply will suffer.
"Some have pressed the Government to go further and actually guarantee a specific share of the electricity market for UK deep-mined coal. The Government have given careful consideration to these and all other proposals. We do not, however, believe that to identify a defined share of the market regardless of other considerations would be the right course to take. Our aim is to put all fuels on a level playing field, and not to give priority to any one. We do not propose to subsidise any part of the UK coal industry. Coal producers themselves have asked for fairness, not favours.
"I must therefore make it clear, against a background of speculation in the press, that there is no deal with the generators by which the Government have offered to introduce new policies in return for the generators buying British coal. Neither are the Government's policy conclusions in any way conditional on them doing so. This, and the fact that coal purchase decisions are a matter for them, has been made clear to the generators.
"I have asked the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply and his views are set out in our consultation document. He has identified significant problems both in the electricity pool and in the market structure. These, and the high prices arising in the market, have been among the factors encouraging the growth of gas in electricity generation at the expense of coal. He has advised me that action is needed to reform the trading arrangements, so that all plant plays a full role in competition, and to address the market power of the major generators. He also sees new entry as important. We agree with him that reform of the market is needed.
"The review has confirmed that the main objective of our energy policy should be secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. This includes our concern to achieve environmental improvements.
"Taking account of the advice we have received from the DGES, we intend to achieve this objective by creating a competitive electricity market, founded on diverse fuel sources, providing secure supplies and, into the bargain, delivering significantly lower electricity prices to customers.
"The Government are therefore making the following proposals to remedy the market distortions. We will promote competition by reform of the wholesale electricity trading arrangements and by pressing forward with competition in electricity supply. We will seek practical opportunities for divestment of coal-fired plant by the major generators. We will establish separate licensing of distribution and supply and ensure fair trade in electricity with our European partners. We will ensure that all generators are fairly remunerated for the services they provide to the grid. Taken together, these measures should remove the current distortions which work against coal.
"Market distortions disadvantage consumers, but they also have an impact on fuel use. This could put our energy policy at risk both from high prices and from the loss of diversity and security which the squeezing out of coal and the consequent loss of coal-fired power stations would produce. Projections by our independent consultants, based on the current operation of the market, suggest that gas-fired generation could rise sharply, accounting for over 75 per cent. of our electricity within 20 years. In our view, a properly functioning market could well produce a different result.
"There are also technical issues arising from the growing use of gas on the grid. Our independent electrical engineering consultants report that the present arrangements have failed to resolve them. The DGES has said that better arrangements are needed. We propose to take this forward.
"There is a wide reform agenda to pursue. This will take time; our aim is that once it is achieved the market will operate in a fully competitive way. But the risk is that before market reform is complete, fuel choices will be distorted and diversity and security of supply will suffer. Therefore, during this period, we

381
propose to apply a stricter energy policy to power station consents. In fact, significant market entry is still likely. Additional gas-fired power stations in various stages of development, equal to about 10 per cent. of system capacity and owned by competitors of the major generators, need no further authorisation.
"Although the DGES has reservations about restrictions on consents, he recognises the Government's responsibility for energy policy, including diversity issues. In my view, it is of primary importance to avoid the pre-emptive destruction of our scope for diversity and security while reforms are yet to feed through.
"The new consents policy will be in place only while our reform agenda is being addressed. I have asked the DGES to keep me informed of progress in addressing the competition issues. I would expect the new consents policy to be relaxed when, on the basis of his advice, we conclude that our reforms have been undertaken and the distortions removed.
"I turn now to the details of the proposed policy. We propose to approach new and pending applications for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 on the basis that new natural gas-fired generation would normally be inconsistent with our energy policy concerns relating to diversity and security.
"However, combined heat and power projects have environmental and other benefits which may outweigh those concerns. They would normally do so where the project is properly sized to meet on-site or nearby heat and electricity requirements and to deliver high efficiency, though each case will be examined on its merits. It will be especially important that the relevant heat and electricity uses are clearly identified.
"Other applications likely to support our environmental objectives without compromising energy security or diversity would normally be consistent with the Government's energy policy aims. They would be likely to include renewable energy projects, including energy from waste, in support of the Government's intention to launch a strong drive on renewables; proposals using clean coal technology; and fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment.
"We would take the same energy policy approach when considering existing and new notifications under Section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 relating to the construction of gas-fired power stations. This would apply whether or not consent had been given under the Electricity Act.
"The consultation document gives further details of our proposals, including on notifications under Section 14(2) of the Energy Act 1976, dual firing power stations and black start units.
"Decisions on individual applications for consents under Section 36 of the Electricity Act and notifications under Section 14 of the Energy Act will take into account all the circumstances of the particular case. In particular, in applying the new
382
policy to cases which are already before me, I would take care to weigh carefully the impact on the interests of the promoters against the wider public interest.
"The policy I am proposing today should lead to substantially lower electricity prices by promoting genuine competition and efficiency. It would also safeguard diversity and security while we, with the regulator, press on with making the market work. There have been suggestions that in the absence of restrictions, real falls in wholesale electricity prices of at least 10 per cent. should be possible in the medium term. My hope and expectation is that prices will in fact fall under our proposed policy by even more than this. While the new consents policy is in place, I have asked the DGES to continue to monitor electricity prices and alert me to any further concerns he may have.
"Coal purchase decisions are, as I have said, a matter for the generators. But if UK coal, including Scottish and Welsh coal, can be competitive on price and other terms of supply, I see no reason why it cannot have a very positive future in the electricity generation market. Achieving that success is a matter for the management and workforce of coal producers.
"Decisions on any pit closures would also be a matter for coal producers. However, in the event of any closures taking place, this Government are firmly committed to taking early action to put effective regeneration programmes in place. Consideration will be given to establishing a regeneration fund to help affected communities.
"My right honourable friends are reviewing separately the planning policies for opencast coal developments in England, Scotland and Wales in the light of the pre-election 10-point plan, environmental and local concerns and relevant conclusions of this review. They expect to announce proposals following the final outcome of this review.
"Safeguarding the environment is a priority for the Government. Sulphur dioxide emissions from the major electricity generators in England and Wales are already programmed to fall to 365 kilotonnes in 2005. This target, and significant interim reductions, must be achieved.
"We believe that coal-fired generators should take all reasonable steps to run their plant with flue gas desulphurisation more than their plant without it. And major coal-fired generators should be encouraged to have at least one FGD-equipped plant.
"Against this background, the Environment Agency will be discussing with generators its proposals for revision of emission limits. We expect these discussions to encompass the implications of this announcement, such as for the likely lifetime and usage of coal-fired power stations and policy on flue gas desulphurisation.
"On climate change, the Government remain committed to achieving their targets. Our policy remains consistent with a decline in carbon emissions from the electricity generating industry. We shall be consulting this summer on meeting our legally

383
binding Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. cut in greenhouse gas emissions and on how we can move beyond that towards our own aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.
"The proposals I have made today are open for consultation until Monday 20th July, and we intend to announce our conclusions shortly thereafter. Until then, I propose to defer decisions on power station consents and notifications; where decisions are necessary and should not be deferred, I propose to apply the proposals announced today, subject to the circumstances of each particular case.
"A consultation document, with full details of our proposals, is published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.28 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. We on these Benches are not surprised by the content of the Statement as it is largely a reiteration of the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. That stems from a romantic attachment to the coal industry.
According to the report of the Select Committee in another place, it took the Government six months to realise that they did not have an energy policy. It has taken them a further six months to make this Statement, which is entirely "stopgap". The only decision made appears to be to continue the Section 36 moratorium, except for CHP projects. Does the Minister agree that, yet again, there is this short-term decision which does not allow industry to undertake long-term planning? When will the Government make a substantive decision?
The electricity pool trading arrangement has already delivered a 21 per cent. reduction in the cost of electricity but, at the same time, emissions have also been severely reduced. However, the pool can clearly benefit from further improvements in the light of experience. There is no indication as to how that may be achieved although it is the key policy initiative that is required.
Unfortunately, the Government do not appear to have grasped or understood the basic laws of physics and chemistry. Gas turbines are "internal combustion engines" which are thermo-dynamically more efficient than steam driven coal-fired equipment. Indeed, some gas turbine plants can be 60 per cent. efficient. The ratio of hydrogen to carbon is much more advantageous with natural gas than with coal. As a result, more water and less harmful CO2 is produced when burning natural gas. In addition, coal contains sulphur which produces harmful SO2 emissions, although they have fallen overall by 25 per cent. at least with the dash for gas.
I am sure that the Minister will accept those facts. But does he agree that, as the policy increases coal burn, it will also increase SO2 and CO2 emissions? The SO2 emissions can be cleaned with expensive FGDS
384
equipment, but also there is nothing that the Minister can do about CO2 emissions. In that context, does the Minister agree that paragraph 27 of the Statement is extremely weak? It states:
"We believe that coal-fired generators should take all reasonable steps to run their plant with flue gas desulphurisation more than their plant without it".
Will the Minister assure the House that the Environment Agency will not be allowed to relax emission limits?
The Section 36 moratorium is not to be lifted but instead, the Government will generally find that,
"new natural gas-fired generation would normally be inconsistent with our energy policy concerns relating to diversity and security".
Does the Minister agree that that flies in the face of the considered view of the Labour-dominated Select Committee in another place? Its recent report states quite clearly that diversity and security of supply is not a problem. Indeed, if anything, matters have improved over recent years. Does the Minister agree also that that will result in a field day for lawyers attempting to secure Section 36 approvals? I have already heard from one generating company which is considering legal advice and action.
The Government will claim that they have increased the market for coal, but what is to stop the generators from importing more economical, low-sulphur fuel from abroad? In any event, they may have to import some coal to mix with high sulphur UK deep-mined coal in order to meet the SO2 emissions limits per unit of electricity. That will increase CO2 emissions still further.
Why should the generators decide to act like turkeys voting for Christmas and agree to sell their moth-balled power stations to others, desirable though it may be for competition? To be quite blunt, what will be in it for them?
In the Statement, it is claimed that wholesale electricity prices will fall by at least 10 per cent. in the medium term. That is the spin which will be given to the Statement. But how is the "medium term" defined and what do the Government understand to be the current wholesale price?
The Government do not appear to understand the damage that they are inflicting on British industry, including the coal industry, with their policy, or lack of one. A highly polluting sunset industry is being supported at the expense of a clean, new, high technology industry. Does the Minister not understand that more employment and inward investment is being put in jeopardy than can be saved in the coal industry?
This Statement is extremely disappointing because the Government have done absolutely nothing to dispel uncertainty in the industry. Does the Minister agree that in the first 12 months of office it would have been better to have arranged for the overhaul of the electricity pool and the setting of durable emission limits, and then allow market forces to provide the security, diversity and sustainable energy at the lowest cost?
5.35 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Before I comment on it and

385
ask questions, I should remind the House that I have worked in the energy sector for many years and am still actively involved therein.
The Government have had to face a very difficult task in tackling the problem of reviewing energy sources for power generation. They have had to try to reconcile on the one hand their desire to improve the prospects for coal with which, in view of my past activities, I fully sympathise and to do that by removing the distortions which they have identified in the market place and to aim for diversity of supply. But, at the same time, there is a need to avoid undue interference in market competition and to safeguard the environment. Those are three very difficult issues to reconcile.
Unlike the noble Earl, I feel that on the whole the Government have made a reasonable attempt to deal with the matter but there is still a long way to go. There are a number of questions which may well be asked. First—and I am with the noble Earl on this—I have pressed on other occasions for the Government to come out with an overall energy policy. This is one part of the energy scene, albeit a major one. But it is important that there should be an overall statement of energy policy within which these various individual reviews can be considered.
Secondly, there is the question of the review of the pool. That will be a very complex issue. How long will it take? The longer it takes, the more uncertainty it will create within the electricity generation and supply industry. Therefore, that is a review which it was undoubtedly necessary to carry out but it is extremely important that the results should be applied as soon as possible.
The Statement referred to the divestment of coal-fired power stations, which the noble Earl mentioned. I should like to know on what terms these will be offered in the market place. The plants are all written down. They were written down substantially at the time of privatisation and have probably been written down a good deal more since. Will they be offered at something reflecting their written-down values or at what the generators disposing of them consider to be their market values? Obviously that will be a key issue on whether those plants can be operated effectively and competitively on coal.
Then there is the interim period during which the consents will be restricted. I was extremely pleased to note the exception made for combined heat and power plants. But that period of restriction will obviously be undesirable if projected beyond a relatively limited period. The Government accept, by the general wording of the report, that that will be an interim measure. It is linked with the other measures which have been mentioned and so it is important to have some idea of how long that interim period will last.
Finally, on the question of the environment, great emphasis is made in the Statement of the Government's continued commitment to their environmental objectives. As regards coal, its longer term prospects are closely linked with clean coal technology to which reference is made in the report. But there is no indication of the way in which the development of clean
386
coal technology will be advanced. In my opinion what is now needed is a large-scale demonstration plant. As far as I am aware, there is no provision made for that. Is this something which the Government have in mind?
5.39 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose contribution to the coal industry is one of great repute and well deserved. I am most grateful for the physics lesson given by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. That takes me back. It is important that he should explain such matters. I shall attend his tutorials in due course. This subject is not my main remit in the Department of Trade and Industry but I am grateful for the thought that he has applied to his response to the Statement.
To talk in terms of a romantic attachment to the coal industry is a little misplaced. Human tragedies are associated with the dramatic run-down of the coal industry. Not so long ago there were 280,000 miners; today there are just over 12,000. That is associated with the collapse of communities, aspirations, desires and hopes. We should not dissociate ourselves from that. To talk of a romantic attachment to the coal industry is not the way that I should have thought we would want to consider these matters.
The noble Earl said that gas turbines are more efficient than coal and cleaner. We as a Government have made it clear that our proposals are not inconsistent with our targets. The noble Earl said that paragraph 27 of the Statement is weak. He asked me to assure the House that the Environment Agency would not relax the limits. The Environment Agency is an independent body. It will discuss these matters with the generators and it will set the limits. As I have said, our proposals are not inconsistent with the targets that we have already established.
The noble Earl asked why generators should buy United Kingdom coal. That is a commercial matter for the generators. Our proposals are designed—I think the noble Lord missed this—to "derig" a rigged market. We believe that the United Kingdom will be able to compete. The United Kingdom coal industry has repeatedly said that it wants fairness and not favours, as was mentioned in the Statement. The noble Earl asked about the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee. It is not appropriate for me to give a considered answer to the points raised in that report. We shall do so in due course. That is in accordance with precedent.
The noble Earl asked many questions. I did my best to note them down but I was a little overcome. I believe he said that gas is a clean, high tech industry and our proposals would impair investment. However, new gas investment is effectively being subsidised by the consumer. That is hardly a sensible arrangement. I hardly noticed any comment from the noble Earl as regards the current unfairness and how the market is rigged against coal. The Statement mentions the evidence that the Government have relied on to come to that conclusion. It is noticeable that there was an

387
ambivalent response to the Statement by the shadow Secretary of State in another place when he shed some crocodile tears over coal. Yet at the same time the shadow Minister here sheds no crocodile tears and hardly refers to the value of the coal industry.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He is right to say that we face a difficult task. Securing a balance here is a formidable challenge. We have made a reasonable start to that. Some complaint was made about delay. The Opposition when in government imposed this incredibly complex and unfair system upon the energy industry of this country. Some were able to take advantage of it but others were not. Others were plainly disadvantaged. We seek a fair, unrigged market. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would share that view. He asked me how long the review will take. The DGES will announce details of the full review next month. I cannot go beyond that for obvious reasons.
The noble Lord asked about clean coal and a demonstration plant. We are working with the industry on relevant research and development but no firm proposals have yet been put forward for a demonstration plant. The most likely option is fundamentally American. The noble Lord has put his finger on an important point. We shall certainly look further into that issue. I am most grateful for his comments.
The noble Earl asked about the sale of mothballed plant. We have made it clear that we shall seek practical opportunities for divestment of coal-fired plant by the generators. They will, of course, seek a fair price for their mothballed assets.
I believe I have dealt with most of the points that were raised. I shall certainly examine what has been said. I thank both the noble Earl and the noble Lord for the contributions they have made this afternoon.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. As he said, this is an exceedingly difficult area and the problems which the present administration inherited are serious ones. Will my noble friend comment on some of the wilder observations which have been made over recent weeks, many of which are not particularly well informed? Will he request the Official Opposition to be absolutely clear about their position? Do they seriously expect to see the British coal industry completely eradicated and our highly technologically advanced mining engineering industry virtually wiped out in a world where vast quantities of coal will be burnt, and perhaps not burnt cleanly if there is no base on which to improve the technology?
Does my noble friend accept that the Government's efforts to provide a future for coal, and therefore a broader base for the British energy requirement, deserve to be applauded? One hopes that they will maintain their efforts not only to ensure that the playing field is level, but also to ensure that that field is clean and green.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I remember his clear dedication and
388
commitment over many years when we were both in another place to the welfare of the people who served in the coal industry.
I do not know where to start in relation to the wilder observations in the media. I shall not take up the time of the House in seeking to rebut such a wide, disparate and negative component of argument, if it may be so termed, as has been displayed over recent weeks.
We have been accused, even in this House today, of delay. But when one thinks of the inheritance to which my noble friend alluded, it takes time to begin to unravel those complexities and injustices. We have not received any evidence of a determination to deal with that position from the noble Earl today. I believe that it was his party's intention to cause severe injury to the coal industry. There were an amalgam of reasons for that, most of them ideological and certainly political. What we now seek to achieve is a policy that offers fair competition for all fuels and an end to the unfair discrimination against coal that has persisted for so long. We need a range of fossil and non-fossil sources. It would be wrong to see a total dependence on gas. So it is a balanced market with different fuels competing fairly within an environmental framework that has been set by the Government. I believe that that is the way forward. I thank my noble friend for his constructive observations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on bringing forward this Statement on energy policy, which is presently a very complex area. It exercises many minds up and down the country. I assure my noble friend that those of us who were brought up in mining areas and whose fathers were miners have no romantic attachment to the coal industry. However, we do realise that it is still an important part of our energy source and indeed has strategic value. Wars have not gone away forever. It would be very difficult to extract North Sea gas in a period of war, although it would be possible to extract coal if we had any deep coal mines left. So we have to examine the strategic value of coal as well as its existing commercial value.
I wish to ask my noble friend one or two questions about future assistance for the coal industry. It is not unrespectable for the Government to give assistance to a particular industry which has a value, both strategic and commercial, particularly since that industry has been denied finance for research over a long period of time. Do the Government intend to assist in alternative coal technologies such as the fluidised bed system of firing power stations? Are we to go in for gasification of coal, as they do in the United States? That would completely answer the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in relation to the overall efficiency of coal-fired gas turbines and natural gas. It is possible to gasify coal and use the gas in power stations to provide electricity. So there are some very good reasons why the coal industry should be supported and why we should bring it up to modern standards. One final important

389
question is: how many years of natural gas supply is still available to us? That ought to figure in the thinking of the Government and the country.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his contribution. I am aware of his familial background in relation to the coal industry. We served together in another place over many years.
My noble friend is right in saying that the coal industry remains a very important, indeed vital, energy source for this country. As he says, it has a strategic value. However, as I said earlier, the coal industry is not looking to the Government for subsidies or support of that kind. It is not looking for favours; it is looking for fairness.
So far as concerns alternative coal technology, that is an industry where a great deal of time and money has been spent on research and development. I am sure that will continue, and it is to be encouraged.
Fluidised bed technology is mainly a US technology, and is not to be disparaged for that reason. I have indicated the sort of progress that can be made in that regard. Gasification is an area where we should welcome proposals from the industry. I certainly do not claim to be nearly as expert in this field as the noble Earl with his background and his extraordinary knowledge of physics. But of course he is much younger than I am and learnt physics rather more recently.
I cannot tell my noble friend how many years of natural gas we have available. However, I shall be happy to write to him on the matter.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, why does the report ignore that part of the United Kingdom where energy prices are at their highest for both the consumer and commerce, a part of the United Kingdom with the greatest need for inward investment and with the greatest number of people per capita on social benefits? I refer to Northern Ireland.
There is a proposed link from Scotland to Northern Ireland in the power field. That policy will affect the Northern Ireland generators. Yet it would seem that there has been no mention of that, and no plan has been proposed. That will make it very difficult for people to invest in energy in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister explain where the future lies in that area?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is well aware of the noble Baroness's contribution to the affairs of Northern Ireland. She remains very much concerned about that part of our country. The way in which we deal with Northern Ireland in the context that we are discussing today is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and not the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that that department will take into account the points made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, speaking as a member of the science and technology sub-committee examining the management of nuclear waste, is the Minister prepared to comment on the Government's policy for future nuclear generation, bearing in mind
390
that it has an important part to play in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other carbons released into the atmosphere?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. Future nuclear generation is not dealt with in this report. We have no plans to develop that particular aspect of industry. No doubt it is an issue to which we shall return in due course in the context of energy policy.

Digital Images as Evidence: Science and Technology Committee Reports
5.59 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley Lord Craig of Radley rose to move, That this House take note of the reports of the Science and Technology Committee on Digital Images as Evidence (5th Report, HL Paper 64), and Digital Images as Evidence: Government Response (8th Report, HL Paper 121).
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate. The subject of our report, Digital Images as Evidence, led us into a far broader spectrum of topics than a purely scientific or technological scrutiny of digital systems might reveal. We therefore co-opted to our subcommittee a wide range of skills and expertise. We were most ably supported by a former Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; by a Bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester; and by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who has a remarkable wealth of knowledge of imaging and photography. They and our other co-opted member, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who is no stranger to our committee, brought knowledge and insight which were of the greatest value to us. I should like to put on record my appreciation and heartfelt thanks for the help, support and guidance which I enjoyed from them and all committee members.
As always, the Committee Office, and in particular Dr. Rolt, our Clerk, and Dr. Bradshaw, our special assistant, contributed greatly to the preparation and finalising of our report. As specialist adviser we had Mr. Chris Reed, Reader in Information Technology Law at Queen Mary and Westfield College. As his title suggests, he was most ably qualified, and we are grateful for his many contributions to our work.
Our meetings started in late October 1997. We set ourselves a tight timetable. We took all our evidence and considered our report in just over three months, which included the Christmas Recess. It was published in early February of this year.
One of the important drivers to getting our report completed was the new Data Protection Bill. We knew that the Government would be introducing it in the course of this Session, and in fact it appeared here on 16th January, as our report was being finalised. It cannot often happen that a Select Committee report will coincide with the early stages of an important Bill to which it is so closely related. The Data Protection Bill has to become law by October this year to give effect to the 1995 EC data protection directive. Our recommendations are therefore timely.
It is unfortunate that the very short notice of the date of this debate has precluded a number of committee members from participating tonight. I know that they regret this, as do I. In their absence, I shall do my best to highlight the main thrust of our recommendations.
We received an excellent response to our call for evidence and are most grateful to all those who, either orally or in writing, or both, provided us with the evidence we needed. We were also able to see for ourselves examples of some of the new technologies in use. Our visits to the City of London police, the Greater Manchester police and the Forensic Science Service, for example, were most ably organised and informative.
I do not propose to go through all of our report and recommendations in detail. Suffice it to say that they have been welcomed and generally supported by the Government. In only a couple of instances has there been some variation between us, and in the time available I shall concentrate on those. I should add that the committee is grateful for the way in which the Government have responded. In particular, we appreciate the trouble taken by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, at a very busy time for him, in replying in greater detail to those points which we felt had an impact on the new Data Protection Bill.
To appreciate the thrust of our recommendations, it is perhaps necessary to know why a digital image can be different from other captured and stored information. We have set out the facts in Chapter 2 of our report. The key point is that digital technology allows repetitive and identical replicas of text, still and motion pictures, and even sound to be generated from digitally stored information.
It is also becoming increasingly easy to modify or "doctor" such stored information. Without a comprehensive audit trail, it may not be possible to determine whether information captured at the start is the same as that which is being presented as evidence. We were interested in exploring whether this feature of digital technology would alter or affect the reliability and credibility of evidence which had been collected and/or held in digital format. We decided that our study should be centred on photographic-like images and bounded on one side by documents and on the other by closed circuit television (CCTV) and video. We also wished to explore how familiar those who used and relied on digital evidence were with the unique features of this relatively new technology. We have made a number of recommendations, which we hope the appropriate legal authorities will follow up.
One of the many implications of the use of digitally recorded images is that the erstwhile reliance in court on paper and photographic originals, or authenticated copies of these, will no longer always be feasible. For example, the national automated fingerprint identification system has no original paper source to retrieve as best evidence. Nor will there always be a digital original which recorded the scene or event. The digital camera which records a red traffic light infringement, for example, will download from its temporary store into a computer. The original captured
392
image in the camera's memory will be overwritten when a subsequent infringement is recorded. No visible or readable information will be available from it thereafter once it is overwritten.
However, provided that appropriate verification and authentication measures of digital material are in place, paper originals will rarely be necessary. Yet we found that there may still be reluctance to come to terms with this development. For that reason we recommended that the Government should encourage the appropriate legal authorities to draw greater attention to the fact that paper originals were rarely necessary. Although the Government agreed with this recommendation, they went on to comment that retention of the original digital file, captured from the original paper or other source, is highly desirable, if not essential. It seems that we still have some way to go before we can escape from a presumption that there will always be such a thing as a unique, original digital file. As we say in the summary of our report:
"many people think there will he difficulty in obtaining legal acceptance of digital images. And many who understand there is no legal problem fail to appreciate fully the potential for tampering that the technology creates. The perceived difficulties mean that opportunities are missed—a reluctance to use digital imaging technology or to dispose of paper records, for example—and the failure to understand fully the process means that too great a reliance can be placed on photographic or video evidence. The doubts and scepticism normally associated with unsubstantiated pieces of paper may be suspended when confronted with a very believable picture".
Yet that picture can be a fake, undetectable without an audit trail.
The other topic on which there was much agreement between the Select Committee and the Government, but some points of variance, was that of closed circuit television. We had not originally thought to widen our inquiry to issues of privacy and civil liberties—that is not normal for a committee considering science and technology—but the evidence we received made us realise the ubiquity of modern surveillance systems, and particularly closed circuit television. More and more of them cover our streets and other places to which the public has access. We were concerned to learn from some of our witnesses that public acceptance could be fragile. Approval for the use of surveillance in public places is important. It should be maintained and encouraged.
Systems which help to deter crime and assist the authorities to catch and prosecute criminals should be widely valued. But if the material which those systems record appears in the media, where it is often used to amuse and even titillate, public support for the intrusive nature of the systems may be lost. On that we are on all fours with the Government. However, they were reluctant to take up our recommendation to study the cost-effectiveness of the systems. Considerable sums of public money are being devoted to them. We should not be relying so much on anecdotal and subjective judgment to substantiate such expenditure. I do not feel that the Government's response to this recommendation, which we saw as part of the measures necessary to sustain and enhance public support for CCTV systems, was that convincing. Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General will agree with us.
For the most part, it was clear that the Government and our committee were of the same mind about most of the steps we recommended to keep public support strong. We recommended a number of measures to control the installation of surveillance systems and their recordings. We envisaged some form of statutory enforcement code of practice. We were concerned about the control of data matching. That is where the new Data Protection Bill is so important.
In the course of the Committee stage of that Bill I, along with other members of the Select Committee, tabled a probing amendment to satisfy ourselves that the Bill as drafted would provide strong and effective safeguards for the public. I am no lawyer and recognise the drafting difficulties of using non-technology-specific language to achieve the desired results. Once again we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the care with which they rehearsed their views and their confidence that the Bill as drafted would provide the safeguards that our Select Committee was seeking.
One of the difficulties is that the language of information technology is developing its own lexicon and dynamic; for example, extensive mark-up language—XML—will enable new software to be written which will select data and manipulate information in ways which had previously been impossible. Whether every new term and concept which is developed for information handling, matching and retrieval will be captured by the Bill, only time will tell. But it is encouraging that the strongly-held view of the committee on those intrusive aspects of the digital age find a close affinity in the Government's thinking and actions. I welcome that. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the reports of the Science and Technology Committee on Digital Images as Evidence (5th Report, HL Paper 64), and Digital Images as Evidence: Government Response (8th Report, HL Paper 121).—(Lord Craig of Radley.)
6.14 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I start by saying what a pleasure it was to sit under the chairmanship of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley who kept us in order and particularly restrained some of us from straying beyond our terms of reference, which is extremely easy to do.
I propose to speak mainly about the civil liberties aspects of our inquiry and the Data Protection Bill, presently under consideration in another place. But, first, as the title of our report speaks of Digital Images as Evidence, it is important to emphasise the enormous benefits which have arisen from digital imaging in the conduct of litigation and arbitration, particularly in the commercial field, in the building and shipping industries and others involving heavy documentation.
In our inquiry we focused principally on criminal cases and the problems relating to evidence in the context of digital imaging. My noble gallant friend Lord Craig spoke of our conclusions and I shall therefore
394
refrain from doing so. But it would be a pity if, because of those problems, the enormous benefits of this technique were put in question.
Discovery—the disclosure to other parties of documents held by one—involves copying vast quantities of papers many times for solicitors, barristers and the court. It involves a great weight and volume of paper. Where the originals are paper documents, they can now be scanned and converted to digital images on computer. The exchange of documents, instead of involving the transfer of much paper, can be achieved by exchanging disks. In the proceedings a computer operator can throw up on request, on screen, the documents in question which are then available for all to read. That has the additional advantage that members of the public in court are able to see the documents under discussion which, hitherto, has not been practicable.
Exactly the same advantages arise in criminal cases, such as those involving fraud, where heavy documentation is involved. I am not aware of any problems or difficulties arising which offset the advantages of using digital imaging techniques in those contexts. So the matters on which we concentrated in our inquiry, important though we believe them to be, represent only one aspect of the use of digital imaging in legal proceedings.
The Government, in their response to our report, reacted affirmatively to our main concerns in relation to the use of CCTV in places to which the public have free access. Much of the burden of ensuring that the system is not misused will lie on the Data Protection Commissioner under the new Data Protection Act. Control over capturing images, secure storage and use of them, is essential, but not easily achieved.
Mr. John Burrow, Chief Constable of Essex and chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Working Group on Data Protection, in his evidence to us, mentioned the strong public pressure for CCTV systems. He felt—and I agree—that at the moment there is confidence in its use, but he believed that that confidence is "fragile" and could be reversed. The effectiveness and confidence in CCTV would then be lost.
As we mentioned in our report, some have been used to raise money by selling to the media; the potential for making money out of their use is always there. It may be claimed that publication is in the public interest. By contrast, a picture may be used for blackmail and, in view of the ease of manipulating pictures, to create them for that purpose. Upon request it is possible on a screen to track someone walking alone to provide a measure of protection. It is therefore possible to track a suspect. It is possible for an operator to track someone he wishes to meet for legal or illegal purposes.
There was widespread concern at the publication on a television programme showing pictures captured on CCTV relating to the attempted suicide by Mr. Peck. If, as a result of celebrated court cases or for some other reason, the public become aware of the potential for misuse—for public entertainment or otherwise—of pictures captured on CCTV (and indeed of the ease with

395
which images can be modified to make them represent something which the original did not)—public confidence will be undermined. The present enthusiasm to see CCTV installed would then be converted to hostility and opposition.
A balance has to be struck between the right of the individual to the freedom of privacy and the right of an individual to go about his business free from molestation. CCTV inevitably represents an intrusion into privacy.
One of my main worries during our inquiry related to the increasing use of CCTV surveillance by private businesses engaging others to instal and operate the system. That presents a rather different situation from a system operated by the police who are accustomed to establishing surveillance systems appropriately controlled and operated by their own staff subject to the discipline of the force. It is not the directors of a retail shop who will be involved in operating the CCTV system, though no doubt they will have a responsibility for the installation of appropriate controls. It is therefore the system and those actually operating it to which any controls must directly apply. So the control of those operating the systems is crucial and far from easy.
A question arises as to whether the purpose of the surveillance is to be closely defined and the images used only for that defined purpose. For instance, for the avoidance of terrorist attacks, a system was installed to great effect in the City of London. Only eight entries to the controlled area were open and so many streets giving access were made one-way. Surveillance showed a number of delivery vans reversing up them. I saw them on the surveillance screens! They were caught for this traffic offence. Of course it may be said that this was all part of the security regime and the vans might have been trying to defeat the purpose of the ban on entry. But by use of number plate identification stolen cars were identified together with their occupants, and car theft was therefore brought within the scope of the system. So what started as an entirely acceptable system created in special circumstances has turned into general crime prevention. All this demonstrates the need for close supervision of the operators of CCTV systems with a view to ensuring that the public have confidence in them.
The Commissioner of Data Protection will need all the support of government they can give. With further advances in technology—and perhaps its misuse—government must be ready to intervene speedily. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will confirm that that would be the Government's intention should those circumstances arise.
In their response to our report and in the accompanying letter from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, published with it, the Government have been very supportive of most of the conclusions we reached. But the additional duties of the Commissioner of Data Protection, which I greatly welcome, will impose great burdens upon her. She must promote good practice, issue codes of practice and encourage others to do so. She may get involved in assessing processing of personal data for compliance.
396
Processing includes capture, storage and use of data, as well as destruction. She can require information if she suspects breach of the data protection principles and may enter premises to carry out inspections and indeed seizures.
These are all most welcome and will go far to satisfy and forestall public worries about digital imaging and CCTV. But the staff which the commissioner will require to carry out these new duties—additional to those of the registrar under the 1984 Act—would seem to be substantial and their effectiveness will depend on their high quality. The cost is likely to be substantial. Yet the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, under Financial Effects, says:
"The costs in a full year of the Data Protection Commissioner and his office, together with the Tribunal, are estimated to be £3.7 million at current prices".
Can this be right?
My concern is that the excellent arrangements set out in the Bill will work effectively. I have seen in other contexts excellent arrangements being stultified by inadequate funding. I hope the noble Lord the Minister may reassure us that that will not happen in this case.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, there seems to be a strange phalanx from the Cross-Benches speaking in this debate. I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for introducing the debate, for co-opting me onto the committee and for the words he said about my assistance to the committee. I at once declare an interest in that I am a member of the Royal Photographic Society and of the British Photographers Liaison Committee. I had assistance and guidance from both those bodies while I was working on the committee, but I am in no way personally affected by anything that is mentioned in the report. As I am talking about photography, perhaps I may say that I found it helpful that, in addition to our two major assistants, the Clerk had a knowledge of photography and he and I understood some of the technical terms I brought forward to the committee. I believed that that helped him in the preparation of the report.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with regard to closed circuit television. I shall look at the question of the audit trail and draw on the fact that I attended a medical and forensic imaging symposium in Bath at the beginning of April which looked at digital imaging in the presentation of evidence from and in digital form and the management of evidence digitally. I shall conclude with a question to the Minister to the effect that to do what I am suggesting will require equipping the courts with a number of devices, either permanently or on hire, for particular trials.
In paragraph 3.24 of the report we quote Lord Taylor, who said that,
"as technology develops, evidential practice will need to be evolved to accommodate it. Whilst the Courts must be vigilant to ensure that no unfairness results, they should not block steps which enable the jury to gain full assistance from the technology".
I believe that the jury should be given this full assistance so that the court itself can see the evidence on a screen. At the conference I mentioned there were about 150 of

397
us in a room. There were two screens, a computer projector, two slide projectors and a video projector, all of which were visible to the 150 people. This meant that the presentation could be understood clearly.
Going back to the need for an audit trail, even with photography some 40 years ago images could be manipulated just as they can now be manipulated digitally. The only difference was that it took time. You had to get the exposure right and you had to develop the print, but it had an advantage because you were doing it in this way. You noted down what you had done and therefore you had a written audit trail. A computer can do exactly the same thing at the movement of a mouse or at the click of a button. Although you have a record on the screen, if you do not save it you do not know what you have done; and you certainly do not record how it has been adjusted. However, as I shall explain in a moment, if you then recall the various series of images in front of a jury, you can show the audit trail.
A specific case was demonstrated to us at the symposium. An expert showed us how bite marks could be identified from impressions of teeth. But he first showed us how to take an impression from the jaw and get a photograph of the teeth. He then showed us how a dentist, a forensic scientist and a "man in the street", using a felt-tip pen, tried to trace the bite marks on the screen on a piece of film. They achieved widely differing results. He then gave them exactly the same images with a computer program. All three of them got as near as maybe identical images. What is more, he then asked a computer literate member of the audience to come up, and he did exactly the same thing. So you can show the original image of the teeth and then show the zone which was the bite mark.
Then he showed us the image—I believe it was on a face, but it does not matter where on the body—of the bite that had occurred. He was then able to call back the file of the bite on the jaw, the "teeth marks"; move it round the screen; tilt it slightly and show how it matched. That was done almost within the time that I have been explaining it. The idea of having to produce these photographs to the jury, have them slide a film over the original photographic image of the bite mark and things like that, would take half to three-quarters of an hour as opposed to five minutes. I believe that this is a cost effective way of doing things.
There are other ways. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, explained, we saw how the images could be constructed using a programme known as "Photo Shop". I saw exactly the same sort of thing. In America there was an original photograph where you could not see the number plate of the car; you could not see that there was another car in the hedge in the background and things like that. But, using digital imaging in front of us at that symposium, the contrast and the colours had been changed and the number could be identified. Exactly what had happened to the car in the background was clearly visible. That was using an ordinary film camera and then digitally imaging it. Again, it was done in front of us.
At this conference, besides the forensic scientists, there were also police officers. In conversation over lunch with them—again allied to my final request about
398
equipment—they complained that some of them had put highly sophisticated closed circuit and interviewing equipment in their interview rooms, but, unfortunately, when it came to presenting it in court, the standard of the equipment available was not adequate to get all the nuances.
What I am saying is this. The Government have already supported the major parts of our report. I ask them to find enough money to equip enough courts. It does not need to be every court. On some occasions it may be necessary just to hire the equipment for part of a trial. I can see it being highly cost effective in reducing the trial time enabling the Forensic Science Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and expert witnesses, who will have viewed it beforehand, to come to some agreement on the significant aspects of the case and, secondly, having had it presented clearly, the jury will understand the expert witness much better.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for introducing this fascinating topic. I also congratulate those who preceded me for their report. It is very intimidating to face the wealth of experience and knowledge which has gone into producing a report of this nature. I can only speak from personal experience in the courts themselves.
It would be wrong for anyone to think that the courts do not keep up with technological developments. The general acceptance of DNA evidence has proved to be crucial and has led to safer and easier convictions in the courts. There are all sorts of experts. There is one gentleman, a very senior biologist, who can be seen at various courts around the country because of his expertise in maggots. His evidence is used to establish the time or date of death in certain cases. I was fascinated by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, to teeth marks. Perhaps the Rugby Football Union at Twickenham might be very interested in such proposals. I speak as a Welsh rugby referee.
However, the enhancement of images must be treated with some caution because there is a problem in differentiating between enhancement and manipulation. I have personal experience of a case involving the enhancement of a CCTV film covering a street scene not very far from where your Lordships are sitting. The camera recorded, at a distance, images of the attack on, and the death of, an individual. The kicking took place at some distance from the camera. The enhancement of the images was so effective it also enhanced the memory of the defendants who pleaded guilty to manslaughter without a trial being necessary. That is an example of where the enhancement of imaging led to convictions.
Since there is the danger of manipulation it is essential that there should be regulation. I go so far as to say that no evidence should be received in court in the form of an enhanced video or image, save one that has been produced by a licensed authority, whether it be the forensic services or one of the private firms which would apply for licences. The methods and controls

399
operated in the production of enhanced images of this nature would be investigated. That would go a long way to assisting in the problem of authentication.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, also referred to the importance of the audit trail. With a properly regulated body investigating matters of this sort, I am sure that courts could be satisfied that the proper procedures had been followed and the evidence was acceptable.
I turn to the issue of CCTV in public spaces. I do not doubt for a moment that crime is deterred by surveillance over public areas that such CCTV systems provide. I am quite sure that they induce a sense of security in the people who use town centres and public spaces. It is said—but as the report points out, without any concrete evidence—that crime may be displaced from the areas that are covered by such systems to other areas. In the absence of positive proof that that does occur, it seems to me that the advantages of the sense of security induced by CCTV systems outweigh that possibility. If advantages are to be gained from CCTV, again it is necessary to ensure that proper controls are in place.
I was particularly struck by the Local Government Information Unit code of practice, which was annexed to the report and which provides in terms that recorded material must not be sold or used for commercial purposes. In my view, it would be entirely wrong for CCTV films to be used for entertainment or even for educational purposes because the potential infringement of people's liberty is so great.
Although in paragraphs 4.11 and 4.14 of their response the Government seem to be satisfied that the new Data Protection Bill will provide a regulatory framework to some degree, I note that the introduction of statutory regulation for all operations involving CCTV systems is to be considered in the future. If such systems are to be widely used throughout the country, it seems to me that it is necessary now to develop the necessary controls. The national licensing scheme, which the Government say that they are considering as an option, is, in my view, essential if we are to ensure that the systems are used properly.
There is much in both the report and the response to be considered. I commend again the authors of the report for the comprehensive way in which they have dealt with a most serious problem.
6.41 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on his report. Thanks must also be offered to the Government for their considered response. I am, as it were, the first of the two laymen to speak in this debate. We have already heard from three speakers who were members of the Select Committee which produced the report and from a lawyer. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and I are neither lawyers nor members of that committee.
The first time most of us come across cameras being used to provide evidence is when we are caught speeding. It has certainly happened to me. I got a letter one day which was a notice of intention to prosecute
400
and which stated that I had been driving at 40-something miles per hour in a 30 mph zone and asking me whether that was the case. I wrote back saying that it could easily be the case, but that I had absolutely no idea of whether or not it was the case and I asked whether the police could kindly send me a copy of the photograph so that I would at least be likely to know. I received back a very nice letter saying, "It is far too expensive to send a copy of the picture", but that I could call in at a police station to see the photograph. I wrote back, saying that perhaps the police would let me know when it was convenient to do so. I duly went to the police station, and there was a photograph of me in my car travelling at 47 mph, or whatever, and I said, "Thank you very much".
That brought home to me the fact that in such circumstances we are confronted by the fact that we are guilty—one is probably guilty—without having known about it. The installation of digital technology has the advantage that when the prosecuting authorities decide to send one a notice of intention to prosecute, they could presumably also send one something showing one that one is guilty. If one drives up and down the same stretch of road every day, it is confusing two-and-half or three months later to be asked whether on any particular day one was driving at more than 30 mph.
I read the report with great interest. Various themes arise from it. One concern about digital technology is that it is a fairly new technology. There is not necessarily an original. I noted that in the report Abbey National said that alterations could not be made to the digital copy, but that annotations could be added in the form of overlays. However, later in the report (paragraph 2.6) it is stated that there is concern because such changes can be made and are almost impossible to detect. I have asked a few computer wizards about what is possible and, as far as I understand it, one can do almost anything with a computer and it is almost impossible for anybody to know what has been done. The report states that the timing mechanisms used are often inaccurate. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, referred to the audit trail. Such developments are vital before the public and the courts can feel satisfied about this new technology. Presumably, fingerprints can be stored digitally, but the question is: should the original also be kept?
One must always remember not to be bowled over by scientific evidence. There have been some quite famous trials in recent British legal history in which, as a result of the scientific evidence, people were sent to prison for conspiracy to cause explosions. A number of years later, that evidence was shown to be wrong and the courts threw it out. I repeat that it was supposed to be clear scientific evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to manipulation and to enhancement. Enhancement is, in effect, a form of alteration. Although it is carried out for a perfectly respectable purpose, it is nevertheless alteration. I agree totally with the noble Lord that perhaps there should be a licensing authority. It is important that if an image is enhanced, at the very least everybody should know that it was enhanced, how it was enhanced, and who enhanced it.

401
Scientific evidence, whether based on digital technology or DNA, is constantly moving forward. Science can now produce evidence that was never available to us in the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, the courts are used to this and they deal with it all the time. However, we must remember not to be misled and not to assume that because a scientist says, "This is it", he is necessarily right. Science is often wrong, so there must be safeguards.
I turn now to CCTV in public areas and to the concerns about invasion of privacy. The previous government encouraged the use of CCTV in public places and its use has, indeed, returned public places to the public for their benefit. That is clear. The use of CCTV has worked. I am not sure of the evidence about it displacing crime, but it has certainly made many town centres safer places. However, that has created separate problems, such as the questions of how we deal with the images and who is responsible for them.
I sat through the Committee stage of the Data Protection Bill, which is shortly to return to your Lordships' House, as did the noble and gallant Lord in part. The Government clearly said that CCTV is covered by the Data Protection Act. It must be right that the images that are held are not used for gain or sold to be shown on television without some form of control, whether by health authorities, councils or local authorities. Someone must take responsibility for that.
There was one area of the report on which the Government disagreed somewhat with the Select Committee. That concerned the encouragement of legal bodies to draw greater attention to changes. I support the Government's response to the recommendation of the Select Committee that evidence should not necessarily be inadmissible because it does not conform to some specific technological requirement. I believe that great care must be taken in this area, and I agree with the Government's response.
To return to the Data Protection Bill, that measure will provide a statutory code that will be extremely important. Noble Lords are aware that it will be possible to have data matching in a way that affects our private lives. We do not know how the advances will be used. The Data Protection Bill is an important element in that. This report is an important addition to the debate on the Data Protection Bill. The report is a very good one and I congratulate all members of the committee. Thanks should go to the Government for their considered reply to the report. I welcome both documents.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, as was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the Government greatly welcome the report of the Select Committee. It has helped to clarify the key issues on the use of digital images as evidence. The Government are most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for the work that his committee has undertaken. The committee's recommendations have been largely accepted by the Government, in particular that consideration be given to removing the uncertainty surrounding the use of digital images as evidence.
402
The Government also support the use of CCTV surveillance in public places to help tackle crime and disorder. However, the Government share the committee's view that to be successful CCTV schemes must command the confidence and support of the local community. These systems must be deployed and operated with integrity and respect for personal privacy and civil liberties. The Government also share the view of the committee that CCTV material should be used for the detection of crime and the prosecution of offenders. I say to the noble Viscount that the Government deplore the sale of CCTV material for entertainment purposes.
Until now CCTV has been subject to voluntary regulation through locally adopted codes of practice. While model codes such as those developed by the Local Government Information Service are now widely accepted, the Government accept that there is a need to underpin good practice in law. The Government believe that the controls available under the Data Protection Bill will be able to address the Select Committee's main concerns in relation to CCTV systems. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill gives effect, among other things, to the 1995 EC Directive on Data Protection. It also builds on the tried and tested regime established under the Data Protection Act 1984. However, one of the problems with the 1984 Act is that because of the limitations in some of its key definitions, many CCTV systems fall outside the scope of its control. We believe that the far wider definitions in the Data Protection Bill are sufficiently broad to encompass not only the sophisticated types of CCTV systems, as did the 1984 Act, but much simpler equipment that merely projects images of identifiable individuals passing a shop window without actually recording.
In practice it means that the controllers of CCTV systems have to notify details of their processing to the Data Protection Commissioner (as the Data Protection Registrar will henceforth be known) and comply with eight enforceable data protection principles. Among other things, the principles require personal data to be processed—a term that encompasses obtaining, holding, use and disclosure—fairly and lawfully and not to be further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes.
The Bill gives the commissioner wider enforcement powers. I believe that that has been sought in the debate tonight. In particular, I single out the fact that the commissioner will no longer have to wait for a complaint before beginning an investigation. She will also have power to issue codes of practice and encourage other bodies to do so. There will also be a duty placed on the commissioner to advise on the adequacy of codes submitted to her for consideration and power will be given to the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner by order to prepare codes of practice.
I welcome the speech of the noble and gallant Lord. There are few differences between the approach of the Government and the comments of the noble and gallant Lord. He drew attention to the recommendation that appropriate legal bodies should be encouraged to draw greater attention to the changes in digital processing and to widen public awareness that paper originals are rarely

403
necessary. Although we agree with the proposal, we stress that while paper originals may rarely be necessary, retention of the original digital file, captured from the original paper or other source, is considered highly desirable, even essential. It is very important that we proceed with this matter.
The noble and gallant Lord asked about the recommendation of the committee that the Government should commission a substantial, rigorous and independent study of the costs and effectiveness of a publicly funded surveillance system. The Government recognise that there are already a number of professionally conducted case studies which indicate that CCTV can have a real impact on crime and disorder. All of the schemes funded by the Home Office are required to conduct an independent evaluation. But if we are to proceed with an evaluation at national level it will be a very significant task to undertake. The Government believe that it is better to focus limited resources on particular schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was quite rightly concerned about the aspect of civil liberties. It is right to take account of CCTV operated by private companies. We shall introduce legislation to regulate the private security industry. That will be done as soon as parliamentary time is available. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. He has raised a very important matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, was very concerned that full assistance should be given to the audit trail. He said that if it was necessary the equipment could be hired. I am quite sure that if a good case has been made out, that can be provided. Of course, the CPS will also meet the costs of its equipment. All of that in itself was very important.
In relation to funds and fears that progress might be stifled, we believe that it is possible that the existing staff will be able to deal with matters but, if needed, extra funds will be made available to meet the cost. I hope that that meets the demand that has been made.
Also, in relation to the equipment in courts, of course the courts are keeping the developments under close review. Currently, as was said, there is no bar to the use of technology in criminal proceedings providing the evidence is otherwise admissible. For example, both computers and CCTV material, as has been said tonight, have been used in proceedings. Of course, it is now true that CCTV links which use standard VHS technology are available in nearly all Crown Court centres. As I said earlier, if there is a good case made out, they would be used, but there is nothing to stop anyone who wants to use more sophisticated equipment applying to the court to bring along their own specialist equipment as well in relation to these cases. The Crown Court service is aware of the need to ensure that the quality of playback of VHS video recording is to an acceptable standard. That is also being taken into account.
In relation to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, of course I cannot enter into the needs of Welsh referees and the question of biting, but I can imagine it and I can sympathise with him over the fact that as there are now playbacks in television,
404
referees need every aid they can get. I believe that I have covered most of the points he raised. We are concerned, as he is, that the public must have confidence that there is no tampering with any of the evidence that is produced in court.
I was very sorry to hear that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, fell on the wrong side of the law and that he was not, in effect, able to prove his innocence. However, we believe that it is very necessary indeed to prevent the use of CCTV footage, which he was concerned about, for entertainment or other purposes. Any such use of that material will, we believe, be caught under the Data Protection Bill when it becomes an Act. It will need to comply with data protection principles' requirement for personal data to be processed fairly and lawfully and not further processed in any manner incompatible with the purpose or purposes for which they were obtained. In practice this will prevent those who operate security cameras from passing on for entertainment purposes footage in which individuals can be recognised without the consent of those individuals. For completeness I should add that the Bill, like the 1984 Act, provides limited exemptions from some of these requirements. We hope that it does prevent any more stories coming out in the media about certain authorities selling footage of events.
Finally, this has been a very useful debate in what is a rapidly developing area. We as a Government are co-ordinating a broad criminal justice approach to this developing area, an approach that ensures that the Government have complete confidence in what is exhibited in courts.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it remains for me to express my thanks to all those who have made kind remarks about my chairmanship and about the work of the committee. I should like to thank all who spoke, particularly my two wing men here on this side, but from every speaker we have learnt as well as understood that this is a growing area of complexity which is going to impinge on all aspects of crime prevention and the prosecution of criminals.
Of course, I was sorry that so few members of the committee were present. I have a considerable number of apologies because of the short notice of this evening's debate.
I finish by drawing an analogy with the early days of the breathalyser, when, if one was caught—fortunately, I was not—there was almost immediate agreement that one would accept the verdict of the breathalyser, plead guilty and take one's punishment. As we all know, it is no longer always the case that a breathalyser leads to an automatic conviction. All sorts of devious and less devious defences have been developed. In the age of digital technology and digital imagery, I believe that this sort of development is likely to occur. If somebody other than the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, were to fall on the wrong side of the law, a good defence lawyer would be extremely tempted to question the veracity of the image presented and to seek to establish that the thing could have been manipulated at some stage in its passage from

405
the catcher of a digital camera whose memory is no longer available to be read and the presentation of the image to the court.
I thank your Lordships very much and I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Quarrying
7.7 p.m.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to demonstrate their determination to go further in addressing the environmental damage caused by quarrying.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a vice president of the Council for National Parks, the national charity that promotes the conservation, enhancement, quiet enjoyment and understanding of the National Parks of England and Wales. My comments relate mainly to national parks, although it is also my intention to signpost some broader issues about which I am concerned and that I understand other Members of this House intend to raise during the course of this debate. Tonight's debate is very timely because of the Minerals '98 initiative which is being promoted this week.
While I fully recognise society's need for minerals, the environmental damage that can be caused by quarrying cannot be overlooked. It includes permanent changes to the landscape; loss of biodiversity; increased coastal erosion and damage to the historic environment. In view of this I welcome the plan that the quarrying industry's professional body, the Quarry Products Association, announced this morning to review its operations in national parks. It is most interesting, too, to note that Aggregate Industries UK Ltd is prepared to give further undertakings with regard to dormant quarries and named working quarries within national parks. I am pleased that the industry recognises that national parks are special places that have the highest status of landscape protection. National parks are beacons for the sustainable management of the whole countryside and I hope that this plan will raise standards generally and influence practices in an industry whose environmental impacts have often been too high.
The sustainable development approach demands that because of those environmental impacts we manage demand for minerals and seek to minimise any damage to the environment from supplying that demand. One of the key issues in the debate about the environmental impacts of mineral extraction is the supply from national parks. The environmental impacts relate to the location—in very sensitive and beautiful landscapes—and the volume of extraction. National parks supply 10 per cent. of the construction aggregates in England and Wales—the same proportion as the land area they cover—and the same level as is supplied from outside the parks. There is also the extent of permissions in the parks (they cover 36 square kilometres, the size of the city of York) and also the length of permissions. There is an historical legacy of old permissions in the parks,
406
many issued on the eve of national park designation and remaining in place today, more than 50 years later. Those permissions often have end dates set at the year 2042, something mineral planning authorities can seldom address without facing huge bills for compensation.
This evening I want to focus on how this environmental damage can be addressed. The way forward for everyone—as this is a problem minerals companies themselves are now seeking to address—seems to me to involve two sticks and one carrot.
The first stick of course is regulation. Tighter policies on mineral extraction should help prevent some of the environmental damage from occurring. It is also important to ensure that policies are properly implemented, and this necessitates the adequate funding of mineral planning authorities and ensuring that they have a full and workable toolkit of powers available to them.
One of the main tools in the toolkit, when it comes to the extraction of aggregates, is minerals planning policy guidance note 6 (MPG 6). The Government's approach here is that future sources of aggregates and other minerals are likely to become increasingly constrained in terms of the areas of the country where they can be acceptably worked. Wise resource use is a policy objective many minerals companies embrace. Within the terms of sustainable development, future generations need national parks as they will need minerals, and using resources wisely means taking that into account.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to ensure that during the forthcoming review of MPG 6, the Government will look again at the policy concerning mineral extraction in national parks, as set out in paragraphs 70 and 71 of the guidance note. We have seen the policy applied with rigour in the recent North York Moors quarry extension decision, to which I shall return to later, but I fear that its present wording, specifically criterion iv of paragraph 71, is acting as a disincentive to companies in reaching voluntary agreements on restoration and land management. It also encourages a growing tendency by companies to emphasise the potential for reshaping the landscape in order to justify applications for extension.
When it comes to mineral working, incremental permissions of this kind seriously undermine the first purpose of national parks: to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. Clarity of wording in the revised MPG 6 will help to remove uncertainty and ensure that the Government's determination to protect national parks is not hindered. Since the 1995 Environment Act now enables mineral planning authorities to review old permissions and to impose modern restoration and aftercare conditions, there is no need to refer specifically to enhancement of existing quarries in the revised version of MPG 6. I therefore seek the deletion of this obsolete criterion.
I also ask the Minister to confirm that the issue of end use control will be looked at during the review of MPG 6, as I believe that this is essential to moving towards a more sustainable mineral planning system. The review of MPG 6 also provides an opportunity to subject the broad policy aims of mineral planning

407
to public consultation. The Government have a real opportunity at last to abandon the "predict and provide" approach to minerals planning and adopt an approach that is much more environment led. I hope that this is seized.
Individual decisions which implement the regulatory measures are of course vitally important and send signals about the stance of the minerals planning authorities and the Government. The Government's decision in April of this year to refuse permission for the extension to Spaunton Quarry in the North York Moors National Park is a landmark decision for mineral planning in national parks. I believe that it is a welcome and important demonstration of the Government's determination to protect national parks.
In refusing permission, the Government have reaffirmed that national parks are afforded the highest level of statutory environmental protection and that their natural beauty must be protected in the national interest. These are both very welcome commitments, whose reiteration today would be helpful. However, the good news at Spaunton is only one decision. The fact remains that national parks bear a heavy burden in supplying aggregates, even though there is a lot of slack in the mineral supply system. Special protection should mean parks only provide minerals to meet a national need and where no alternatives exist, yet they provide as great a proportion of aggregates as anywhere else. This undermines the principles for which the parks were designated. Reducing demand, increasing recycling and the use of secondary aggregates and choosing the least environmentally sensitive locations as sources of supply will all help to relieve the unsustainable burden on the parks and to prolong the mineral resource for future generations.
I hope that this Government will promote better husbandry of the mineral resource and its efficient use. In order to ensure that the least environmentally sensitive areas are targeted for minerals extraction, I urge the Government to undertake a strategic environmental assessment of the minerals resource. This would be wholly in keeping with the recent recognition by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, Richard Caborn MP, when he said, in his keynote speech at an international seminar in Lincoln last month,
"strategic environmental appraisal is one of the most important policy areas which Government will need to develop further as we move into the next century. It is an essential part of the drive for sustainable development".
It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about this and I would welcome reassurance that this will be looked at.
The second stick available to the Government is fiscal measures that will encourage best practice and discourage damaging activities. I know that some speakers tonight intend to address the Government's willingness to consider a minerals tax. For my part, I ask the Government to give serious consideration to imposing a premium rate on any aggregates, taxed or not, extracted in national parks and other sensitive areas as mentioned in MPG 6, including the New Forest. This
408
is in recognition of the historical legacy that these areas face from old permissions and in view of their outstanding environmental quality, which is too often compromised by minerals extraction.
Now the carrot, which is the potential for minerals companies to increase their environmental performance, thereby strengthening their position in a competitive market and improving the public image not just of the individual companies but of the minerals industry as a whole. Recently, the Minister, Richard Caborn, invited the industry at the annual seminar of the Quarry Products Association in Solihull last month to,
"consider whether its interests overall might not be better served by a policy of voluntary self-restraint over further proposals to extract aggregates in the National Parks, bearing in mind the strong policies of planning protection which are already in place, which will remain in place".
He reiterated this on Monday of this week at the international launch conference of Minerals '98.
This is a great opportunity to do something positive. In national parks, two positive actions would make a real difference and I am very pleased that the quarrying industry has indicated that it will be looking at both of these in its plan to review its operations in national parks. Minerals companies may be able to consider undertaking not to extend sites in national parks where there is no national need for the product and where there are alternative sources of supply or ways of meeting the need for that product. National parks also have many dormant permissions in very sensitive locations which would never be granted permission today. Minerals companies which hold some of those dormant permissions would receive much credit for giving up some of those very sensitive sites, whose working in any case is unlikely ever to be acceptable. Those are just two ideas of what voluntary self-restraint in national parks might mean in practice.
I hope that the Minister can indicate what positive steps she would like to take to encourage minerals companies to raise environmental standards in a world where we increasingly need good business practice. That message of voluntary self-restraint should also go to the construction industry to encourage lean build technology on a "built to last" basis.
In conclusion, I believe that the objective for the Government in going further to address the environmental damage caused by quarrying should be minerals being supplied at the right specification, from the least environmentally sensitive locations, in the most environmentally acceptable way and at the most efficient levels. To achieve that, the Government need to add together all the tools at their disposal: a minerals tax with a premium rate for extraction from national parks and other special areas such as SSSIs; tougher policies on aggregates extraction; and a firm stand on individual cases.
This firm stand, combined with encouragement to the industry to redirect away from bulk supply at least cost with reliance on some of our most beautiful and popular national park landscapes as sources of supply, to adding value to a wider range of products from a greater

409
diversity of sources, is what is required. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic answer to the points that I have raised.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for raising the important question of the environmental impact of the quarrying industry. I declare an interest as chairman of English Nature, the statutory nature conservation agency.
It is probably true to say that four industries currently have most impact on the natural environment: clearly, agriculture is one of the most important; the water industry; the ports; and minerals abstraction. All mineral working must be planned and managed using the principles of sustainable development to safeguard and increase wildlife and natural features while recognising the vital role of the aggregates industry in supplying raw material needed by national and local economies.
I wish to make three points. They mirror to some extent those made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, although perhaps extending beyond the remit of national parks. First, I refer to the question of long-term strategic environmental assessment of minerals policy. I welcome the planned consultation on the review of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 later this year. It is important to move away from the predict and provide model, and to take account of concepts such as that of environmental capacity. On the last occasion quarrying was discussed in your Lordships' House, the Minister said that there should not be unrestricted growth in quarry capacity through the planning system, particularly through aggregates, to meet projections of demand that are not based on the principles of sustainable development.
My second point refers to the management of demand for primary aggregates. It is important to achieve that to reduce long-term pressure on the environment. We need to encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregates. I recognise that recycling is increasing, but more still needs to be done; and I am pleased that the Government are actively exploring the use of economic instruments—an aggregates tax in particular. Such a tax could not only send signals about the need for an increase in recycling, it could also raise valuable revenue (that is not against the Chancellor's rules) to pay for measures to offset environmental damage, including compensation for revocation of planning permission. The Treasury appears to be struggling with the technicalities of monetary valuation of impacts on the environment. I wish to make the case for it simply. In the case of designated nationally and internationally important wildlife sites, society has already invested in law that says that those should be regarded as beyond price, thereby making the monetary valuation extremely simple.
My third point relates to designated sites. They are the foundation of nature conservation in the United Kingdom. By designated sites I refer to that alphabet soup of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), special protection areas (SPAs) and special areas for
410
conservation (SACs). Those have been designated for a reason: because they are fundamental building blocks in the conservation of nature in this country. But too often we still see aggregate extraction causing loss of important wildlife habitats or natural features. Pollution, noise, infrastructure impacts and changes in water systems can also threaten wildlife. The minerals planning system still does not fully recognise that at present.
I should like to see three things happen. First, extraction should be sited away from those critical sites. Secondly, revocation should be sought of planning permissions where aggregate working is likely to damage designated irreplaceable sites. Thirdly, I should like to see the industry and planners working together on working arrangements during extraction and after-use of aggregate extraction sites, taking measures to minimise adverse environmental impacts and increase environmental benefit.
In all those measures, adequate environmental assessment is imperative. I look forward to seeing the details of the implementation of the environmental impact assessment directive in the UK in March 1999 as a good start.
Finally, it is extremely welcome that the quarrying industry is moving to address some environmental issues on a voluntary basis. I ask the Minister to assure us that the Government will enhance the voluntary principle with swift progress on the three regulatory and incentive measures that I have raised today.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison for raising this topic.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I believe that I am to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Brain. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, I declare an interest as Vice President of the Council for National Parks and as an adviser to a minerals and waste company which does not have an interest in national parks. So I hope that I can offer some help and a balanced view.
My noble friend Lord Addison highlighted some ways in which the Government can address the environmental impacts of quarrying. The burning question is how to generate sufficient funding to raise environmental standards.
In identifying those areas which are most vulnerable, we need look no further than MPG 6, which has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Addison and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Those are areas for special treatment when it comes to aggregates extraction. Those include sites of special scientific interest, national nature reserves, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the New Forest heritage area and national parks.
If the Government are to introduce a tax on minerals extraction, that will provide a method for addressing environmental impacts. Let me suggest how this could be done.

411
Any method needs to be based on research which demonstrates what those impacts are and how they are to be addressed. I am aware of the recent research that the Government have commissioned on the environmental costs of aggregates extractions. That information is intended to help the Chancellor to decide whether there should be a tax on aggregates extraction, and how best to impose it. However, I, among others, have doubts about it. Because of the way it has been conducted, and the type of method used, it is inevitable that the research findings underestimate the environmental costs of aggregates extraction. I hope that the Government will recognise this undervaluing and will not try to put a figure on impacts that cannot be measured in monetary terms. Those impacts include damage to the landscape, loss of biodiversity and destruction of the historic environment and coastal areas, all of which affect national parks in one way or another. I know that the minerals industry also believes that that research is seriously flawed. Can the Minister provide reassurance that that research programme will now provide a more accurate understanding of the impacts of aggregates extraction?
I turn now to what I believe is a great cost of minerals extraction and one way in which the Government can address the issues. The Government have stated in paragraph 6 of their consultation document on the revised UK sustainable development strategy that,
"sustainable development is a very simple idea. It is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come".
The environmental condition of national parks is fundamental to both our quality of life and to the Government's achievement of their sustainable development objectives. That must be reflected in any tax on aggregates extraction, and I welcome the Minster's reassurance on that point.
With that in mind—we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young—I, too, support a premium rate on any aggregates tax for extraction in national parks and those other special areas mentioned in MPG 6. I was pleased to learn that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Nick Raynsford, has not ruled out the important principle of rebate in relation to a possible tax on greenfield development. I ask the Government to ensure that any tax on aggregates extraction includes an element of rebate.
Let me draw a simple analogy. If, for example, the Government decide that the going rate for an aggregates tax is £10 per tonne, for those areas recognised as special in MPG 6 the aggregates tax should be increased to £15 per tonne. The extra £5 per tonne would be rebated for the benefit of those special areas.
Once rebate had been generated, it could be used to buy out dormant permissions in highly sensitive sites, where working quarries would be unacceptable by today's modern environmental standards. The rebate could also be used to restore unsightly or abandoned quarries to an acceptable environmental standard.
412
Generating a green tax in this way will help the Government address the environmental impacts of quarrying. An aggregates tax alongside strong regulation will make for a stronger system of protection for our environment.
Noble Lords may be concerned about the possible loss of employment. It is absolutely correct that this aspect should be addressed to its best advantage. Jobs may indeed be lost over a long period of time at specific sites in national parks and other areas mentioned in MPG 6, but those interested in rural regeneration must take a wider view.
In some national parks, a relatively high percentage of the local population rely on the minerals industry for employment. However, this is not true in all the national parks. Also, as the minerals industry diversifies there may be an increase in the number of jobs overall—quarries in national parks are generally not labour intensive in view of their scale and highly mechanised operations.
With an increase in recycling activities and use of secondary aggregates, we should see the industry once again becoming more labour intensive, with jobs becoming differently distributed. It is also important to bear in mind that minerals extraction can act as a disincentive to other kinds of employment.
When one considers that somewhere between 70 and 100 million people visit our 11 national parks every year, the importance of the tourism industry is clear. People visit national parks to find peace and quiet, open spaces and places of great natural beauty, all of which can be impaired by scars on the landscape.
Similarly, another important and growing employment sector is the kind of high-tech, remote working professionals attracted by high quality environments in rural areas. These people have chosen a high quality environment from which to carry out their businesses. These rural-economy based activities sustain rather than harm the environment, and I believe point the way to a sustainable future in all the rural areas in which they exist, including national parks.
A final pointer to a sustainable future is the plan by the Quarry Products Association to review its operations in national parks. It is a welcome step in reducing the environmental impacts of quarrying and I look forward to seeing what positive benefits this will mean for national parks in practice.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for rising to speak. I had been down to bat at number three in the previous debate and had forgotten that I had been demoted. I also apologise to the House for that error.
Again, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for initiating the debate. I may surprise him because I do not intend to talk about a problem in a national park nor even in the hills. I intend to talk about a lowland esturial problem. I may be closer to the noble Baroness, in that I shall talk about the problems of enlarging a quarry in the Bovey Tracey basin, an area between Newton Abbot and Bovey Tracey in Devon.

413
There, a local company has submitted a planning application. I do not expect the Minister to prejudge the planning permission but I hope that some of the issues I raise may lead the department to ensure that they are considered while the application is being made. I also hope that, when the department decides whether to accept the inspector's report, it, too, will take them into consideration.
I declare an interest, in that the extension of the quarry will involve the moving of two rivers, the River Bovey and the River Teign. I have a membership of the Upper Teign Fishing Association and the run of sea trout and salmon, such as it is, may or may not be affected. That said, one wishes to understand what is happening in the area.
Over the years, the company has taken what is known as "ball clay" from a bed in the area. It has gradually extended its quarries by limited reapplication or new applications. This time it is asking for a major extension which it says will extend the life of the quarry by 60 years. However, it is asking for the extension at the end of the period of the county's structure plan; it expires in 2002. The consultation drafts on the new structure plan indicate that it would be unlikely that such a quarry extension would be allowed in the future. Furthermore, the minerals plan for the area is under revision, which is likely to lead to problems.
It has also been suggested that the Bovey basin, which consists not only of the two rivers and the claypits by them, but to the north of the A.38 an extensive area of heathland which is important as adjoining the boundary of the Dartmoor National Park. It provides lowland heath with nightjars and so forth. The whole area must be considered as one cohesive unit because, although some clay beds have already been exploited, it is well known that there are equally important clay beds under the area of heathland. Therefore, my first question to the Minister relates to the planning controls. In the light of the public inquiry and bearing in mind that the work will not start before 2001 and there is only one year of the structure plan to run, can the Minister comment on the progress of the new structure plan?
My second point is probably closer to the noble Baroness's heart. It is said that the existing river beds are nesting sites for 30 per cent. of the sand martins in Devon. It is also suggested that there is an active otter holt in the area and of course otters are protected under EU legislation. I ask the department to look carefully at the report and consider all the information about the natural history of the area in order to see whether it has been studied adequately.
The applicant company will consider environmental rehabilitation as it undertakes the work. It believes that that is a good idea, but I have been told that there is another opinion. For example, although new river beds will be produced they must be so stout that they cannot be eroded and therefore will not allow otters, water voles, sand martins and so forth easily to get into them.
Is the quarry extension really necessary? Yes, there is an important bed of clay. The reason for the extension is that the quality of clay is peculiar and there is a special need for it. However, the company admits that
414
the bed will last at most for 60 years and possibly for only 40. It is an extraction firm and we have already heard about the use of secondary aggregates and so forth. Will the inquiry take into consideration secondary methods of processing other clay to enable it to be used as a substitute for the particular clay involved? There are two reasons for its existence. Clay in that area was formed originally by erosion, by an ice floe during the Ice Ages. It gradually flowed down into a "lake" and sedimented out different-sized particles and so on in different areas.
The chemical composition of all those clays is very similar: it is the size of the particle that is significant. Has the company investigated mechanical methods of changing the particle size? Will the inquiry seek evidence as to whether or not the quarry and the relevant costs are really justified, because moving that quarry and the rivers will cost a lot of money. It may be that that money would be better spent on capital investment for future developments which will have to take place as the use of the quarry expires, especially as the environmental regulations in that area are bound, over the years, to become tighter.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this week marks the beginning of Minerals '98, a year in which the quarrying industry is opening its doors to the public, telling them what it does, and how and why it does it. Therefore, I share the views of those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Addison on raising this issue this evening. I pay tribute, as I am sure my noble friend would, to the organisers of Minerals '98 because the activities of the past few days have certainly got it off to an extraordinarily good start.
I must also declare an interest, as I have done before, because I have worked for Hanson plc for the past eight or nine years and it owns ARC, a large aggregates producer. I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Addison entirely in his further ideas for sticks and carrots to chivvy along the industry but I have no doubt that the industry will note carefully the points he makes.
I wish to make six simple points about quarrying. First, and it is self-evident, no one quarries for fun. Quarries exist to meet a demand, a demand created by every one of us in this country every second of our lives.
The industry delivers what we ask of it. We want better housing, schools for our children, hospitals and an efficient transport system. They all depend on materials produced by quarries. As my noble friend Lord Norrie pointed out, the industry also provides 40,000 or so jobs in rural communities. It is an industry which serves us all. It has gone on since man's earliest existence and will continue until man's extinction.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong in digging up the resources given to us on this earth. Of course, we must use them sensibly, as sensitively as possible and without waste. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, talked about those SSSIs which have been damaged to some extent by the aggregates industry. I hope she will acknowledge also that there are many other sites across the country which are now SSSIs as a result of the work

415
done to restore them to the condition in which the noble Baroness, with English Nature, will have a particular interest. Therefore, there are positive signs as well as some negative ones.
It is good and not bad to use those resources. There is no question of aggregate extraction being unsustainable in this country. There is a plentiful supply.
Thirdly, despite what we hear from some environmental groups, the industry is forward looking. It is constantly changing and improving and, where possible, it responds to public concern. Self-regulation has been very much a feature of the industry in recent years as it has developed, and self-imposed discipline is something which I am sure my noble friend Lord Addison will readily acknowledge.
Only this morning, the Quarry Products Association, the industry's trade body, made a major announcement about national parks. Responding to understandable concern, some of it raised by your Lordships, it has decided to review all its operations in the national parks. A four-point action plan is proposed, and I am extremely glad that my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Norrie acknowledge it. They agree that the package goes a long way towards meeting the Council for National Parks' own publicly-stated agenda.
The purpose is to resolve uncertainties over the extent of quarrying in the national parks. It will remove the anxieties over dormant permissions in two ways; first, by identifying them, and, secondly, where appropriate and possible, the companies will agree not to reactivate them. It will ensure that no new applications are proposed unless they satisfy the tests of national need or bring benefit to the park in question. We should not under-estimate that. It is a huge step forward. It goes beyond anything demanded by regulation or by law. The industry should be warmly congratulated on what is a fairly bold initiative. Recognition of its efforts will do an enormous amount to encourage further those who have led the industry from the front.
My fourth point is about recycling, raised, among others, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The industry shares the Government's objective to increase recycling. In fact, the industry has already met the targets it was set for the year 2001. But that is no excuse whatever for lessening effort. There will be no lessening of effort. Many companies have recycling operations. Where it is possible and safe to do so, the industry wants to do more and it will do more. In other words, the market is benefiting the environment so it would be encouraging to hear plaudits from time to time for the industry instead of a certain amount of knocking which can become rather self-defeating.
Fifthly, I make a plea to all those who believe that there is a simple solution to this problem. Nothing is black and white. In the real world, no solution brings all benefits and no down-sides. Perhaps I may explain by way of example. Many environmental groups want more recycling so that there is less extraction of virgin aggregates. That is all very well. As I said, the industry agrees. But let us consider what a recycling operation involves—a huge crushing machine emitting clouds of
416
dust and much noise, served by heavy lorries. To avoid the high cost of moving materials twice, the recycling takes place at the point of demolition, often near built-up areas. So that recycling has an environmental cost in the same way that extraction has a cost. Therefore, I put in a plea for a debate in which there is greater intellectual honesty and little pursuit of headlines.
I hope that we shall see some realism from the Government too. As we have heard this evening—it was raised by my noble friend Lord Norrie—and as we have discussed before, the Government are considering the possibility of introducing an aggregates tax. It is claimed that it will be a green tax. That means that we are supposed to believe that it will benefit the environment. Despite the views of my noble friend Lord Norrie, I do not believe that it will benefit the environment. If it is high enough as a tax, it will reduce consumption of aggregates. Prices will then soar to the detriment of the economy, the construction industry and jobs, damaging quality of life in the most direct way possible. Set at any other level, it will simply be a money-raising exercise by the Treasury. It would be wholly wrong for the Government to claim that such a tax was green.
I suspect that the spin-doctors in the Treasury believe that if they call something a green tax, the taxpayer will somehow find it more acceptable. I really cannot believe that that is an honest way to approach the issue. To my mind, it is the fastest way to undermine the confidence of business and industry in the principle of green taxation. It will ill serve any government to embark on such a con trick.
I add a final thought. On a day when the Government have announced plans to secure a longer term future for coal, Ministers may wish to reflect on one fact: the best and most efficient way to make coal less environmentally damaging is by using large quantities of limestone in what is known as flue gas desulphurisation. Increase the cost of limestone by imposing a tax and the Government will increase further the costs on coal or on the energy produced from coal. I thought that was precisely what the Government were trying to avoid.
I hope that we can take the opportunity this evening to celebrate an industry on which the quality of life of the whole nation depends. Let us congratulate the industry for its national parks initiative—I am glad my noble friend has done so—and say that it is a proper way to mark Minerals '98. Let us determine tonight to cast aside differences which result in nothing more than non-productive posturing. We should remember that every one of us uses quarry products. We must work together to find solutions to problems which are not of the industry's making but our own.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I first declare an interest as a civil engineer and chairman of the Rail Freight Group. However, I shall not talk about railways tonight. I congratulate the Quarry Products Association on its initiative. Whatever we may think about the quarry industry, which is the subject of tonight's debate, it is welcome that it is telling the public what it is doing. It

417
is hoped that the industry is educating the public and perhaps convincing the public that it is doing good things, especially as regards the environment.
I wish to discuss recycling. About two months ago in this House my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip, in response to a question from me, said that when No. 2 Marsham Street is demolished—for me that cannot happen too soon—the Government will make a profit because they will be able to sell the products of that horrible concrete structure when crushed for a higher sum of money, presumably, than the cost of the demolition. I have worked with crushers on construction sites. They can be noisy and dusty but that does not have to be the case. We need to find easier and more environmentally friendly ways of crushing or otherwise recycling materials rather than saying that is too difficult.
Tonight speakers have concentrated on the aggregates industry, quarries in national parks, and a river-bed in either Somerset or Devon, I am not quite sure which. However, aggregates can also be mined from the sea. I believe there is an interesting quarry situated in the Outer Hebrides which produces a fine quality of granite aggregate which was used to build the Channel Tunnel. That was transported by sea. Tonight I wish to discuss the environmental effects of production and of transporting aggregates to where they are required. Both those processes have adverse environmental effects to a lesser or greater extent.
Last week I visited a quarry in Buxton, Derbyshire. I was impressed at the minimal visual impact on most of the surrounding land and with the way in which water borne pollution was dealt with. The quarry workers sprayed the roads to prevent the dust from rising and they tried to mitigate noise levels. I asked how aggregates were taken away from quarries in Derbyshire. The leader of Derbyshire County Council spoke at a conference I organised. He said that his council had demanded that the quarry use rail to send the aggregates to the Manchester airport construction site and reduce its number of lorry journeys by 70,000. At another site near Preston, lorry journeys had to be cut by 200,000 a year. That local planning authority was able to impose those conditions on a quarry that was already being worked. I believe that council leader acted well in that respect.
However, there are other ways of transporting aggregates. One can transport them by sea, although admittedly one has to use lorries or trains to get them from the ports. I think most people would accept that rail is a good alternative in terms of transporting aggregates from a quarry. It is less environmentally damaging than road transport. However, in some cases no rail connection exists. One must also remember that one cannot move concrete as it is being mixed, or black top for road surfaces, in a rail wagon because it might go hard. Therefore road transport is necessary for certain aggregates.
There is an interesting environmental debate taking place in Cornwall at the moment in respect of an English China Clays site. English China Clays made an application to remove china clay by rail using an old
418
rail track and laying a few kilometres of new rail on it. That old rail track had been turned into a cycle track. The aim is to prevent lorries grinding through a small Cornish village. However, there was opposition from the people who use the old rail track and from the residents who live in the village. It is difficult to work out the right solution to that problem. Overall I believe one must consider the effects of the production site on the environment and the environmental effects of transporting the products and consider how long that will last.
I am not convinced that the additional costs arising from environmental protection measures, or of specifying a particular means of transport, will be too severe. The cost of the aggregates constitutes a small proportion of construction costs as a whole. I suggest that an environmental tax will not impose too severe a burden on overall construction costs.
It is easy to say that there should be no more quarries and that we should close down the existing ones. One hears the "not in my backyard" argument, especially as regards a national park or an SSSI. However, one may live in the Thames Valley and live near the pits situated near the M.4. I hope that the Government will consider ways of strengthening the ability of the planning or the mineral authorities to impose reasonable environmental conditions either on quarry sites, and/or the means of transporting quarry products. Noble Lords this evening have given me encouragement that this suggestion will receive general support.
I believe it is time to carry out what I call a "top down" review to discover how much quarrying capacity is required in the UK in the next 100 years, given the current policy on sustainable development. I suspect that the potential volumes of products to be gained from all the planning applications that are outstanding will be many times what is actually required. We need to quell the fears of local people and environmental groups about planning applications that are still outstanding.
We cannot get away from the fact that we need aggregates. Quarries, when mined, have adverse environmental effects, as does the transportation of the end products. I do not know—I do not imagine my noble friend the Minister knows—how you put a value on the adverse environmental effects of a quarry, or of a 40-tonne lorry passing through a small village every 10 minutes. It is a challenge for us all to make that work. I believe that a little more recycling would be beneficial.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest in that I think I am probably a candidate vice president of the Council for National Parks. As such I obviously have an even greater interest in this matter than those who are already acknowledged and much respected vice presidents. I shall certainly do my best to acknowledge the enormous importance of the quarrying industry as such.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, first, for introducing this debate and, secondly, for the admirable speech in which he so clearly outlined the points that he wanted to make and the situation as it is at the moment.

419
I join with him in congratulating the quarrying industry on the important announcements that it has made regarding its behaviour in the future. I congratulate the industry on the careful timing of their production before our debate this evening.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brain, for his remarks. He raised the whole question of what is happening with the Devon Wildlife Trust and the River Teign. It is a complicated and important matter. I join with the noble Lord in his pleas. However, I shall not take up your Lordships' time with repetition of much of what he said.
Quarrying is a useful industry. It is basically wealth-producing. Where it can be done in Britain, it is a good thing that it should be done. The transportation of aggregates does not help the sustainability of the planet. Anything that would mean more imports of items that we can produce ourselves is not a good thing.
However, total aggregate use should be restricted. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made an extremely good point about the large number of building permissions that have been granted so far. We must examine the permissions that are given and it should be clear that there is a specific need. Blanket extractions should not be allowed under such permissions. There are one or two rather bad case histories of companies receiving permission for specialised extraction and then expanding it to wholesale extraction of vast areas of limestone. That is a matter that the Government can, and should, control.
The first need is to restrict the amount that is needed. The second is to encourage re-use wherever possible. Those are two basic requirements of the ecological economics that we should apply in this case. In national parks and on sites of special scientific interest the presumption should be against granting extraction permissions. If necessary, existing permissions should be rescinded. Any case for compensation over a long period of time should be regarded with considerable scepticism. Profit from despoilation is to be discouraged.
We live in a world in which we now know that we must apply the principles of sustainable development if there is to be development at all, and that we must take immense care. Of course, the extraction of minerals is one of the basic ways in which mankind increases its wealth. I am not entirely certain that I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he says that no one quarries for fun. I think we all started quarrying for fun when we were about five years old. I cannot imagine it not being fun, as well as being profitable and useful. However, like a great many activities that are profitable, useful and fun, quarrying must be controlled. I hope the Government will see their way to responding to the various pleas made to them during this debate.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I echo other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Addison for initiating this debate. There is no doubt that quarrying is an important industry, both in terms of providing raw materials and in terms of employment. In 1996, in a
420
debate in the other place, the number employed was put at some 36,000 by my honourable friend Sir Paul Beresford, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment. Bearing in mind the important element of employment, and the extra cost to the end user in both the public and private sectors, the introduction of a tax needs careful consideration before it is proceeded with.
It is true to say that quarrying can cause problems, both in the effect that the extraction has on the landscape in physical terms and arising from the transportation of extracted materials. There are many planning permissions in existence. The Environment Act 1995 contained provisions for the review of old and new permissions. If I understand the position correctly, active sites were to be reviewed in two phases, the first relating to planning permissions given between 1948 and 1969, and the second to permissions given between 1969 and 1982. National parks, areas of natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest were all to be considered phase one sites. The mineral planning authorities had the responsibility of preparing a list of phase one and phase two sites and all dormant sites by 1st January 1996. We should be interested to learn the state of the review of old and new permissions. It is possible for the planning authority to classify unworked sites as dormant. How many have been so classified? But even that may not solve the problem, as it does not annul the permission; it merely enables new and modern conditions to be imposed before working recommences.
References have been made to the question of permissions in national parks—the Broads, the New Forest and other areas of outstanding natural beauty. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the constructive moves on the part of the industry of which we have been advised during the debate. They were referred to fully by my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Glenarthur.
However, we should remind ourselves of what MPG 6 says about quarrying in national parks. It states that the Government consider that all mineral applications must be subject to the most rigorous examination and all mineral developments should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. Similarly with sites of special scientific interest, mineral proposals within or likely to affect SSSIs should be the subject of the most rigorous application.
However, as my noble friend Lord Addison reminded us in a previous debate in January this year, that does not address all the problems. Some of the problems that arise on these sites are the result of permissions which have already been granted but which would not be granted under today's more rigorous planning standards. In the debate in January, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to a review of all the policies in MPG 6 being undertaken later in the year. Has that been commenced, and what is the position?
However, it is not merely in national parks or the countryside that there is concern. Earlier this year, concern was expressed to me over proposals to extract sand and gravel from redundant reservoirs in the area of East Molesey. The extraction is planned to continue for

421
seven years, with the attendant disruption in the area caused by large lorries. We have to ask ourselves: does the existing planning process enable adequate protection to be given as regards this kind of problem?
There is also the question of outstanding planning permissions. I am sure noble Lords will have noted the concern expressed this month by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It drew attention to the fact that,
"An area of countryside four times the size of Manchester is (alleged to be] at risk from quarrying and rural England faces a lurking threat from planning permissions to quarry four and a half billion tonnes of minerals".
As an example, the council cited Wiltshire and Dorset, where enough planning permissions for crushed rock quarrying exist to last for the next 132 years.
Finally, other noble Lords have referred to specific sites. Perhaps I may raise the question of the Forest of Dean. It is reported that, shortly before the general election, six areas in the Forest of Dean and the nearby Wye Valley, an area of outstanding natural beauty, were to be designated as quarries by the year 2006. Some 46.1 million tonnes of stone are to be dug up and carried by lorries through the forest's narrowest lanes. We are not talking here of the traditional rights of quarrying in the Forest of Dean; we are talking about giant limestone quarries in the forest.
It is said that, during the election campaign, Labour's parliamentary candidate promised to fight these proposals and enlisted the support of the then shadow environment spokesman. Mr. Dobson promised that an incoming Labour Government would,
"offer special planning protection to the Forest of Dean".
He said that Labour would go beyond any of the existing special categories of protection. He added,
"We propose instead to offer the Forest of Dean a new 'custom-built' special status appropriate to its unique character and status".
I hope that, in dealing with the questions, the Minister may be able to tell us what special protection is to be offered to the Forest of Dean and, if special protection is not to be offered, why that should be so, in view of the assurances that were given?
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for securing this debate. Your Lordships last discussed this subject on a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in January. My noble friend Lady Hayman replied on that occasion. This debate gives me an opportunity to review recent progress and look forward to future developments.
I welcome the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and other noble Lords about the need for minerals. We cannot envisage modern life or economic activity without them. We should never forget that the industrial growth of this country was largely founded on minerals, in particular coal and iron.
Mineral working has always carried an environmental cost, as many noble Lords said. Large-scale mineral working in the past has left in certain areas a legacy of
422
dereliction. The great progress that we have made in dealing with this legacy over the past 30 years is a tribute to those working in local authority planning and regeneration teams throughout the country. But, as noble Lords have commented, and as my noble friend Lady Hayman recognised in the debate in January, more remains to be done. I should therefore like to outline some important recent developments.
On national parks, the Peak District National Park used its existing powers to stop a fluorspar quarry from being developed into a larger new aggregate quarry. The operating company concerned accepted that, although I understand that the freehold owner is now challenging the national park's action in the courts. Clearly, the Government will look carefully at the outcome of that case, and I cannot comment further on it today.
Also in the national parks, the Secretary of State did not allow the extension to Spaunton Quarry in the North Yorkshire Moors, a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. That strongly reaffirmed the policy that all minerals developments in national parks must clearly be in the wider national interest before being given permission. The decision was widely welcomed by all those concerned about the national parks for the signal it sends about new or extended quarry proposals.
Looking to the future, my honourable friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has invited the industry to consider whether a policy of voluntary self-restraint over further proposals to extract aggregates in the national parks would not now be very much in its interests. Noble Lords have referred to the welcome that is being given to proposals from the industry, a point to which I shall return later. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, referred to the industry making some extremely interesting proposals. We shall wish to look at those very carefully.
My noble friend Lady Young raised the question of acting to strengthen environmental protection of sites subject to proposed mineral extractions through extension of the environmental impact assessment. One of her questions related to an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the issue of sustainable development and compensation. The Government have said that they would compensate for the closure of sites of the highest designation, and policy already is to avoid all designated developments in new areas.
My noble friend Lady Young also referred to the fact that we shall introduce new regulations later this year, or early next year, to implement the 1997 European directive on environmental impact assessment. In effect, all but the smallest and least offensive quarrying proposals will then be subject to mandatory environmental assessment. This is important because the assessments inform planning decisions and identify the conditions which should be applied to mitigate the impacts where applications are allowed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, it is important that we are continuing to conduct and publish research into mitigating environmental effects. That will carry through into planning guidance, which local authorities must take into account.

423
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, raised the issue of end-use control. We would certainly look carefully at any detailed proposals which those concerned about the impact of aggregate quarrying might wish to put to us. But, at first sight, it does not appear to be consistent with the present purposes of the planning system. They are about the use of land. Planning permissions and conditions run with the land. Enforcing conditions on end-uses of particular minerals could require a very large enforcement or monitoring system. Alternatively, it could involve the attachment of conditions on other land use permissions. For example, should we set a limit on the tonnage of material that could go into a school, a hospital or a new house? And there could be possible conflicts with owners' rights. However, if there is a feasible option, we will certainly give it careful consideration.
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, also referred to strategic environmental assessments. We shall be consulting on how this might best be done in the review of planning guidance on aggregate extraction which is about to begin. It may be something best conducted at the regional level as part of the strengthened process of regional level planning, which my honourable friend the Minister for Planning is keen to see introduced.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, we are continuing the vital work of assessment. We have recently published research on the impacts of blasting, and we shall shortly publish a report on the impacts of traffic generated at quarry sites.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Glenarthur, raised the issue of recycling. We are continuing to promote the use of secondary and recycled material for construction site aggregates in place of digging new material. In 1994 the previous government set targets for the use of recycled construction waste and mineral and industrial waste minerals. The aim was to raise this to 40 million tonnes in England by 2001 and to 55 million tonnes by 2006. We have been encouraging the use of alternative materials through the experimental Aggregate Advisory Service and have recently published research into better means of monitoring and reporting recycling activity.
For the benefit of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I understand that the crushing, following the collapse of Marsham Street, will take place off site. I happened to be in that building on the day of the hurricane and share the views of those who look forward to the building coming down.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, the industry has helped also by extending and developing its recycling activities. As a result, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of construction and demolition waste used as aggregate. That could now be around 25 million tonnes in England—double the 1990 figure. When secondary mineral waste and other material is added, we may already have reached or passed the target set for the year 2000; that is, between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of all aggregate currently used in England.
424
I can also announce tonight that the Government will continue funding the Aggregates Advisory Service until next February, following the end of its experimental phase. The service has fully proved its worth in promoting suitable alternatives. We will now consider how it can become self-supporting as a service within, and for, the construction materials community.
Planning controls and guidance have become increasingly effective in reducing the environmental impact of quarrying. They set criteria for the policies in development plans and consideration of quarry applications. They also provide for the attachment of operating conditions and modernising permissions. We are about to start reviews of planning guidance governing the two most environmentally contentious minerals: that is, opencast and aggregates. In the case of opencast coal we shall be paying close attention to community concerns about the intense noise, dust and traffic generated over the fairly short period of coal working. That will take into account the statements made earlier today in relation to the Electricity Fuels Review.
My noble friends Lady Young and Lord Berkeley raised the question of forecasts. In the case of aggregates, we will review the long-term forecasts of the need for aggregate materials for concrete, road surfacing, building sand and so forth. We will also strengthen the scrutiny at regional level of future production guidelines. We will of course look at the criteria for national parks in the review of MPG6 as requested by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness.
The most important current issue concerning quarrying is the question of a tax on primary aggregates. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, among others. As the Chancellor said in his last Budget, research will continue into valuing the environmental impacts of quarrying. The Government have already conducted research which broadly confirmed that there are still adverse impacts with which society needs to deal. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the fact that those impacts are mainly the noise, dust, vibration and transport effects, together with the loss of habitats and landscapes, as referred to also by my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Those impacts can be costed. But more work needs to be done to obtain stronger results. That is why we are undertaking further research. Customs and Excise are also consulting all interested parties on how an aggregates tax might be applied and collected. No one should be in any doubt that this Government are totally serious about developing and introducing an appropriate aggregates tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, questioned whether an aggregates tax will protect the environment. The Government do not regard the tax as the only solution; they still believe firmly in the value of regulation. But a tax would have a number of relevant benefits. First, a tax sends a price signal that aggregates are a valuable commodity with a cost to our environment. They should not be wasted. Secondly, there are issues relating to the

425
price of primary aggregates which boost the use of secondary and recycled material. We have made good progress with the recycling but more needs to be done. Thirdly, it is legitimate to look at the balance of taxation. It is worth looking at whether we can sensibly shift the balance towards more environmental taxation; for example, taxing environmental "bads" rather than "goods" such as productive employment, as was mentioned by many noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, raised in particular the issue that an aggregate tax could also generate revenues for local environmental improvements, should the Chancellor so decide. The Government are committed to developing and introducing a suitable aggregates tax. However, my honourable friend the Minister for Planning also said that, as a government, we would genuinely be interested in hearing from all those in the industry about alternative proposals, noting that they must be credible, deliverable across the whole industry, permanent and proportionate in effect and benefits. That is a demanding test, but those concerned about the environment and those suffering from the impacts of quarrying, will expect no less. My ministerial colleagues will give any proposals that they receive full and fair consideration.
It is difficult to cover all the points. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, raised the issue of the East Devon case. That case was called in last year by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister because it involved a nationally important and scarce mineral resource in an environmentally sensitive area. A local inquiry is about to begin and I know that noble Lords will understand
426
that I cannot comment further. However, I am sure that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, will be shown to the inspector holding the inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked for the cost of limestone for coal desulphurisation to be taken into account. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will make careful note of that point.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and other noble Lords who have spoken tonight for raising an important issue and enabling me to give this hastily delivered progress report. As my right honourable friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said at the launch of Minerals '98 last Monday, there can be no argument but that minerals are important to society. However, he also strongly emphasised that more needs to be done to reduce the environmental impacts of the quarrying, to quarry only where unavoidable and to maximise the use of less damaging alternatives. I have set out a full agenda to meet those objectives and commend them to the House with the additional thought raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that perhaps when we give our children tipper trucks for Christmas we will be contributing to the interests of quarrying.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she assist me about the Forest of Dean?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have already trespassed by going four minutes over my time and undertake to write to noble Lords in relation to matters I have not answered.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eight o'clock.

  Rights of Audience in the Higher Courts
  Rights of Audience in the Higher Courts
  Poorer Families: Tax Changes
  Poorer Families: Tax Changes
  Financial Services Single Ombudsman Scheme
  Financial Services Single Ombudsman Scheme
  Short-term Interest Rates
  Short-term Interest Rates
  EMU: Launch Preparations
  EMU: Launch Preparations
  Dounreay: Costs
  Dounreay: Costs
  Scientists and Technicians: Emigration
  Scientists and Technicians: Emigration
  Disaffected Children: Response to Report
  Disaffected Children: Response to Report
  Private Sector Prisons: Review Reports
  Private Sector Prisons: Review Reports
  Female Prisoners: Expenditure Per Capita
  Female Prisoners: Expenditure Per Capita
  Asylum Seekers: Deportations
  Asylum Seekers: Deportations
  Prisons: Taxation of Visiting Ministers' Fees
  Prisons: Taxation of Visiting Ministers' Fees
  Prisons: Unlicensed Software
  Prisons: Unlicensed Software
  Eviction Powers and Responsibilities
  Eviction Powers and Responsibilities
  Alcohol-related Crime
  Alcohol-related Crime
  Gibraltar: Fishing Incursions
  Gibraltar: Fishing Incursions
  Japanese Prisoners of War
  Japanese Prisoners of War
  Ethiopia/Eritrea Border Conflict
  Ethiopia/Eritrea Border Conflict
  United States Arrears of UN Dues
  United States Arrears of UN Dues
  HK33 Assault Rifle: Export to Turkey
  HK33 Assault Rifle: Export to Turkey
  Armenian Genocide, 1915
  Armenian Genocide, 1915
  Bahrain
  Bahrain
  Rwanda: Visit by EU Troika
  Rwanda: Visit by EU Troika
  Eritrea/Ethiopia Conflict
  Eritrea/Ethiopia Conflict
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Corporal Punishment in Boarding Schools
  Corporal Punishment in Boarding Schools
  Health Risks
  Health Risks
  EU Nationals: Medical Treatment in Other Member States
  EU Nationals: Medical Treatment in Other Member States
  Human Embryos Created for Research Purposes
  Human Embryos Created for Research Purposes
  Basildon: Local Government
  Basildon: Local Government
  Filwood Playing Fields
  Filwood Playing Fields
  Unauthorised Camping
  Unauthorised Camping
  English Partnerships
  English Partnerships
  Transport Council, 17–18 June
  Transport Council, 17–18 June
  Environment Council, 16–17 June
  Environment Council, 16–17 June
  Joint Environment and Transport Council, 17 June
  Joint Environment and Transport Council, 17 June
  Housing: Improving Accessibility
  Housing: Improving Accessibility
  Fish Farms, Scotland
  Fish Farms, Scotland