Sitting of 29 June 1998

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

    Press Complaints Commission
    Mr. Clive Soley: What meetings he has had with the Press Complaints Commission to discuss the effectiveness of the PCC code. [46311]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I have had a number of meetings with Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. I welcomed the strengthening of the code of practice that was agreed on 19 December 1997, and I have made it clear that further changes should be considered to protect people in all walks of life.
    Mr. Soley: I welcome that answer, but I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind the needs of children. For example, on 7 May the Daily Mail named and photographed a four-year-old child on its front page just because her mother had been sent to prison in unusual
    2
    circumstances. Would the PCC not be more convincing if it intervened after publication to point out to editors that such cases fall well below the standards expected both in normal life and under the PCC code?
    Mr. Smith: I know that my hon. Friend has corresponded with the newspaper concerned in that case. The PCC code agreed last December extends protection to children of school age, unless there is an overriding public interest in publishing details about them. Both the procedures followed by the PCC and complainants, and the nature of the public interest test require further consideration in the coming months.

    Tourism
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: What plans he has to encourage the growth of employment in the tourism industry. [46312]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): The new tourism strategy which we are developing with the tourism forum will seek to ensure that tourism fulfils its enormous job-generation potential, while the new deal will help to solve the industry's skill shortages and recruitment problems. The tourism and hospitality industry already supports 1.7 million jobs, and it is forecast to need many more people in future.
    Mr. Fraser: I am interested in the Minister's professed interest in the tourism industry. Why has his Department consistently subordinated tourism to more glamorous and trivial matters?
    Mr. Clarke: The plain and simple fact is that we have not. When I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, it was unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman appeared only for the last two minutes of it. I am not, therefore, surprised by his total ignorance of the Government's absolute commitment to a vital industry.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has the tourism strategy examined the valuable, but neglected, British

    3
    resource of historic buildings associated with the birth and development of the Labour movement? The Minister will be aware that the sole surviving Clarion house, which dates from the days of the old Independent Labour party, is in my constituency. It would encourage the people of Pendle if I could tell them that the Minister will take on board the development of a resource of which we have much in the north of England.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an extremely relevant point. That part of our country's heritage is important in attracting tourists. I am delighted that my hon. Friend mentioned his constituency, which I look forward to visiting. I know that, when he returns to Scotland, he will pay a visit to Robert Owen at Lanark and to the Summerlee heritage park in my constituency, which meets my hon. Friend's excellent point.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: What representations has the Minister received about the effect of the strength of the pound on the tourism industry? May I draw his attention to the profound gloom in the industry in Wales, which is combining with the collapse of livestock prices to lead to a crisis in the rural economy of Wales? Does the Minister accept that the combination of Government policies that are leading to the strength of the pound is having a serious effect on large parts of the country, and that the Government may have to pay a severe political price in the 1999 elections?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which was last discussed with me in Cardiff last Wednesday. The problems are transient, but I am happy to report that new figures show that expenditure by overseas tourists has declined by less than 1 per cent. on last year, which was a record year. Given the self-evident problems of the Asian market, the House will welcome the fact that expenditure from, for example, north America is up by 6 per cent. The Government are determined to build on those figures.

    Design Promotion
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What role his Department is playing in promoting good design in (a) the media and (b) elsewhere. [46313]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I visited the Royal College of Art's design, communications and humanities students' exhibition last week and was very impressed by the skill and flair of the works exhibited there. My Department works closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Design Council in promoting our designers and the importance overall of good design.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, often, the media, energetically aided and abetted by the Opposition, sneer at anything that design contributes to this country? Is it not a fact that Government Members cannot be complacent, because we have to champion design in every industry and Government Department? If we are to be truly internationally competitive, good design is paramount.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of design and the quality of the Opposition.
    4
    It is no accident that, for example, there are 150 different car types on the road whose designs have had input from Royal College of Art students. That is a very good record for British designers and British design, and a strength on which we should build.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does the Secretary of State recognise that good design is about not only presentation but content? Is not his problem that he is so obsessed with pinning designer labels on everything that moves that the real issues are ignored? While he publishes airy rhetoric about design and goodness knows what, the tourism industry faces uncertainty, the arts are in crisis, the Royal Opera house is a shambles, the heritage has been designed out of the English language, and sport, music and design are being downgraded in our schools. Through all this, the Secretary of State dithers and does nothing, except cave in to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I agree he is good at. The right hon. Gentleman is known to be decent, so why does he not do the decent thing and go before he is pushed? He would bring immense relief to his friends, and might even find time to write a proper book.
    Mr. Smith: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman's first question as Opposition spokesman would have been more accurate and have better content. He knows that his analysis of the arts, opera, design and the creative industries would have held true 13 months ago but does not now.

    Tourism
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What support he is giving to encourage tourism as a means of economic regeneration for seaside towns. [46314]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): The future of our seaside resorts has been a key consideration for the domestic tourism working group, whose final report, containing specific proposals, we received recently. These will be reflected in the tourism strategy to be published later this year.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for his support for tourism in my constituency through his recent visit to Lowestoft to present the national blue flag beach awards and open our new marina, which was built with European funding. On the Agenda 2000 proposals for reform of the structural funds, will he press the President of the Board of Trade to support the inclusion of problems faced by seaside towns as a new criterion for objective 2? Will he ask the arts lottery board to take into account the capacity of projects for economic regeneration in considering applications? Lowestoft is submitting a bid for a spectacular glass monument to mark its position as Britain's most easterly point, which would be of great economic benefit to the town.
    Mr. Clarke: I very much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. I now understand—if I needed to learn—how popular he deservedly is. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts listened to the second part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Tourism has already greatly benefited from European regional development fund money for projects that support and develop tourism and cultural attractions.

    5
    The total value of objective 1, 2 and 5b programmes for the period 1994 to 1999 is expected to be more than 3 billion ecu, or £2 billion. As the Minister responsible for tourism, I can assure my hon. Friend and others that I shall press for that support to continue.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that Southend is a superb centre of tourism which he would do well to visit as soon as he can? Is he aware that some areas of high unemployment are included in travel-to-work areas of low unemployment, with the result that no funding can be provided for their special problems? Will he have a look at the unfair effects thereby created for some superb seaside towns such as Southend-on-Sea?
    Mr. Clarke: I have not yet had the privilege of going to Southend, but I do look forward to it. I am sure that it is almost as attractive as Cathcart.
    Unlike at least one Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Gentleman makes serious points—in this case, about employment. Seaside resorts are an extremely important issue for us, discussed time and again at our tourism forum—which has not been mentioned once by Tory Front Benchers. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his fair point, and assure him that, as tourism provides 7 per cent. of all employment, I should like it to offer constituents such as the hon. Gentleman's still more employment, especially via the new deal.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that areas such as mine need economic development not just at the seaside but more widely in the rest of the region? The region, after all, feeds the local tourism economy. Does he propose to have words with the regional development agencies, once they are set up, to stimulate regional tourism and the local economy by allowing local people an input?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tourism industry in Great Britain needs a closer working relationship between the regional tourist boards and, in due course, the RDAs. I know that my hon. Friend has contributed thoughtful ideas in that respect; I can assure him that the membership of the forum is much concerned with his excellent point.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: How closely is the Minister working with the Heritage Lottery Fund on obtaining funding for piers, not just in my constituency but in many other places? I know that he will say that he has nothing to do with influencing such funding, but surely the Department can make recommendations.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I and all hon. Members have a great regard, has both asked and answered his question. Of course we cannot intervene in lottery allocations; the problems affecting his pier, and of expenditure elsewhere in England, were made considerably worse by the reckless and inadequate policies of the Conservative party. Over the past 10 years, the Tories reduced public expenditure on the English tourist board from £25.8 million to a mere £9.9 million a year. They should hang their heads in shame.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does the Minister accept that many Labour Members are extremely
    6
    supportive of and grateful for the Government's work on the new deal and appreciate their responsiveness to the particular problems of seaside towns and seasonal employment? What further representations has he received from the tourism industry in support and in respect of the new deal?
    Mr. Clarke: I am happy to say that support for the new deal has been absolutely massive—[Interruption.]—as those who really work in their constituencies and in the industry understand. Would Conservative Members challenge Tim Bartlett, chief executive of the English tourist board, who said:
    "We…believe that our industry can make a major contribution to the New Deal, and that the tourist boards can offer a practical access route to over 15,000 members—mostly small or medium sized businesses—throughout the country"?
    That is very positive. It appeals to us, but of course it would not register with Conservative Members.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: We have been told that a planned series of ministerial visits to seaside resorts this summer has been cancelled on the advice of officials. It was to have been called the seaside rock tour, or some such nonsense. Is it surprising that Ministers are afraid to show their faces at seaside resorts, given that all they have delivered so far to the United Kingdom tourism industry is a tide of European Union regulation and threatened abolition of the English tourist board? Was the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport not right to say that tourism is insufficiently glamorous for the current Secretary of State? Is it not true that, far from getting a kiss-me-quick on the promenade, any Minister who is rash enough to visit a seaside resort this summer is likely to be told where he can stick his rock?
    Mr. Clarke: I know that Jonathan Aitken is not around these days, but one would think that the shadow Minister might have got a better scriptwriter. The fact is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I fully intend to visit many parts of the country; indeed, as the hon. Gentleman must know, we have already started. As for the speculation in which he indulges, it is that and no more. He encourages us to visit seaside resorts and we shall visit, with absolute delight, Labour Scarborough, Labour Blackpool, Labour Hove and many other resorts which will continue to return Labour Members of Parliament.

    Sport (Social Exclusion)
    Mr. David Lock: How his Department is working with the social exclusion unit to ensure sport plays a role in combating social exclusion. [46315]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): My Department is working closely with the social exclusion unit. The last meeting took place as recently as 16 June. We see great potential for sport to play a part and we have already announced that we are working on a comprehensive strategy on sport which will, among other areas, address the problems of social exclusion. Sport is a great motivator, as we can see at the moment; it has a role to play in youth social inclusion.
    Mr. Lock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Football Association has taken great strides over the years to foster

    7
    social inclusion through having schools of excellence for young footballers in clubs throughout the country? However, will he join me in expressing dismay at the FA's recent decision to limit schools of excellence to premiership and league clubs, thus leaving conference clubs such as Kidderminster Harriers in my constituency out in the cold? The 165 boys at that club will have no school from next year. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the FA to think again and use his office to encourage it to take a broad approach towards tackling social exclusion in football through schools of excellence?
    Mr. Banks: Obviously, football has a great role to play in programmes for social inclusion and I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that the Kidderminster Harriers club was not granted a licence to operate as an FA centre of excellence. However, that is a matter for the FA, and the technical control board that is responsible decided, for a variety of reasons, that it would not recognise Kidderminster Harriers' scheme.
    I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning, and I am more than ready to use my good offices to bring together my hon. Friend, the Football Association and Kidderminster Harriers so that we can explore that matter. We want football to flourish in Kidderminster and elsewhere. It was a great disappointment that, three years ago, Kidderminster was unable to join the football league because of its inability to meet the ground requirements. I shall certainly use my good offices to assist my hon. Friend and his club, and he is doing a great job in assisting it in the House today.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Is the Minister not embarrassed by the fact that, last week, the Secretary of State introduced a new form of potential social exclusion—the social exclusion of those who are keen on test cricket, who may well be unable in future to watch it on terrestrial television? As someone who, as a Back Bencher, was a scourge of the tabloidisation of British politics, does the Minister not recognise that two days of adverse headlines have resulted in a wanton act of appeasement of the main proprietor of the tabloid?
    Mr. Banks: I could never be disappointed in the actions of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman has a strange approach to this issue. Sky Television criticised my right hon. Friend's decision, while the British Broadcasting Corporation broadly welcomed it. Most importantly, the England and Wales Cricket Board welcomed the decision. Hon. Members must understand that the problem is how we get more resources into cricket while maintaining the maximum access through television. The money that the ECB will receive through Sky if the deals go ahead will enable cricket to be developed at school, county and local levels, which is why the Secretary of State made the right decision. It was a brave decision, but I am sure that it will lead to the development of greater cricketing ability in this country, which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, we desperately need.

    2006 World Cup
    Ms Claire Ward: What discussions he has had on the 2006 world cup bid; and if he will make a statement. [46316]
    Mr. Banks: I hold regular meetings with the Football Association. I have discussed the 2006 bid with key
    8
    members of the FIFA executive committee, here in London and in their home countries, and the Government will continue to play a full part in the 2006 campaign.
    Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that the criminal activities of drunken hooligans must not be allowed to knock off course England's world cup bid? Does he deplore the decision by the authorities in St. Etienne to allow all-day drinking, particularly in the light of the statement by the spokeswoman for the prefecture in Lens that the ban on alcohol was the main reason for the relative lack of trouble in that town?
    Mr. Banks: I condemn unreservedly the behaviour of the small criminal element that caused trouble in Marseilles. When those who were imprisoned arrive back in this country, they will be dealt with using further restriction orders. Those who think that they may have got away with crimes in Marseilles should know that footage is still being examined. The French authorities will take action against them, and we support them entirely in that.
    I cannot join in my hon. Friend's criticism and condemnation of decisions about drinking that might be taken in St. Etienne. It is amazing that a police officer in France, who said that the French want to keep their bars open so that they can keep the world cup festivities going, was condemned here by our tabloids as a lunatic who has escaped from an asylum, as if it is French people's fault that some of our fans cannot hold their drink. Drinking a lot is no excuse for trashing a town or beating up people. The French must be concerned about their town and their welfare, and I am happy to let them make their own decisions. I understand that there will be a press conference later this afternoon and the French authorities may change their decision. We should undoubtedly welcome that, but what a sad comment that is on the minority of English fans who still cannot mix football with drink.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: But will the Minister be any more effective in getting the world cup to come to the United Kingdom in 2006 than he has been in trying to get more than the derisory 2,000 seats for the next football match in France?
    Mr. Banks: That is very good, but I am not Tone the Tout; I do not actually have tickets at my disposal. As hon. Members will know, I took a decision not to go on the ground that I somehow knew that this situation would develop. Obviously, the ticket allocation for England's match in St. Etienne is derisory, but the arrangement was made some time ago.
    The blame lies with FIFA for allowing 60,000 tickets to go to French nationals, who clearly have not taken up their allocation but instead have sold them on the black market. A number of national associations did not need their tickets, but, instead of sending them back to FIFA so that they could be passed on to countries such as England, Germany, Holland, Japan and Argentina which needed them, they dumped them on the black market.
    Hon. Members should not blame me. I would have loved to be responsible for ticket allocations. I might even have found one for the hon. Gentleman—or not, as the case may be. We must ensure that, after this is over,

    9
    FIFA carries out a thorough investigation so that this shambles is not repeated either in 2002 or in 2006, when England will host the world cup.

    Heritage Lottery Fund (Access Fund)
    Laura Moffatt: What plans he has to ensure that the Heritage Lottery Fund's access fund benefits projects targeted at disadvantaged people. [46318]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I am delighted to welcome the museums access fund, which will improve access to museums and galleries and will, of course, as part of its work, support access for those who are disadvantaged. I have recently issued new policy directions to the Heritage Lottery Fund, giving increased emphasis to the need to use lottery funding to promote access to the heritage for people from all sections of society and to take into account the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation.
    Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that access is not just about physically getting into a building? The many access groups throughout the country will be very willing to assist with this new direction, which I know they welcome very much. If we are truly interested in fairness for those on low incomes, the unemployed and those with young children, we must ensure that they can get into these wonderful buildings. If we are truly interested in equality, we must pay particular attention to that.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Getting as many people as possible to enjoy the riches in the great storehouses of this country is one of the major objectives of Government policy. It is why, for example, we were delighted to announce at the time of the Budget that we were maintaining free admission for everyone to great national collections such as the national gallery, the Tate and the British museum.
    Mr. James Gray: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the British library will not charge for admission?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my speech at the opening dinner of the British library last week, when I welcomed the fact that access to the reading rooms for ordinary readers would be free.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and encouragement for help for disadvantaged people from the lottery fund. Is he aware that many of our local communities would like to help disadvantaged people in any way they can? Will he give them some advice on obtaining lottery funding to help disadvantaged people? It is important that we consider what is happening within our communities and what assistance should be given to them.
    Mr. Smith: In a few months, we will be launching a pilot scheme in the east midlands, where the lottery distributors will join together to provide a fast-track scheme for local community organisations that wish to
    10
    put in bids for small grants to help their own neighbourhoods and communities. I hope that that scheme will roll out nationwide from April next year.

    Broadcasting (Impartiality)
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the (a) provisions in the charter and agreement and (b) legislation which require the British Broadcasting Corporation and independent television and radio to treat politically controversial subjects with due impartiality. [46319]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority have a statutory duty to do all that they can to ensure that broadcasters in the commercial sector report news accurately and treat matters of political and industrial controversy with due impartiality. The BBC governors have equivalent obligations under the BBC charter and agreement. The regulators set out detailed requirements guidelines in their programme codes.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for reminding the House about the statutory and other duties laid on the BBC and ITV to treat politically controversial subjects impartially. Is he aware of the fact that, on one of the most politically controversial subjects of the day—British entry into economic and monetary union—in a recent poll, 65 per cent. of people declared themselves against it, 33 per cent. in favour and only 2 per cent. undecided? In the light of that, will he agree that, if the BBC or ITV, in the months ahead, persist with pursuing a Euro-federalist propaganda initiative in their broadcasts, they will be behaving not only undemocratically, but illegitimately?
    Mr. Smith: I see no difficulty in the true impartiality with which those matters—as all political matters—are dealt with by BBC and ITV journalists, in a truly professional manner. I notice that it has not stopped the hon. Gentleman, who was once a member of the Labour party in Newham, from doing a perfectly competent job at making a fool of himself on the Tory Benches.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One way in which the BBC can escape its responsibilities is simply not to broadcast Parliament or any of its hearings—in other words, to substitute programmes in which political journalists interview other political journalists. What effort is my right hon. Friend making to monitor the correct reporting of Parliament?
    Mr. Smith: I am very concerned to ensure that the BBC and other broadcasters continue to report Parliament fairly and effectively. I know that my hon. Friend, Madam Speaker and other hon. Members have made strong representations on that matter, and they will continue to monitor how the BBC performs.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Bearing in mind the BBC's reluctance to listen to those who have made representations about its change of policies on the broadcasting of politically controversial issues, will the Secretary of State throw his weight behind proposals to establish an election

    11
    commission, which would be independent and would be capable of bringing under its purview the whole issue of broadcasting and fairness, in respect not only of elections but of referendums, with which we are becoming more familiar?
    Mr. Smith: I am not sure that an election commission is needed to establish the clear principle of impartiality in all such matters, be they parliamentary elections, other elections or referendums. The BBC and other broadcasters must remain impartial; that principle is clearly established, and I emphasise that it is the duty of the governors and of the ITC to ensure that that impartiality is upheld.

    Football (Racism)
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What steps the football task force is taking to combat racism in football. [46321]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): The football task force has completed an excellent report into racism in football and made numerous practical recommendations to combat this blight on the game. I have written to all the organisations identified in the report as having a role to play, asking them how they intend to implement the recommendations relevant to them. I am very pleased with the positive responses that I have received from those organisations to date.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. While we are waiting for a gap in the legislative process, could I persuade my hon. Friend to publish a league table of worst offenders in soccer, so that we can shame the clubs, and their shareholders?
    Mr. Banks: On waiting for a gap in the legislative timetable, the House should be aware that the Government will amend the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to make racist abuse by individual spectators an offence, and that we want to do so as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend dangles before me an interesting and tempting proposition. I shall consider it in due course, and I may come back to him with a more considered response.

    Millennium Commission Grants (North-west Region)
    Helen Jones: What proportion of the funding available to the Millennium Commission will be spent in the north-west region. [46322]
    Mr. Banks: To date, the Millennium Commission has awarded grants totalling just over £93 million to 15 capital projects in the north-west region, from a national total of just under £1.24 billion. The north-west will also benefit from the £100 million millennium festival fund and the millennium awards scheme for individuals.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, is he not aware of the great disquiet in constituencies such as mine over uneven distribution of funds from the Millennium Commission? Will he undertake to do all in his power to persuade the commission to consider favourably applications from
    12
    areas that have not yet received any millennium funding—which just happen to include my own constituency?
    Mr. Banks: Yes, I accept that, for my hon. Friend, that is a bit of a bummer. We all like to see money coming into our constituency.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman is a statesman.
    Mr. Banks: I like to move around.
    I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) that a series of projects in the north-west will be of enormous benefit to the entire region. She will understand that, because of changes that we are making to lottery administration in the National Lottery Bill, a fairness test will be possible, to consider strategically how funds are spent across the country. One wants there to be greater evenness and fairness in distributing lottery funds, and I think that my hon. Friend can look with some hope to the future in respect of her constituency and large amounts coming from the lottery.

    Creative Industries
    Mr. Martin Linton: What assessment he has made of the job creation potential of Britain's creative industries. [46323]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The latest job survey figures produced on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment by the Office of National Statistics show that some 1.5 million people are employed in the creative industries. I intend shortly to publish the results of an exercise undertaken on behalf of the creative industries task force to map in greater detail the wealth and job-creation scope of the creative industries.
    Mr. Linton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that 1.5 million figure, coupled with the 1.7 million figure comprising those working in the tourism industries, mean that he is responsible for two of the largest industries and biggest earners of foreign exchange in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that those industries have constantly to be replenished with new talent? Will he therefore discuss with employers in the theatre, film and television industries how they can make the new deal available to young self-employed artists, especially through open learning, in the same way as the music industry has made the new deal available to young musicians?
    Mr. Smith: The answer to my hon. Friend's specific question is yes. We are already in discussion with those parts of the world of the arts to ensure that they can take full advantage of the new deal. On the general point, not only are those sectors of enormous economic importance but they are currently growing at twice the rate of the overall economy. That is why we take those parts of our economy seriously—although, from their earlier comments, it is quite obvious that Opposition Members do not.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

    Millennium Experience
    Mr. John M. Taylor: How much money from the private sector has been raised so far for the millennium experience at Greenwich. [46342]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): Over £100 million of private sector sponsorship has been identified so far. The New Millennium Experience Company is in active discussion with a number of companies, and is on course to achieve the target of £150 million by the end of the year.
    Mr. Taylor: Can it be true that the Minister is spending £500,000 trying to find out what makes us British? Will he accept it from me that one of our finest manifestations is the English language, which he is murdering by calling the British zone "UK at Now"?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am not quite sure what that question has to do with private sector sponsorship of the millennium dome. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman—before moving on to a different matter, with which I shall deal in a moment—might have congratulated the company on its success in identifying that amount of money to date. One year ago, not one penny of private sector sponsorship had been identified by the previous Administration. I have read, with interest, the same articles as the hon. Gentleman on the national identity zone. However, I have to say that, just last Friday, as I visited the design company and team working on the zone, I did not recognise much in the reports that was true. As for the specific issue of the opinion poll—which will not be costing £500,000—I should prefer to see in the dome what the British people themselves regard and express as their national identity. I am rather more interested in the views of the British people than I am in those of any team of designers, the millennium organisers or the Minister without Portfolio.
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: Has my hon. Friend seen the report by the English tourist board, which suggests that the millennium experience and the dome will be a huge boost for jobs in the south-east, which will have a direct impact on my constituency and the outlying areas of Sussex and Kent?
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The report by the English tourist board is extremely encouraging and confirms one reason—employment creation and its benefit to the British economy—of the many for going ahead with the millennium project in the first place. In addition, the British Tourist Authority has said that, on a conservative estimate, the experience will generate £300 million to £500 million of overseas revenue, and the true amount could be double that—£1 billion could be the economic halo effect for Britain of our holding this millennium experience.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman has finally crossed his t's
    14
    and dotted his i's in terms of the sponsorship that he claims but, be that as it may, I want to be helpful about the dome—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh yes, I want to be helpful. Is not the single biggest impediment the fact that, in the hands of the Minister without Portfolio, the project is increasingly being seen as a party political bandwagon, albeit one that has already lost a couple of wheels? Would not the most helpful thing be for the Minister now to give way to a non-political person of real independence and stature who can get to grips with the project and pull in the remaining sponsorship that is so badly needed?
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to be a little more supportive. He may not have noticed that the question that he has just asked is exactly the question asked by his predecessor, not only at the previous session of oral questions, but at the one before, so the hon. Gentleman seems to be stuck in a bit of a rut. I am surprised because the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government and of the National Heritage Department team that originally developed the proposals for the millennium experience in the first place. I hope that, on that basis, we can look forward to a little more encouragement and support for the excellent work being undertaken.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend point out to the House that the private sector companies investing in the millennium dome are this country's world-class companies? It is a tribute to them that they see it as an opportunity to sell their wares and the talents and skills of this country. It is difficult these days to ask a question in support of the millennium dome because of the awful attitude of the Opposition; some London Labour Members who do not know what is a good investment in their own backyard; and The Daily Telegraph, which calls us sycophants if we show any support, but does my hon. Friend accept that he has our support and will continue to have it because the project is good for Britain and good for our future?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that support. The fact is that no comparable event has raised such a large sum of money so quickly in private sector sponsorship, or so far in advance of the event taking place. That is absolutely unprecedented and very encouraging. As my hon. Friend points out, our best and most forward-looking companies are picking up the challenge because they see their commercial interest coinciding with the national interest. We are on course to meet our ambitious sponsorship target. It is very ambitious indeed, but I am confident that we shall meet it by the end of the year. I look forward to announcements of further substantial sponsors quite soon.

    Spirit Zone
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the progress of preparations for the spirit zone. [46346]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): Details of the design for the spirit zone of the millennium experience were made public on 24 February this year. Since then, the New Millennium Experience Company has been working closely with

    15
    the Lambeth Consultation Group, which comprises representatives of the main Churches and other faith groups, to ensure that the zone reflects the spiritual values identified by the Lambeth group. Copies of the group's document setting out its approach have been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister suggest how a Christian visitor to the dome—celebrating, after all, the birthday of Christ—may enjoy spiritual contemplation in the spirit zone with the roar of the Blackwall tunnel below, the clamour of the Cirque du Soleil just yards away six times a day, and not a crucifix in sight?
    Mr. Mandelson: The Lambeth group, on which the Churches are represented, has agreed the design brief and the approach that is being taken by the company to the construction of the zone and to the millennium experience. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, from his close examination of the proposals, is disappointed, but, when he comes to the dome, as I hope that he and his family will, he will be as excited as other Christians and members of other religious faiths. If, however, he does not want to come to the dome, he might bear it in mind that the Churches are organising a full programme of events in that year, focused on Pentecost 2000 on 10 and 11 June, and the millennium affirmation, which it is also sponsoring. There will also be national church services to mark the passing of the millennium. If that is not enough, the New Millennium Experience Company has already said that there will be a place in the dome for private prayer.
    Mr. John Maxton: Has the British Humanist Association been involved in the discussions in relation to the spirit zone, to ensure that the growing number of people who have no belief in any religion, but who do believe there is a spiritual nature to mankind, are involved in the spirit level?
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend touches on an important point, which is that, although the dome should reflect the important contribution that the Christian Church has made to our history and society, we also want the millennium experience to be open to members of all faiths and of none. I am sorry that some Conservative Members do not share that view. They think that it should be an exclusive event—only for those who go to church. It will be enjoyable and appealing to those who go to church, but it will also be appealing to those of all faiths and of none, and that is precisely what it should be.

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

    Overseas Investments
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What is the value of the commissioners' assets invested abroad. [46351]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have £350 million invested in overseas equities, representing approximately 10 per cent. of their total assets.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As he must be aware, newspaper reports in recent months have shown quite heavy losses in the far east. What is the extent of those losses to the Church's holdings? Will he take a message from me to the Church Commissioners? Will he remind them of the old adage, "In God we trust. Others pay cash"?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. In 1997, a total return of 10.6 per cent. was achieved on overseas equities, which compared favourably with the UK pension fund universal return of 7.5 per cent. That result has contributed to the commissioners' overall performance, which placed it in the top 1 per cent. when compared with other UK pension funds.
    In relation to the far east, we are all aware that we live in a global economy, and one with a thatched roof. If there is a fire in the far east Asia part of the roof, it has some impact. However, I am happy to say that the impact on the Church Commissioners' money has been very limited. Our assets have moved from £2.1 billion in 1992 to £3.5 billion in 1997.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: After a bad experience quite a long time ago, have not the Church Commissioners done a remarkable job in the past few years? Should we not all be pleased about the turnaround in their fortunes, which is a great tribute to the integrity and effort of the people who look after the money for them? Will the hon. Gentleman—just to reassure the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), who clearly does not understand—confirm that a portfolio of that size, by its nature, has to be invested throughout the world? I am sure that the Church Commissioners have taken whatever steps they need to take to respond to the crisis in the far east.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which will be greatly welcomed by the Church Commissioners and their staff, who spend an enormous amount of time investing £3.5 billion. The valuation loss from our far eastern equities has been proportionately minor compared with those of other institutional funds because of our relatively low exposure to those areas.

    Spirit Zone
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What steps the Commissioners are taking to finance the spirit zone in the millennium dome. [46352]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners will not be providing finance for the spirit zone. They are required by law to use their income for the stipends, pensions and housing of the clergy of the Church of England. However, I have made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that, as Second Church Estates Commissioner,

    17
    I am willing, with others, to assist the company in opening discussions with potential sponsors who see the importance of that essential element for the zone's success.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Press reports have said that several million pounds are needed to finance the spirit zone in the millennium dome. Is he confident that the money will be raised through sponsorship and that the zone will be ready when the dome opens?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that supplementary. My hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, the New Millennium Experience Company and the Churches, through the Lambeth Consultation Group, have demonstrated their determination to have a spirit zone in the dome and to make it a success. For what it is worth, I add my determination and commitment to ensuring that the spirit zone and other Church events referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will be a success.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of my constituents have expressed concern that, while previous generations have built soaring cathedrals, we are building the dome? Given that we are officially a Christian country, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be a place in the millennium experience for the celebration of the anniversary that the millennium is all about?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that supplementary. The Church has gone to great lengths to ensure a full Christian dimension in the spirit zone. The Archbishop of Canterbury went to see the millennium dome and missed the England-Romania game—greater love hath no man. He is content with the Christian element of the spirit zone, as is the Lambeth group. When it is fully revealed to the public and to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, I am sure that they, too, will be content.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Church Commissioners will use the opportunity of the millennium for a review of the assets of the Church of England? In some places, we have five churches where one would do. We have vicarages and houses that are inappropriate for our generation. Church plants are often made away from where the people are. One of the most useful things that we can do to get across the message of the Christian faith is to ensure that the money that we are spending is used wisely, economically and, above all, in the right place.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As the House knows, we passed the draft National Institutions Measure two weeks ago, creating an Archbishops Council. No doubt, the council will wish to consider the hon. Gentleman's question to see whether the Church's finances can be better focused and streamlined. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are many sources of finance in the Church. No doubt, the Archbishops Council will want to consider his suggestion.

    Ethical Investments
    Mr. Paul Flynn: If he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' 30 per cent. threshold for ethical investments. [46353]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Precise benchmarking criteria are not operated. The benchmark that we use is whether the restricted areas represent a sufficiently limited proportion of the whole group, rather than the absolute size.
    Mr. Flynn: How do the Church's investments in weapons of warfare advance the work of the prince of peace?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for helpful supplementaries, of which that is one. The Church welcomes the new European Union code of conduct on arms sales, which should tighten the laws on arms sales to repressive regimes. We work closely with the ethical investment working group of the Church Commissioners, which has developed a dialogue over the past two years with companies that manufacture arms. We ensure that companies always operate under Government licence and within the ethical guidelines of the Church Commissioners.

    Clergy Funding
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the work of the Church Commissioners during the past year in respect of funding clergy. [46354]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In 1997, the commissioners' total expenditure on behalf of the Church was £130.6 million—£82 million on clergy pensions. We contributed £24.6 million towards the total stipends bill of £159.7 million.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. In commending the commissioners and their advisers on the great and welcome increase in the returns recently secured on their investments, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that a large proportion of it will benefit clergy, stipends and pensions through the dioceses?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The commissioners' aim is always to achieve sustainable expenditure so that we can continue to meet our principal objective of supporting ministry in the neediest diocese. As part of that plan, as he will know, we aim to provide minimum support of £20 million for parochial ministry in the foreseeable future. On the dioceses, to which he referred, it is important that parishioners meet a growing proportion of needs of the Church through stipends costs and, of course, the cost of future service pensions. I am sure that he appreciates the floor of £20 million a year.

Opposition Day
[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  The Economy
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that the last Government left a golden economic legacy of low inflation, steady and sustainable growth and falling unemployment; that, since the General Election, there have been 17 tax rises and 6 increases in interest rates, leaving the typical family £1,000 a year worse off; that the economy is becoming dangerously unbalanced, with manufacturing in recession, the claimant count rising and the savings ratio falling to its lowest level since 1990 as a result of the Government's attack on pensions and savings; further notes that, at the same time, inflation has risen to its highest level for six years and believes that the Chancellor's decision to abandon control of public spending and to reverse his plans to repay national debt risks adding further inflationary pressure; concludes that the Government has created boom and bust at the same time; and deplores the Government's mishandling of the economy.
  For the avoidance of doubt, I declare my business interests as set out in the register—all companies with an interest in the well-being of the British economy.
  I have here a fax from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which my office received at four minutes past 2 o'clock this afternoon. It reads thus:
  "As President of ECOFIN, I must appear before the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee at the beginning and at the end of the UK Presidency to give a report on the Presidency, and to answer questions from members of the Committee.
  The Committee has arranged to meet today at 3pm in Brussels"—
  four minutes before I received the fax, given the time difference. That was clearly a very urgent appointment. It says much about the Chancellor that it was more important to him to appear before the European Parliament—not even the whole European Parliament, but one of its committees—than to appear before the House of Commons to defend his handling of the British economy. We appreciate that the meeting might be only one of the few European meetings at which he is still welcome, but it is lamentable that he has failed to show up to defend what he has done.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I should like to get started. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself in patience awhile, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just in case the House is being misled, the right hon. Gentleman should clarify whether the Chancellor is speaking to a committee of the European Parliament, as he suggested, or to the Finance Ministers of all member states. The right hon. Gentleman led us
  20
  to believe that the meeting was of some minor European Parliament committee. I think that he is misleading the House.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of argument. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) will make the position absolutely clear.
  Mr. Maude: I did make it absolutely clear.
  Mr. Sheerman indicated dissent.
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Gentleman listens, I shall tell him the answer. The meeting is of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee; it is not ECOFIN.
  Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was ECOFIN.
  Mr. Maude: I said that it was the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament; I read the whole thing out verbatim. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Maude: It is a matter of regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not feel that it is important to defend his handling of the British economy in the House of Commons.
  Because of the central importance of the Treasury and of the Chancellor in the Government, on his decisions are placed the hopes and fears of millions of people. It is for that reason that the House must examine carefully what he has done, how it has affected the economy and how it matches the solemn pledges that he and the Prime Minister made, to secure their election.
  I start with a prediction about the course of the debate. Madam Speaker, you should expect a succession of interventions—
  Mr. Gardiner rose—
  Mr. Maude: In fact, the first may be on his feet already.
  The interventions will come from pre-programmed Labour Back Benchers, who will parrot out—[Interruption.] It is nice to hear that they are limbering up already.
  No one should expect—
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  No one should expect Labour to talk much about today's economy and about its prospects over the next few years. I predict that today the Chief Secretary will pound out the Chancellor's familiar mantras, and will do everything that he can to avoid talking about the current economy.

  21
  It is strange that while Labour was basking in the glow of the golden economic legacy that it inherited, it cheerfully took the credit for all that occurred.
  Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman alluded to "pre-programmed Labour Back Benchers". I wish to reassure him that I am a pre-programmed Back Bencher. However, from a fax addressed to the right hon. Francis Maude from Andrew Tyrie MP, which came to my office not long ago—I presume by mistake—it is apparent that the right hon. Gentleman had raised questions with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on the very point of the economic legacy. For example, he asked:
  "Are we saying that the public finances are strong or not?"
  The answer was:
  "Yes. Our legacy."
  The right hon. Gentleman then asked:
  "If yes, is this because we left them strong, or because Brown has been an Iron Chancellor?"
  It continues in the same vein.
  How does the right hon. Gentleman have the gall to come before the House and talk about the "golden economic legacy" and question the Government's programme, when he does not seem to know about those matters and has to question junior Conservative Back-Bench Members?
  Mr. Maude: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raised that. He has referred to a document that was produced before the Chancellor came to the House two weeks ago, to set out what the real state of public finances is. I shall deal with exactly the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises. He might not find it quite so enjoyable when I do.
  It is worth reminding ourselves just what the legacy was—not in dry numbers, but in terms of what was said about it. Labour Members may not remember this, because they have short-term memories, but it is worth reminding ourselves of what the International Monetary Fund said in 1996. It stated that
  "recent economic performance"
  in the UK
  "has been enviable. Since 1992, output growth has rebounded, unemployment declined markedly and inflation been brought down to the lowest levels in a generation. The strong overall performance is a product of sound economic policies—the unfettering of market forces initiated in the 1980s and the medium term and stability oriented cast imparted to fiscal and monetary policies".
  That was then, but what about now? Now that the trickle of bad news threatens to turn into a torrent, do not expect to hear so much about it today. If the Chief Secretary talks about it, I predict that it will all turn out to be somebody else's fault.
  Let us start by recalling what Labour promised. Let us look at the early pledges. Labour said that it would
  "set…rules for government spending and borrowing; ensure low inflation;"—
  that is a good one—
  "strengthen the economy so that interest rates are as low as possible."
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: Those are the only pledges that the hon. Lady supported.
  22
  What do they mean? What did the Labour manifesto say? In fact, it said:
  "We will provide stable economic growth with low inflation, and promote dynamic…business and industry at home and abroad."
  Then there was that unequivocal promise not to raise taxes. I shall quote directly from the Prime Minister.
  Mrs. Brinton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady will probably want an opportunity to listen to the Prime Minister's words. He said:
  "We've no plans to increase taxation at all."
  We are all becoming familiar with the way in which the Prime Minister says the first thing that comes into his mind at the Dispatch Box, whether it is true or not, but what does the Chief Secretary think he meant by those words? Which of those words is in any way ambiguous? Is it "we"? Is it "have"? Is it "no"? Is it "plans"? Is it "increase"? Is it "taxation"? How can the Government claim that that was somehow a non-operative promise? [Interruption.] If any Labour Member wants to explain how that pledge is compatible with the fact that the Government have raised taxes 17 times, I shall give way.
  Mrs. Brinton rose—
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Lady wants to intervene on that specific point, I shall give way.
  Mrs. Brinton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He seems to have some difficulty in mastering his new brief. Will he explain why, under the Conservative Government, this country suffered the two worst recessions since the second world war and the slowest period of growth?
  Mr. Maude: It is nice to know that the pre-programming works. I said to the hon. Lady that I would give way if she was going to talk about the Prime Minister's pledge, which has clearly been broken time and again, but Labour Members do not want to talk about today's economy or the pledges that they made and then broke.
  The Government's performance has turned out to be rather different from what the pledges suggested. Inflation has risen, interest rates have risen, the pound has risen, taxes have risen and unemployment has begun to rise. At the same time, the balance of payments has fallen, manufacturing output has fallen, investment growth has fallen, productivity has fallen and savings have fallen. The Government claim that they have cut welfare spending, but every welfare reform that they have introduced has cost more, not less, and will bring more people into welfare.[Interruption.] I hear the sounds of dissent, but Labour Members should look at their plans—every reform will cost more and bring more people into welfare. What a dismal record of failure.
  We know what the Chief Secretary will say; he will say, "It's all someone else's fault." The promise on inflation was not only a pledge, but in the Prime Minister's handwriting. It is a pity that the Government have missed that pledge 12 months out of 13. The Government inherited inflation at 2.5 per cent., and it is

  23
  now at 3.2 per cent. That is an increase not of 10 or 20 per cent., but of no less than 28 per cent. We shall be told not to worry, however, as that is someone else's fault—it is the fault of the Bank of England, or of British businesses, which are, we are told, paying their staff too much.
  Does the Chief Secretary have any idea how ridiculous he and the Chancellor make themselves when they—who do not have a day's business experience between them—strut around lecturing Britain's most successful companies on how much they should be paying their excellent staff? Do they not understand that, in the real world—not the cloistered world in which they move—people who face an increase in the cost of living because the Government have raised taxes on cars, houses, pensions, mortgages and marriage will ask for more pay? In the Government's never-never land, inflation is the fault of Marks and Spencer, which pays its staff too much.
  The Chief Secretary may not have noticed that the Government are railroading through legislation to force many other companies to pay their employees more. We look forward with keen interest to hearing how he will reconcile lecturing Marks and Spencer on paying its people too much with ordering many more companies to pay their staff more.
  Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on that point, I shall give way.
  Mr. Davies: On the very point of inflation rates at the factory gate, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in terms of RPI(Y)—the underlying inflation rate, which does not take account of taxation and interest rates—the rate is down on average? RPI(Y) was at 3 to 3.5 per cent. between 1995 and 1997, but is now going down.
  Mr. Maude: We have actually got someone to talk about what is happening today. The problem is that the hon. Gentleman took the wrong measure. The Government have failed to meet the Chancellor's chosen measure and target, and that is what they have to explain.
  So far, we have had six interest rate rises, and the Governor of the Bank of England is predicting another this month, but that is someone else's fault, too. Does not the Chief Secretary realise that, by raising taxes, the Government have increased the cost of living and created pressure on earnings? Does he not understand that, by attacking savings, they boost spending? As interest rates have been pushed higher than they need have been, the pound has reached levels that cause intense pain to manufacturers and exporters.
  The Government have committed themselves, in dogmatic principle, to scrapping the pound at the earliest opportunity, but do they have to choose such a painful way of setting about it? Is it surprising that we now hear talk of an ancient phenomenon that I barely recollect from my distant youth in the days of the previous Labour Government—the spectre of stagflation? We all thought that that word had disappeared, but it is reappearing among economic commentators—the spectre of stagflation again stalks the land.
  Ms Claire Ward: Is not the truth that the real reason for the interest rate increases was that the
  24
  previous Government played politics with interest rates and refused to raise them in the last year before the general election to stem inflation, and so forced this Government to take the necessary action and give that power to the Bank of England? Is not the real reason the Tories' failure when they were in government?
  Mr. Maude: It is always someone else's fault; it is never the fault of this Government. It has nothing to do with them; they are merely the Government and they merely take the decisions. How have they managed that with the balance of payments figures heading sharply into the red—just the faintest whiff of a balance of payments crisis? With our economy turning down and the European economies starting a gradual recovery, this should have been the time at which the balance of payments turned decisively in our favour, but it is doing the reverse.
  What has happened to our export-led recovery? Last week, the Confederation of British Industry figures showed export orders for May and June at their lowest for 15 years. The Government have blown it already—after only a year, they are frittering the legacy away and it is all coming apart. Therefore, it is not surprising that manufacturing is already in recession, with falling production in the past two quarters and jobs lost day after day.
  Maria Eagle rose—
  Mr. Maude: I have already given way several times, so I shall continue for a while. Day after day, jobs are lost, investments are cancelled and businesses are going bust.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Maude: So many hon. Members are cheerfully trying to take part that it is hard to choose among them. Today, the CBI survey shows that business failures are up nearly 10 per cent.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman should listen to these figures, as he might want to talk about the effect on his constituency. I am talking about business failures the length and breadth of the country. Small business failures are up nearly 25 per cent., and that is from new Labour, which claims to be the party of new business. However, for those small businesses, which have failed because of the Government's policies, the party is over now.
  Will the Chief Secretary tell us today whether he still stands by the growth forecast set out in the Red Book? Does he still believe the figures that he and the Chancellor put in it? Will he guarantee that Britain will not go into recession during this Parliament? More and more commentators are asking not whether we shall have a hard landing but when. Let us hear now what the Chief Secretary has to say about that.
  What did the Government say about savings? Oh yes, they said that one of their tax principles would be to promote savings and investment. They have made a difference, and for the many, not the few, they have made the situation much worse. In the Red Book, the Chancellor predicted that the savings ratio would fall to 9 per cent. during this Parliament. He must be feeling pleased with

  25
  himself as he has nearly got there already. The figures show that the ratio was already down from 10.1 to 9.1 per cent., just in the first quarter of this year. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman meant by an early pledge? To cut savings by 10 per cent. at the point in the cycle when the Chancellor should be encouraging saving took some doing. In case the Government have forgotten, yes, we told the right hon. Gentleman so.
  Surely the Chancellor should have been able to work out that, if one raises a £5 billion-a-year tax on pensions and follows it with an attack on tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans, it will tend to discourage people from saving.
  In case the Chief Secretary still clings to the old Labour belief that it is greedy and selfish to save for one's own and one's family's future, does not he understand the relationship between saving and investment? Even the current Treasury Ministers could not exclude entirely from the Red Book—it was tucked away in an appendix on page 94—the tell-tale number that shows growth of private investment falling in each of the years ahead.
  Before the general election, investment-led growth was one of Labour's mantras, but investment and growth are both slowing down; it is all coming apart. That is not surprising, when one remembers what the Government have done to taxes. They said that they would not put them up at all—no ifs, buts or caveats—but they forgot to add—[Interruption.] Labour Members might want to listen to this, because their constituents will hold them to account. The Government forgot to add to their pledge, "unless you have a pension, a car or savings; and unless you are married, have a house or own your own business". It is not surprising that the average family is £1,000 a year worse off since May last year.
  Not everyone, however, is average. We all remember the Chancellor's famous photo-opportunity at the children's party on the eve of the Budget. He may not realise it, but at children's parties these days everyone has to have something to take away: it is the party-bag culture.
  Mr. Gardiner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) to wake up the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)?
  Madam Speaker: I did not hear anyone snoring.
  Mr. Maude: That famous party was held at the house of Mr. Gavyn Davies, one of the partners at Goldman Sachs. He is a lucky chap and did very well in the party-bag handout: a change in capital gains tax will leave him £16 million better off. What about the small business man and the farmer? There was no special treatment for them. They were clobbered by the Finance Bill. What was that phrase about help for the many, not the few?
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the right hon. Gentleman outline why members of his party appear to have voted in Committee on the Finance Bill for about £6 billion in tax increases, which would be about 3p on income tax?
  Mr. Maude: I make no apology for the Conservative party voting against tax increases, and I am grateful to
  26
  the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the central difference between the Labour and Conservative parties: we believe in low taxes, Labour in high.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Gentleman wants to point out something else to his disadvantage, I am glad to hear from him.
  Mr. Caplin: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman tried to misinterpret what I said; he has done it before and no doubt he will try to do it again. I said that his party had voted for tax increases amounting to 3p in the pound—and he knows it.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. The fact is that the Government have repeatedly increased taxes since the general election, in complete breach of their clear pledge not to do so.
  We heard all the tough talk about spending, but that is all that it is: talk. We now know from the summer spending statement that the Chancellor never meant it. One does not need to rely on a hostile commentator to make the point. On the Chancellor's own figures, spending is due to increase by 2.75 per cent. a year for the rest of this Parliament, and by more than 3 per cent. if we count back in the numbers that the Government have fiddled out.
  Last week, Mr. Irwin Stelzer, Mr. Murdoch's economic guru, wrote:
  "Then came the numbers that belie the rhetoric, the Chancellor's parliamentary statement setting out his public spending plans for the next three years. Off with this New Labour facade, on with an Old Labour suit…Little wonder that the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England feels it must keep raising interest rates."
  No doubt that is why the Chancellor has been summoned halfway across the globe next week to account for himself—another unbreakable appointment—when he addresses the Murdoch empire in, appropriately enough, Sun valley.
  For all the brave talk of reducing debt, what do we find? Even on the Chancellor's own most lavish spending option, the Red Book in March showed a debt repayment. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor was at his most thunderous on the subject:
  "Stability also requires a commitment to prudence in fiscal policy. The Chancellor is above all the guardian of the people's money."
  He added:
  "By 2000, the Budget is forecast to be in balance."
  He also said:
  "To balance the Budget for one or two years and then let it run out of control in the years that follow is simply to fail those who depend on public services … So this, more than ever, is the wrong time to…compromise our commitment to long-term fiscal stability."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1009.]
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: In a moment.
  That was March; this is now. The Government now plan, even on their hugely optimistic growth projection, to repay not a single penny of debt. They are committed to a permanent Budget deficit. For all their talk of a balanced

  27
  Budget, the Chancellor will not reach balance even in a single year. In every year at the peak of the cycle, the Government will add relentlessly to Britain's national debt. Compare that with the same point in the cycle 10 years ago.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the six years from 1990—during two of which he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury—the Tory Government doubled the national debt, with the result that we are paying £25 billion a year just to service that debt?
  Mr. Maude: That is all looking into history. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to examine history, the right time to consider is the same point in the cycle 10 years ago.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I should like to finish my point because of what the Chief Secretary said.
  At the same point in the cycle 10 years ago, the then Government were repaying debt at the rate of £40 billion in today's terms. They were also increasing spending in real terms on priority services, and cutting taxes. Today, it is tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend, spend. Labour cannot be trusted with the public finances, and admits it.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government are being profligate. Does not he agree with figures in the House of Commons Library showing that over this Parliament, and allowing for the Government's increase in expenditure, public service expenditure will increase by less than half the increase during the previous Parliament? What spending increase would the right hon. Gentleman allow, and how deep would the cuts be if he were in control of policy?
  Mr. Maude: Perhaps it is a mistake to rely on Government figures, but that is what I am doing. The Government's figures provide for an increase in public spending of 2.75 per cent. above inflation over the rest of the Parliament, and, if the numbers that they have fiddled out are counted back in, it comes to more than 3 per cent. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Labour party have claimed to find a magic potion, an elixir, that will provide the secret of perpetual motion. It was Labour who said that the circle could be squared so that we could have absolute fiscal rectitude and increased spending. Labour said that the way to do that was to cut welfare spending, but the Government have, on their own admission, failed to do so.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that we look back 10 years to the glorious work of the previous Government. However, he will recall that interest rates were exactly the same as now, inflation was 4.2 per cent, as it is now, and there was substantially greater unemployment than there is today. Within a year, the right hon. Gentleman's Government managed to double both interest rates and inflation, and made no
  28
  serious inroad on unemployment. Does he accept that we should take no lessons from a party that wants us to look back to that?
  Mr. Maude: I merely make the comparison that Labour Members invited us to make. At the top of the cycle, we had strong public finances. This Government are not even planning, on their own optimistic growth projections, a Budget that gets into balance in a single year. It was all phooey about repaying debt and getting back to a balanced Budget. They do not even do it in a single year.
  Dr. Nick Palmer rose—
  Mr. Jim Murphy rose—
  Mr. Maude: I have given way often and am drawing to a close.
  We always said that Labour cannot be trusted with the economy. After only 14 months, it is coming apart. Its economic policies are in disarray and the public finances are unravelling. In a moment, the Chief Secretary will begin the old familiar rant. He will chant that we will have no more stop-go or boom and bust. He will do it not once but time and again, in the inane new Labour belief that if a mantra is repeated often enough, it becomes more plausible. When Labour dreamt up the phrase, "No more boom and bust," it must have meant no more boom followed by bust, because we have boom and bust at the same time. Boom-bust, stop-go, stability, security, and the long term were just mantras.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I am coming to an end.
  Those phrases were just mantras to persuade people that Labour could be trusted with the economy and the public finances. It is time for Labour to take responsibility for its actions and stop blaming everyone else. This is the Government's strategy. These are their choices and decisions. As the economy flags, it will be the Government's fault. It will be a downturn made in Downing street.
  4.1 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the Government inherited an economy in which the current Budget was in deficit by £21 billion, inflation was set to rise because of the failure of the previous Government to take the necessary action on interest rates and nearly one in five households of working age had nobody working; recalls that the previous Government presided over a boom and bust economy with interest rates peaking at 15 per cent. and the two worst recessions since the war, doubled the national debt in the 1990s, doubled unemployment during its time in office, worsened inequality and failed to tackle the weaknesses in the British economy; commends the actions of the Government in its first year, which has established a credible framework for monetary policy that has led to the lowest long-term interest rates in 33 years, set two clear fiscal rules which provide for both prudent public finance and strong public services in the years ahead, taken action to reduce government borrowing such that the current Budget was in surplus by £1 billion in 1997–98, supported British business through cuts in corporation tax and small

  29
  business tax to their lowest levels ever, launched the New Deal, the biggest employment programme for decades, reformed the tax and benefit system to tackle the unemployment and poverty traps and invested in education and skills; and notes that Britain now has a government which will ensure that the country does not return to the boom and bust and 15 per cent. interest rates of the late 1980s and early 1990s and instead has an economic policy based on stability, enterprise, employment and fairness.".
  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) for telling the House that he was about to come to the end of his speech. I congratulate him on getting in what might pass as a soundbite just before he sat down.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House should not take lightly the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a parliamentary democracy with an unwritten constitution such as ours, there are unwritten rules that Ministers accept their responsibility to Parliament. When the Opposition table a motion naming the Chancellor and complaining about a range of Government action and he chooses not to attend, it shows an arrogance to Parliament that we should not accept. Is there any way in which we can oblige the Chancellor to appear before us if he behaves with such insouciance?
  Madam Speaker: That point was made earlier by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). I am sure that both his remarks and those of the hon. Gentleman have been noted by the Government.
  Mr. Darling: I was going to allude to the shadow Chancellor's reference to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The Chancellor and I discussed at length which of us should reply to the Opposition. He was upset that, in his capacity as representing Europe and the European Finance Ministers, he felt that it was appropriate to attend the European monetary affairs committee, which is traditional at the beginning and end of each country's presidency. The previous Government would have done that when they held the presidency. We believe that the Government should honour our international obligations.
  The Pavlovian response of the Conservatives every time that Europe is mentioned is interesting and instructive. They cannot conceal their hostility to anything to do with Europe or any idea that a Minister of the Crown might represent Britain in Europe and thereby further our interests there. They really cannot stand it.
  Instead of spending about seven minutes skirting around the subject as he taxied to the end of the runway, so to speak, before delivering his attack on us, the shadow Chancellor really ought to have considered whether the point was worth the trouble he went to. My right hon. Friend is doing precisely what the country would expect him to do: representing Britain in Europe—which is what the Conservative party did not do.
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Darling: I know that Europe always provokes a response from the hon. Gentleman, so let us hear it now.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: In all seriousness, cannot the Chief Secretary understand that it is not just a question of a Pavlovian response to Europe? Some of us are
  30
  Euro-sceptics, some are not; but most of us believe passionately in the sovereignty of the House of Commons. That is such an essential element of all our proceedings that if Ministers are not prepared to respect it, democracy in this country is at risk.
  Mr. Darling: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will see and hear plenty of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Chamber in the not-too-distant future.
  I want to deal first with the points that the Conservative motion raises—in particular, with this golden economic legacy which keeps reappearing. I then want to deal with the measures that the Government have taken, and with the one glimpse that we have had of where Conservative thinking, if that is what it can be called, is taking us.
  The Tories have done this before. For 18 years, they tried to delude us into thinking that they had achieved economic success. Today, they carry on with that by claiming that they left something called a golden economic legacy—this, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, from the party which used to proclaim the economic miracle of the 1980s, which became the economic disaster of the 1990s. This is the party which delivered two of the deepest recessions since the war. The United Kingdom was one of the most unstable of all the industrialised countries. And there was a legacy of boom and bust: 15 per cent. interest rates, and interest rates in double figures for four consecutive years. There were 1 million home owners with negative equity, and record repossessions.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham tells us that the right period of history to look at is 10 years ago. It is indeed an instructive time to look at, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said. After 1988, when the then Chancellor Lawson started his unsustainable boom, within two and a half years inflation had doubled to nearly 10 per cent., and interest rates had risen to record levels. There were 22 tax rises to try to contain the debt that the previous Government began to pile up. Is that a golden legacy? Are these people in any position to lecture us?
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Government's intention to abolish boom and bust has already been surfacing. Do the Government think that the economy is in an upswing or a downswing—or has Labour abolished the business cycle?
  Mr. Darling: As we have often made clear, we are putting in place measures to ensure long-term, sustainable stability—that is what the Conservative party never managed. The Tories talk about unemployment. They are remembered for the mass unemployment of the 1980s. They left us with a country in which one household in five containing people of working age had no one in work. They talk about tax rises. This is the party which doubled VAT in 1979, having said that it would not. The Tories put VAT on fuel in 1993, having promised not to.
  The golden legacy was a national debt that doubled in six years to more than £400 billion, costing us £25 billion a year to service. The Conservatives left us with a borrowing requirement of some £23 billion, a figure which we have had to get down.
  Today, the Conservatives are at it again. I note that the Conservative attack was unveiled, it seems exclusively, to a national newspaper—but the bogus claims are the same

  31
  as they always were. The Tories claim that a middle-income family will be worse off. It is a spurious calculation; the structure of the family chosen is far from typical, and it has changed since its last outing. A few weeks ago, the family did not smoke; now it does.
  The Conservatives complain about the increases in road fuel duty, but they introduced the fuel duty escalator at 5 per cent. When the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced it, he said:
  "Any critic of this Government's tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
  The tax rise faced by the family in the article includes rises in tobacco duty, which we have continued to impose because we, like the previous Government, believe that we should discourage smoking as a matter of public policy. It was the Conservative party which introduced that tax increase: are Conservatives now saying that they will reduce or do away with the duty, that they want to encourage smoking, and that they want to continue to damage the environment? How are they going to pay for that removal? What is their position? If they are going to criticise those measures, let them tell us what is the alternative.
  As ever, the Conservatives have been highly selective. They might have told the family about some of the other measures in our Budget: the increase in child benefit for the eldest child worth £130 a year for 5.5 million families with children; the reduction in employee national insurance contributions, worth £66 a year; and the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit. All those measures will benefit families and help to make work pay. The measures in the last Budget will mean an average increase in disposable income for many families of about £100. As usual, the Tories have not given the full picture.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, for the moment at least, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) first.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for exposing Tory hypocrisy, but why have the Labour Government abolished the series that was released for 18 years under the Tories, showing the direct and indirect personal tax burden? When will a new series be ready?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been asking a series of parliamentary questions about those figures, and we answer those questions as quickly as possible. We have no difficulty in making available to the House the position on tax and spending.
  Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend is dismissing the Tory claims in a characteristically robust manner, but, while he is on the subject of income and rightly showing
  32
  that families have by no means been disadvantaged over the past year, will he take this opportunity to condemn the increase in income of directors of Yorkshire Water, which might act as a signal to other companies? Is it not disgraceful that people who already receive a very substantial income have increased it by at least 30 per cent? Should not that be condemned? Why not show those greedy pigs the real way by introducing another windfall tax?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes the point that people sitting in boardrooms are in no position to lecture those on lower incomes about the need for restraint when they do not show restraint themselves. The right hon. Member for Horsham, who was kind enough to declare his interests, which he said were in the national interest, defended some of the people who have awarded themselves exceptionally high increases. My position and that of the Government is that people sitting in boardrooms must show exactly the same restraint as they expect others to show.
  In the newspaper article, the Conservatives complained about two items relating to taxation that I find interesting. First, they criticised our decision to reduce the rate at which married couple's allowance is given. That is odd because, in 1993, Norman Lamont, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that that allowance was something of anomaly and that, because of the need to raise extra revenue, the rate was to be reduced. Given the Conservatives' action throughout the 1980s to reduce the married couple's allowance, it is curious that they should now criticise such action.
  The same applies to the cuts in MIRAS, about which the right hon. Member for Horsham complains. I read what he said in 1994, when he was out of Parliament, having lost his seat in 1992. He said:
  "In one of my first speeches in the House of Commons… I argued for the full abolition of mortgage interest relief. As Financial Secretary in 1991, I was proud to take through the Finance Bill that among other things restricted relief to the basic rate.
  Yet I believe it now could and should be abolished, and there would be barely a squeak of protest."—
  presumably, not a squeak from himself. He added:
  "The sooner it happens, the better."
  What is his position? Would he abolish mortgage interest relief, or was that idea suitable only when he was outside the House? He should tell us his view.
  Mr. Maude: I believe in Governments doing what they say they will do. The Government said in opposition that they would not raise taxes at all—there was no if, no but, no maybe and no caveat—and they broke their word.
  Mr. Darling: I shall take the right hon. Gentleman at his word. He has given a solemn pledge in saying that the sooner MIRAS is abolished, the better. Now we know that that will be the Conservative party's policy at the next election.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: In a moment.
  I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Horsham stands by something he said last week which completely

  33
  undermines his complaint today. He told a Conservative party gathering that
  "measured in any way you like, taxes are lower in Britain."
  How on earth can he complain as he has done today? He cannot have it both ways—either taxes are lower, or they are not. The right hon. Gentleman might have thought long and hard before making his remarks last week or his remarks today, because he has used two different arguments in two weeks.
  Mr. Maude: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the good legacy, which the Government inherited from us, of taxes that are much lower than those elsewhere in Europe, and I am delighted that the Government have not yet managed to narrow that gap as much as they no doubt plan to do. The gap is narrowing not because others are reducing their taxes, but because the Government are increasing our taxes.
  Mr. Darling: We have honoured our promises on taxation. In particular, we have made sure that where we have increased taxes, we are directing help where it is needed; for example, through the working families tax credit to families on low incomes for whom we want to help to make work pay.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from narrowing, the gap between the UK rate of corporation tax, which businesses pay, and the European rate has widened since the election?
  Mr. Darling: It has, and I would be less than fair to the right hon. Member for Horsham if I did not commend him for having pointed that out to his audience last week. He said that corporation tax was low, which we achieved through our reform of the corporation tax system.
  We have taken other steps to help to put the economy on a stable footing. We have set out two clear fiscal rules that will provide prudent public finance and strong public services in the years ahead. We have taken action to reduce Government borrowing, and we have put in place a more credible framework for monetary policy, which has been praised by the OECD. We have the lowest long-term interest rates for more than 33 years, as the right hon. Member for Horsham knows well. He said last week that the UK's
  "long-term rates are very low. Indeed our 10-year rate is lower than Germany's."
  We remember that, 10 years ago, we were being lectured by the Conservative Government and told that they wanted to surpass Germany's achievement. Yet it is under a Labour Government that the UK has the lowest long-term interest rates since before England last won the world cup.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the two rules that the Government have introduced. Does he accept the view of Professor Buiter, a member of the Monetary Policy Committee, who said:
  "The Golden Rule…has no merits as a guide to optimal borrowing"?
  Mr. Darling: Professor Buiter made several comments. I strongly believe, as do most commentators, that the
  34
  Government's commitment to fiscal prudence will be of the utmost importance in the years to come because, time and again, successive Governments—Conservative and Labour—have found that any attempt to expand the economy has been undermined by capacity constraints. All too often in the past, an increase in public spending has had to be reigned back as soon as the economy begins to turn the other way.
  We believe that stability is the essential foundation for public services and long-term economic growth, which is why, among other actions, we cut borrowing, gave the Bank independence—which has achieved those long-term interest rates—and significantly tightened the fiscal stance by some 2.5 per cent. of national income. We have taken action to tackle the long-term weaknesses in the British economy by supporting British business, making cuts in corporation tax and setting up the new deal—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: If hon. Members can contain themselves, I will give way in a moment.
  The new deal is the biggest employment programme in this country for decades. Taken together, the tax cuts and the structural reforms will stand this country in good stead for the future. That essential foundation is necessary if we are to support the public spending that hon. Members on both sides of the House want.
  Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
  Mr. Darling: I will give way to the one Conservative Member here who is not a Euro-sceptic.
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who rightly identifies me as not being a Euro-sceptic. Given that the Government are committed to endeavouring to join the euro some time at the beginning of the next century, will he clarify what effect that will have on the fiscal balance?
  Fiscal prudence sounds of virginal character, but, in reality, there will be some tough decisions on the fiscal balance if there is a single monetary zone in Europe. There will be problems with, for example, trying to ensure that mortgages do not explode as interest rates fall when we join the euro. Will he abolish MIRAS? Will he raise taxation as a lever to control the balance of the economy in a fixed monetary zone? He is avoiding all those questions.
  Mr. Darling: It is not the Labour Government who want to abolish MIRAS; the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. The steps that we have put in place are good for the British economy, whether or not we join the single currency. Those fiscal rules are essential for this country and its long-term economic development. We would be adopting this fiscal stance and rules whether or not there was any question of joining the euro after a referendum.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: Not just now, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I want to make some progress, and many hon. Members want to take part in the debate.

  35
  I want to explore the Opposition's approach to public spending, which appears to be confused and contradictory. It is not clear whether they believe that we are spending too much or too little; and, if we are spending too much, what would they like to cut. What taxes would they like to put up? We know that the Tory Front Bench has moved to the right. As we have seen this afternoon, it is more hostile to Europe than ever before.
  This week is the 50th anniversary of the national health service—one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government of 1945. In the view of many people, it was the foundation of the welfare state. Yet look at what the shadow Chancellor has said—we must assume that he speaks for all the Tory party, because we know that it is united now. In 1995, he said:
  "There is a powerful case that the growth of the Welfare State in the first half of this century went a long way towards destroying a flourishing movement of private provision of education, health, pensions and housing."
  He said that at the Hayek memorial lecture—where else? It highlights the difference between the new right-wing Tory party and the Government.
  The NHS embodies our values. It is more efficient, effective and fair to contribute to a health service that is there when we need it, on the basis of need and not on the ability to pay. I should be interested to know how the right hon. Gentleman squares that with what he said in 1995.
  Mr. Maude: It is reassuring that the right hon. Gentleman has spent so much time reading my old speeches. There is a great deal for him to learn from them. Does he accept that the analysis that I set out in that lecture is precisely the analysis that the Minister for Welfare Reform has been putting forward?
  Mr. Darling: It is no part of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform has been saying. He does not believe, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that the provision of public education and health services is harmful. He would not want to go back—
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Darling: I will let the right hon. Gentleman intervene in a moment.
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me.
  Mr. Darling: I shall let the right hon. Gentleman intervene in a moment. In 1995, he was saying that the growth of the welfare state in the first half of the century went a long way to destroy what he described as
  "a flourishing movement of private provision of education"
  and
  "health".
  The clear implication is that he would like to return to that. Indeed, I have read some of his other speeches, in which he gives the distinct impression that the Conservative party is still wedded to private provision in education and health, and that public provision would
  36
  simply be residual, for those who could not afford to pay. That is the precise inference that I take from his speech—a position from which, I believe, he has never departed.
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously been studying my speeches at great length, which is terrific, but he must not draw improper conclusions from them and certainly must not misrepresent them. The fact that the private provision and the mutual provision—the self-provision—of many of those services was harmed by the introduction of the welfare state in the first half of this century is incontrovertible. If he can provide evidence that that is not the case, let him do so. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Darling: As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and many of my other hon. Friends are saying, thank goodness for that in the health service, because a national health service to which everyone contributes, and which exists on the basis of need, not ability to pay, is the hallmark of a decent, fair and just society. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees, I shall just have to put up with that.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was complaining or complimenting me on reading his speeches, but I read some more, and I noticed that, at the Tory party conference last year—probably the best place for such a speech—he made an interesting observation:
  "when a right of centre party moves to the right it can become more popular."
  I suppose it is worth trying anything in the Conservative party. That seems to conflict with what Michael Portillo told the same conference; he seemed to suggest that he wanted to regain the centre, and that the Tories should be more compassionate.
  I wonder what the shadow Chancellor's position is on public spending. Last year, at the Tory conference, he said:
  "There is no moral content in voting for more public spending."
  I wonder whether that is the view of the entire party. Let us hear it from someone more on the wing of the Conservative party than the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor).
  Sir Michael Spicer: It is flattering of the right hon. Gentleman to spend so much time on the Conservative party's policies, but the sad fact is that he is Chief Secretary; he is in government. Now that he is in the public expenditure section of his speech, surely it is fair for him to say something about the implications of his public spending plans. Does 2.75 per cent. growth in spending mean higher taxes? If not, does it mean higher borrowing? Does higher borrowing mean higher interest rates? Let us have some answers on the implications of his expenditure policy.
  Mr. Darling: I had always thought that one point of an Opposition day was to examine what the Opposition had to say, and I was thoroughly enjoying doing so. Only a week ago, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out our position at length in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report and when, shortly, we set out the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review, the difference between the Government and the official Opposition will be clear for all to see.

  37
  However, I want to explore the point that the shadow Chancellor made when he said that there was
  "no moral content in voting for more public spending."
  I wonder whether everyone in the Conservative party is fully on board, because it seems to me that one or two Conservative Members are off-message. The shadow Chancellor says that we have gone soft on public spending, but, given what some of his colleagues have said on health, perhaps he should tell that to some of his colleagues.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said:
  "The key point is that spending under this Government is less than it would have been had the Conservative party stayed in office."—[Official Report, 16 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 183.]
  So there would have been more spending under the Tories! It is not true, of course, because we have increased spending on the health service.
  The shadow Health Secretary, who surely could not be accused of having no moral content in what she does, said:
  "The effect that underfunding has had on the health service is now visible"—[Official Report, 16 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 140.]—
  so she wants more money to be spent.
  When we announced £2½ billion more in the education service, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell)—who, sadly, is no longer on the Front Bench—said,
  "Today's announcement of extra money…represents a sticking plaster"—
  so he wants to spend more public money.
  The former chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) agrees that there should be more public spending. He said that
  "there is an unanswerable case for more police on the ground".—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 3.]
  He wants more spending—despite the fact that we are still dealing with the spending plans fixed by the previous Government.
  The shadow Chancellor says that there is too much public spending, whereas his colleagues say that there is too little. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the shadow Chancellor—I know that he is new to the brief—really should have a word with his Tory colleagues serving on the Committee considering the Finance Bill. They voted for no less than £6 billion of extra spending—which is 3p on tax. They make the Liberal Democrats look a model of fiscal responsibility. The Liberals want to increase tax by only 1p to cover their modest list of promises—
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory rose—
  Mr. Darling: In one moment.
  The Tories have already committed themselves to 3p. I shall certainly give way to the guilty man. Although I was not there myself, I understand that, because of a breakdown in relations between the Whips, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was dragged back, to appear in his nightgown and hat to participate in an all-night debate. Perhaps that is why he voted for so many spending commitments.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Chief Secretary was a Committee member, but—as he has just reminded us—he
  38
  could not be bothered to turn up. As I was a member and did turn up, may I remind him that, yes, we did vote and speak to reduce the tax rises in the Finance Bill? We make no apology for that. If he wants to characterise that as a tax or expenditure increase, I can only say that he has not understood the content of his own Bill.
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman still has to deal with the point that, if he votes for measures costing £6 billion, he will have to tell us what taxes would go up to replenish that revenue or, alternatively, what expenditure he wants to cut. However, he cannot do either, because it is a tax-and-spend policy without the tax.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: No; I want to make some progress.
  When one examines what the Conservatives say on public spending to one audience and what they say about it to another audience, their confusion and contradiction become apparent. The shadow Chancellor wants to move the Conservative party to the right—to make it even more popular than it is today. He seems to be hostile to the welfare state—which, he says,
  "erodes the bonds of duty and compassion that hold society together."
  I believe that the welfare state reinforces those bonds and that compassion.
  The shadow Chancellor says that there is no moral content in voting for more public spending. So his colleagues have no moral content? However, although they want to spend more, they will not tell us how they will pay for it. It is all very confused and very contradictory.
  As I told the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) a moment ago, the Government will state our proposals in the not-too-distant future. Step by step, we are implementing our manifesto promises. We are modernising the welfare state; making work pay; reforming the labour market; and promoting enterprise and business success.
  We have a fair tax system. As we have seen, today's tax claims by the Tories fall apart when we examine their actions in government and their comments in opposition. Again, the shadow Chancellor said that
  "measured any way you like, taxes are lower in Britain."
  The Government are providing investment and reform, and sustainable and affordable public services. We are providing £2.5 billion for education, and £2 billion for the national health service. We are investing in transport. We are taking the tough decisions that are necessary for the future.
  We shall publish soon the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review, which will set out the Government's priorities for this Parliament and beyond. It will offer the United Kingdom a new direction, standing in stark contrast to the divisions, confusions and contradictions that represent the Conservative party today.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Listening to the shadow Chancellor's opening speech, one rather got the impression that the Tories were not only expecting a

  39
  downturn, but positively hoping for one. One really does wonder whether it is the job of the Opposition to try to talk the country into economic problems rather than to help it to get out of them—particularly as, contrary to their motion, the Tories contributed to creating some of the problems that we are now facing.
  The Liberal Democrats are not surprised by the current state of the economy. I remind the House that, last July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) warned the Chancellor:
  "Instead of shackling businesses, he should have restrained the consumer, in order to prevent the higher interest rates, higher inflation and less competitive sterling that will surely follow."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 325.]
  In November 1996, when responding to the last Tory Budget, my right hon. Friend said:
  "Within three months, interest rates will go up…if they do not, the only reason will be the fact that the Government have an election coming. Within a year, tax cuts will be reversed, and within 14 to 18 months inflation will be rising sharply again."—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 183.]
  All those predictions have come true.
  The principal reason for the present situation, which makes the Tory motion so cynical and absurd, is the decision of the previous Government to keep policy so lax before the general election, as the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) rightly said. The previous Government cut personal taxes in spite of record consumer windfalls, a matter which was discussed in the House and in the Treasury Select Committee, and which the then Chancellor chose to discount. They kept interest rates down in spite of buoyant consumer demand, and they refused to accept the advice of the Bank of England about the risks to inflation.
  It seems a long time ago now, but there was regular speculation about the Ken and Eddie show. The argument was about who was right—Ken or Eddie. It is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is not here because at this point, he usually makes an ebullient intervention claiming that he is always right, always has been and always will be. He presumably believes that the Bank of England was always wrong and that the Government were always right.
  The fact is that the results of keeping policy too easy two years ago are now coming through in high inflation, wage pressures and capacity constraints. The previous Chancellor was clear that policy worked with a lag, and that the success or otherwise of his policies would have to be judged after the passage of time. Well, time has passed and the results are now clear—Eddie was right and Ken was wrong. The Tory motion draws attention only to the legacy of the party's own policy failure and the bad old days, when interest rate policy was determined by the short-term priorities of politicians and not by the long-term interests of the country.
  I find it astonishing that when operationally independent central banks are in place the world over—in almost every country in the free world—it is only the British Conservative party that wants to go back to the political manipulation of interest rates. That gave us entry into the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong moment—Black Wednesday—and the inflationary pressures under the previous Government, yet the Conservative party
  40
  wants a return to the right of politicians to meddle in the short-term, day-to-day management of the economy and so damage the national interest.
  In this context, the current Chancellor is to be congratulated on giving operational independence to the Bank of England and on his code for fiscal stability which, we hope, will entrench sensible rules for public borrowing. Both those changes should provide greater economic stability, lower inflation, lower interest rates and higher employment. Certainly, that is the justification for putting them in place.
  As I argued on behalf of the Liberal Democrats before and during the last general election, long-term interest rates have already fallen directly because of expectations of lower inflation, which has resulted from the operational independence of the central Bank. If we secure lower levels of public borrowing, it means that when shocks to growth do occur—continued steady growth cannot be guaranteed—there is greater flexibility for fiscal policy and less risk of destabilising policy adjustments.
  We welcome the changes—not surprisingly, as most of them were in our own manifesto. [Interruption.] They were, and I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have implemented policies that were in our manifesto. Indeed, it demonstrates that it is possible for an Opposition party to be influential. The only thing that was slightly odd was the inability of the Labour party during the election to acknowledge that it intended to do what we had specifically promised, but that does not in any way devalue the fact that we welcome the decision to move forward. Labour Members are happy to tease and challenge us, but, on occasion, it would be nice for the Government to acknowledge that there has been some agreement and congruence of policy, and not to try to manufacture a difference of opinion that does not exist.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has said, one slightly worrying factor is that, on all the main series of statistics, the Government are clearly trying to manufacture discontinuity so that it will not be possible to monitor the progress of this Government and the performance of their predecessors in a like-for-like way. That is disturbing. They wish to rewrite history and draw a line at 1997.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to stop other people from pointing out differences between the parties, but this is important. May I ask him his opinion? The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—50 per cent. of the Liberal Democrat party representation in the Standing Committee—made an important comment on the Finance Bill. He said that the Liberal Democrats wanted to consider equalising the income tax allowance with the capital gains tax allowance, moving it up to £6,800, which would cost £17.5 billion, equivalent to 8p on the rate of income tax. Is that Liberal Democrat policy?
  Mr. Bruce: The Liberal Democrats are trying to ensure that both the capital and income tax systems fall equitably and fairly according to ability to pay. We wish to lower the burden on people who have low capital gains and low income. That is a perfectly reasonable policy.
  Apart from the discontinuity of statistics, there have, of course, been some controversial reactions to Government policies. Some have argued that the Bank of England,

  41
  given its operational independence, has put up interest rates too sharply. Others say that the rise has come a bit too slowly. Personally, I take the latter view, but the important thing is not to second guess the authorities each month, or to criticise each twist in decision making.
  There will always be controversy. Indeed, with a Monetary Policy Committee of nine members all expressing their opinions in public, we know that that debate will be carried out openly. It will be months or even years before the clear outcome of those policies can be determined, but the important thing is that monetary policy is now being run to meet the Government's inflation target, not the previous Prime Minister's re-election target, as happened two years ago. That has to be a welcome development.
  Although the Chancellor has deservedly been praised for this new framework, particularly the monetary framework, he cannot entirely escape blame for our current economic problems. Although the post-election period has seen a big change in the structures, there has been much economic policy continuity, too. What was known as Clarkeism has given way to Brownism. As The Economist has argued, there is an element of continuity. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton described that as Clownism in the conduct of policy.
  On fiscal policy, the deficit has come down, but the same relaxed approach to the taxation of consumption has continued. On the single currency, I get the feeling that the commitment to eventual EMU entry is shared more widely in the present Government than has been made public. Nevertheless, the wait-and-see strategy, or what I described once as the wait-and-wait-and-wait strategy, lives on. As a result, we suffer from the overvaluation and instability of the pound; that strategy is a substantial factor in that.
  Of course, for the first two years of this Parliament, the Government's spending plans have remained fixed, preventing new measures to invest in education to start to tackle the skill shortages that are pushing up wages and threatening to abort the recovery. Education is vital not just for the quality of our society, but for our economic well-being, yet, on the Government's own figures, the proportion of gross domestic product that is spent on education has fallen from 4.9 per cent. before the election to 4.7 per cent. after, despite the fact that the Prime Minister said that education spending would increase in real terms as a percentage of GDP year on year under Labour—clearly a broken promise.
  On that issue, I feel that both the Prime Minister and Treasury Ministers cannot go on getting away with trying to pretend that Liberal Democrat policies and priorities should be frozen in aspic as of 1 May last year, while Government spending and Government information are updated. We have, of course, made it absolutely clear that, on the basis of our commitments and the revisions that we have applied to those in the light of information that has become available since the general election, this party supports very much more substantial investment in education—and in health as well—than anything that the Government have pledged.
  Mr. Darling: I do not like to interrupt this congruence of policy to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I cannot let him get away with what he has just said. What
  42
  is undoubtedly true is that Liberal Democrat policy is not frozen in aspic—if, indeed, that is what people do with aspic—because every time we announce an increase in spending, the Liberal Democrats call for even more. We are spending more now, despite the fact that we said that we would hold to the inherited expenditure totals in the first two years. We are spending £2.5 billion more on education, educational maintenance and new building than the Liberal Democrats promised. It is true to say that, since then, they have upped the ante, and I expect that they will continue to do that. The difference between us and them is that we have to finance it and we are capable of financing it. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is.
  Mr. Bruce: I must take absolute issue with the right hon. Gentleman on education. Our commitment on education is several times what the Government have so far pledged—[Interruption.] No; it always was. The commitment to put the equivalent of 1p on income tax for education over the entire Parliament is a substantially bigger commitment than the Government have made. That is a fact on which I stand firmly.
  On the updating, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is right. Of course, I accept that it is not credible to make pledges unless we are prepared to demonstrate where the money should come from, but, in the light of the improving finances that the Government have benefited from, we have certainly said that some of that money could and should have gone into health and education, whereas the Government have stuck to a policy of keeping the squeeze on those services in the first two years and then throwing substantially more money at them later, which we believe is damaging and may yet prove inflationary.
  Already, the inflationary figures on which the Chief Secretary's forecasts are based have proved to be unrealistically low. He is running at a higher rate of inflation than the Chancellor's first Budget forecast and the inflationary pressures are upwards. If that continues, what will be the real effect on the commitment on expenditure on public services? Perhaps I could put it the other way around. At what point will the Government recognise that they have to review what their commitment will deliver? The argument is about not just who will spend more money—that is sterile and unproductive—but what we wish to deliver.
  I accept that the Government are right to identify specific outputs or inputs, such as reduced class sizes and reduced waiting lists. Our contention is that, first, those have not been delivered and it may be difficult to deliver them. Secondly, they are modest aspirations which we wish to improve on. We have identified the fact that most people would like class sizes to come down well below 30 throughout the primary school sector, not just in the first three classes. Most people want hospital waiting times to be shorter, not just waiting lists. Those are all things that will require resources and the motivation of highly qualified, highly skilled people, who will not be retained in the public services if they face pay cuts year on year, which is this Government's policy.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the latest figure in the national accounts for quarter one GDP, year on year, is up 2.9 per cent., which is above the long-term GDP trend of about 2 per cent? The economy is booming above and beyond the rate set of

  43
  2.75 per cent. for public expenditure, which was mentioned by the Opposition. The problem is keeping the economy on a stable, growing footing, not the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that, at the moment, the economy is doing well. There are clear concerns on the horizon about whether that can be sustained. There is so much that the Government can do; there are things that are outside their control. Our contention is that it would have been wiser to have a more even flow of funding into public services, rather than to keep the stranglehold on—and then attempt to push money into them perhaps faster than they can absorb, and when the economy may be experiencing greater inflationary pressures.
  The Chancellor is very keen to squeeze boom and bust out of the management of the economy, and he has adopted policies that he believes will lead in that direction. We agree with him on that. Unfortunately, his policies on the public services run the risk of creating a bust and boom that may prove equally unsustainable. Our critique of the situation bears some examination, and I stand by our record.
  To tackle our economic problems, we must invest more in education and training. Without that, each recovery burns itself out on higher wages and inflation. The pressures are appearing already, despite still high unemployment, particularly in certain regions.
  The Chancellor has made grave mistakes on fiscal policy. He raised taxes substantially and predictably after the election. Had the Conservatives won the election, I suspect that taxes would have gone up in the same way, although they did not say that they would do that either. Sensitive to the promises made on tax, the Chancellor has put the burden almost wholly on hard-pressed businesses and on savers rather than on high-spending consumers. The only consumer tax rises have been modest. The balance that the Chancellor has struck has not helped to bear down on inflation, which is his main problem.
  Dr. George Turner: One of the tax changes that the Government introduced was the windfall tax. Its key objectives were to ensure that we had a better-trained work force and to give people opportunities. The Liberal Democrats opposed the tax. They want the spending, but they oppose the means. Does the hon. Gentleman support the spending, and how would his party have raised the money?
  Mr. Bruce: It is fine for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but I can reverse the challenge. We were committed to putting money into education and putting 1p on income tax, which his party opposed. As a consequence, education has been chronically underfunded. There is a legitimate debate between parties about priorities. We have made ours clear and the Government have made theirs clear. Some of the new deal spending from the windfall tax is not delivering all the results that were promised, not least because the situation is changing under the Government's feet.
  I am conscious that the debate finishes at 7 o'clock, so I shall bring my remarks to a close soon. Relying on interest rates, which is the consequence of the
  44
  Chancellor's fiscal stance, has forced the pound up further and unbalanced the economy even more. The one issue on which I agree with the shadow Chancellor is that we are creating a boom and a bust at the same time—a boom in the consumer sector and a bust in manufacturing. The Government's economic policies are undermining our wealth-creating base. A clear commitment to the single currency would have helped the Government and our exporters by stabilising the pound at a more competitive level and easing pressures on interest rates. It is not too late for the Government to take such issues on board.
  Where the Chancellor has genuinely put the economy first, he has done well. The operational independence of the Bank of England is the best example. Where politics have come top, economic policy has been blown off course. There has been no fiscal tightening for the consumer, to avoid frightening new Labour voters. There has been no stability for the pound, to keep Mr. Murdoch, sweet. There has been no extra investment in education, to stick to Tory spending levels for political reasons. The Tories are not in a strong position, given their record, their pre-election economic policy and their lack of an agenda since the election. However, the Chancellor has to strengthen his nerve if he is to tackle the problems head-on. He must adopt a less relaxed fiscal policy, make a real commitment to education and deal with exchange rate stability, which he always refuses to talk about. Those issues must be addressed if we are to secure sustainable, long-term growth, which Liberal Democrats and the Government want and the country needs. The Liberal Democrats have set out their policies. The Government have acknowledged and adopted some of them and would do well to consider others to help secure the stability, long-term success and prosperity that we all want.
  4.54 pm
  Ms Helen Southworth: The Opposition have called the debate in the hope of re-creating themselves in the public eye. They want to rewrite history, pretending that the Tory Government created a golden age and a dynamic economy. Maybe they are even pretending that they created a fair society. They seem to be hoping for collective national amnesia on a grand scale. They hope that we shall all join them in the land of make-believe. I am afraid that they are away with the fairies; they are in never-never land. Tory Britain was never how they say that it was, and they will never get the British people to believe them.
  Let us look at the reality of what the Tories did to the economy when they were in power. The defining moment of the previous Tory Government was 16 September 1992—Black Wednesday. The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Government panicked. They took interest rates up by 2 per cent., immediately followed by a further 3 per cent. rise. While they were losing their heads, they were losing billions of pounds for this country. They provided management schools round the world with a text book case of how to cause chaos, then how to make it worse.
  Then, in the 1993 Budget, the Tories were desperate to make up the money that they had wasted. They started raising taxes and put VAT on fuel, when Britain had more winter deaths among old people from hypothermia and cold-related illnesses than any other European country. That showed Tory priorities. Then they declared a beef war with the European Union over its response to the BSE crisis

  45
  that their mismanagement had created. They called the war off a month later with nothing gained, leaving British beef farmers and taxpayers paying the cost for years. The Tory Government brought the dreaded words "negative equity" into common parlance, which haunted middle-income families. One thousand homes a week were repossessed during the last months of their Government.
  During the Tory years, Britain's manufacturing base declined from 58 to 28 per cent. of the economy, and the Conservatives took no effective action to restructure, reskill and stabilise industry. While the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister, more than 8 million British people experienced unemployment at least once. Job insecurity became endemic. That is what people remember about Tory Britain.
  Another first: until the right hon. Member for Huntingdon became Prime Minister, all the Governments in the history of the United Kingdom had borrowed a cumulative total of £190 billion. Despite receiving £120 billion from North sea oil and £80 billion from asset sales, the Government of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon added more than £180 billion to the national debt in less than six years. That is a phenomenal and appalling achievement—truly one to remember. British taxpayers have to spend £25 billion a year on repaying the interest on that debt alone and they are still feeling the consequences.
  The Tories were in government for 18 years and gave us the most unstable economy in the developed world, growth rates below those of every other European country and the two deepest and longest recessions in post-war history. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was querying boom and bust. He could not remember what it meant. The Tories had boom and bust, constantly changing policies, repeated rows over Europe, no plans, no strategy and no vision. When business was asking for urgent action on the skills gap, the previous Government reduced the training budget by£34 million in real terms. When business was asking for investment, they crossed their fingers and hoped that something would happen. When business was asking for action on transport, they came up with the cones hotline.
  Just before last May's election, The Economist said of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon:
  "his chief problem is that he leads a party which has taken leave of its senses."
  This afternoon, that party is in its proper place: on the Opposition Benches. It has a new leader, but it is the same party. Who are the Tories in opposition? They are newborn babes; they have no recollection of the mess that they created. They are innocents who bear no responsibility for Black Wednesday, the skills gap, the investment gap, the doubling of national debt, the billions of pounds that were wasted and the millions of people out of work.
  When it comes to the present economic strategy, what do these people say? They look at our public spending review and say that we must cut public spending. They look at our Finance Bill and say that we must increase public spending. They oppose reforms to close tax loopholes, but say that we must do more to close such loopholes.
  Mr. Gibb: The hon. Lady was a member of the Committee that considered the Finance Bill. Will she give an example in that Committee of an occasion on which the Opposition called for a public spending increase?
  Ms Southworth: I would be very happy to send the hon. Gentleman a list of the many more than 20 occasions on which Tory amendments would have increased public expenditure and reduced Government income.
  We do not know—who does?—what the Tories say about Europe; that changes by the minute. In opposition, as in government, the Tories do not know where they are going; they have no coherent plan, no vision and no agreement among themselves. On top of that, it seems that, in the Finance Bill Committee, they could not add up. They were not credible as a Government and they are not credible as an Opposition. If they hope that the electorate will not notice, Conservative Members, like their new leader, will catch a cold.
  By radical contrast, this Government are putting in place an overall economic strategy with discipline and effectiveness. Our central economic objective is high but stable growth with greater job opportunities, so that everybody can share in higher living standards. We are rebuilding the economic infrastructure, creating new partnerships between Government and industry to address the problems of instability that we inherited and to build prosperity. Our policies are clear. We are securing economic stability by ensuring low inflation and sound public finance. We are encouraging work, providing employment opportunities for all and making work pay. We are raising productivity by improving skills, increasing investment, ensuring that markets are accessible and competitive and encouraging research and development.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Southworth: If you are still in you seat, you cannot be asking me to give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must not refer to the Chair in that way.
  Ms Southworth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant to say that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) cannot be asking me to give way if he is still in his seat.
  Mr. Loughton rose—
  Ms Southworth: I will not give way at the moment.
  Current economic indicators show that our strategy is already beginning to take effect. Public sector borrowing, excluding the windfall tax, was £5.9 billion in 1997–98—down to 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. Next year, it is projected to be £1.3 billion—0.2 per cent. of GDP, compared with the massive borrowing of 8 per cent. in 1993–94. Despite increases in short-term interest rates, long-term interest rates have fallen sharply since the Government introduced the new policy framework in May. The rates are now at their lowest level for more than 30 years. Real personal disposable income is up by 5 per cent. on last year.
  I should like to comment on some examples of the effectiveness of the Government's management of the economy that are particularly important to my constituents. Over the past year, I have discussed priorities with the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small

  47
  Businesses, chambers of commerce and business people in my constituency. Business people in small and medium businesses right through to multinationals know that people are the key to success. They all recognise the drag on business, profitability and growth caused by the skills gap.
  The Tory inheritance meant that, in Britain, less than half the number of students attained good grades at GCSE than in France or Germany. We were 42nd in the education league. Thousands of young people were trying to find jobs without basic literacy and numeracy skills. Such young people have the right to decent education and a decent opportunity in life. This Government—my Government—are tackling the skills shortage with imagination and vigour. Our careful and coherent plans for managing the economy are inclusive, and they draw on the experience and expertise of business. The new deal for young people has been designed with the active support and co-operation of industry and business. It is already working to give young people a step up the skills ladder.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, in Croydon, only on Friday, I spoke to an audience of more than 100 businesses that are interested in the Government's new deal. That is symptomatic of the new partnership between the Government and business to get our people back to work.
  Ms Southworth: As my hon. Friend would expect, I am very pleased to hear that. Indeed, I heard the same message in a business breakfast this morning.
  We know that the new deal is effective because 60,000 young people have joined it since January. Indeed, we are already receiving an enthusiastic and interested response to today's launch of the new deal for over 25s. We are also investing £100 million in opening 40 centres of technical excellence. We are training 20,000 people to tackle the millennium bug which, as one of my constituents said, is one of those normal problems that will not go away, which small and medium businesses need the Government's help to tackle, and which the previous Government ignored.
  We are creating a culture of lifelong learning with an infrastructure that helps people access knowledge and skills. In addition—an issue that is brought up constantly by my constituents who are business people—we have committed £2.5 billion extra to education, and will increase that spending year on year as the economy grows.
  That brings me to another area of exceptional importance to many of my constituents. After the Warrington bombing, local people worked hard to support a framework for peace in Northern Ireland. They have raised £1 million in the past three months to build an international peace centre for young people from north and south Ireland and England. A peaceful future for Northern Ireland really matters to us. The £315 million invested in the renewal and modernisation of Northern Ireland, which the Government have allocated to build economic and political stability, get people back to work, equip them with skills and create an infrastructure for a modern economy, effectively shows the Government's priorities. Economic growth and social cohesion are working together to build a better present and a better future for the people of all these islands.
  5.7 pm
  Sir Peter Tapsell: The House has just heard a most powerful, fluent and charmingly delivered speech from the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth), to which I listened with great interest. It used to be a tradition in the House that one replied to the previous speaker, so I shall deal first with one or two of her points.
  The hon. Lady is quite wrong in thinking that none of us Conservatives has a recollection of events leading up to British entry into the exchange rate mechanism and those flowing from it. I was strongly opposed to, and argued strongly against, joining the ERM. During the two years that we were in it, I continually urged that we should leave. To this day, I regard so-called black Wednesday as one of the most fortunate events in post-war British economic history. However, throughout the late 1980s, day-in, day-out, the Labour party strongly urged the then Conservative Government to join the ERM. I remember Neil Kinnock, then Leader of the Opposition, and John Smith, then shadow Chancellor, urging in the twice-weekly Prime Minister's Question Time—Prime Ministers used to come to the House twice a week—that Britain join the ERM.
  I may say in an aside to the Liberal economic spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that the Bank of England was also strongly in favour of our joining the exchange rate mechanism, as was much of the City of London and the great international firms. In other words, exactly the same people who were then in favour of our joining the ERM are now urging us to join the single European currency, and for the same reasons.
  One of the extraordinary things about the highly intelligent remarks of the hon. Member for Warrington, South is that she seems not to appreciate, given the very things for which she was criticising the Conservative Government in the past—I fully recognise that it was a terrible mistake for us to join the ERM—that her Government are now seriously contemplating making exactly the same mistake again.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Is it not the case that, when the Conservative Government went into the exchange rate mechanism, they went in at too high a rate and with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude that meant that we had no friends in the arrangement when the crisis arose? If anything, that was an example of the way in which the Conservative party dealt with the European Community throughout its period in office. The disaster that followed was the sort of disaster that would follow any policy that the Conservative Government took up, with that sort of bullying manner.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I fully accept—events demonstrated it all too clearly—that we joined the ERM at the wrong rate of DM2.95 to the pound. However, there will never be a right rate at which to join any fixed exchange arrangement. The essence of international currency markets, as we have seen in the relationship, for example, between the yen and the dollar in the past month, is that currencies can fluctuate dramatically from day to day and week to week. That is one of the great safety mechanisms in the international trading community. When we remove that mechanism, we are in serious trouble.

  49
  That is one of the reasons why the whole of Asia is now in chaos. The countries involved were operating on quasi-fixed exchange rates throughout so they did not devalue and did not change their exchange rates until they were in a desperate situation. In my view, that is exactly what will happen in the European Union in the course of time.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the high level of sterling is a symptom of international business confidence in the British economy? Given what his colleagues have said about getting the exchange rate down, how would he suggest reducing the confidence of the international business community in the British economy so as to push down exchange rates, which it appears the Conservative Opposition want to do by some sort of whim?
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I am being delayed in getting on with what I really want to say. However, I am much more interested in the subjects that are being raised.
  It is true, to some extent, that the great strength of sterling today is due to the high regard that the international community has for the state of the British economy at present, as a result of 18 years of Conservative government. However, it is not true that the whole British economy is very confident at present. The exporting element of the economy has a lower confidence than at any time since 1983, as the latest CBI report proves.
  Much of the strength of sterling is due to the fact that people are anxious about the future of the euro. A great many rich Germans have been moving out of deutschmarks into the Swiss franc, the United States dollar and sterling. To a considerable extent, the strength of sterling is due to anxieties about the euro by the international community.
  The other thing, while I am on this subject—having referred to it, I shall conclude on the question of the past, as it were, and the euro—is that it is not possible to say what would be the right rate at which to join the euro, if the Labour Government eventually decide to join and the British people are unwise enough to vote yes in a referendum. At the moment, the exchange rate with the deutschmark is significantly higher than when we joined the ERM. It was 3.02 this morning, not 2.95. No one who looks at these matters has ever seriously considered that we should join the euro at a higher rate than 2.65, and many would put it at 2.60, or even lower.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who does not always share my euro-sceptic enthusiasms, mentioned earlier, we are talking about a problem that the Labour Government seem not to have considered. Certainly they do not discuss it in public. If they decide to join the euro and they are to avoid the mistake that the Conservative Government made of joining at much too high a rate, how will they get sterling down from DM3 to the pound to 2.60 without greatly increasing inflation? They would have to reduce interest rates—the experts guess that it would involve a reduction in interest rates of 3 or 3.5 per cent. It is said that that would involve a huge increase in income tax to offset the inflationary pressures that would ensue. Even if we
  50
  decided in theory that we wanted to join the euro, it seems to me that there are almost insuperable technical problems just about that aspect of it.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not the case that, in the middle of May, the exchange rate slipped from DM3.10 to the pound to 2.90 due to the agreement of leaders in Europe to set a date for the start of the new currency? Is it not therefore obvious that, if the currency is successful following its launch at the beginning of next year, the rate for the pound will converge down towards 2.65 anyway?
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I do not think that anything is ever certain about the movement of currencies. I have earned my living in this sector, often with some difficulty, for 40 years. If one even knew what the exchange rates of the world were to be tomorrow, one could become another Soros overnight. It is absurd to project forward months ahead what would be the possible rates at which the great currencies would relate to one another.
  I turn to the terms of the motion of censure that my party has rightly put on the Order Paper. The Chief Secretary advanced the rather curious and, I should have thought, entirely novel constitutional proposition that an Opposition censure motion was an opportunity for the Opposition to set out their policies. I have listened to a great many Opposition motions over the past 40 years in the House and it has never seemed to me that that was the object of the movers of such motions.
  I have always thought that a censure motion on a Government was exactly what it said, and that it set out the criticisms that the Opposition of the day have of the Government. The Government are then expected to defend their policies and answer in detail the criticisms that have been made. There has been no attempt to answer our criticisms in detail and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has even pushed off to continental Europe. It is extraordinary. It is not surprising that the Chief Secretary wants us to start behaving as though we were the Government, which I have no doubt that we shall be again in a few years' time.
  When the economic historians come to study the reasons for the failure of this Government, I believe that they will point to the origins of the failure arising on the fourth day of the Government's life, when they suddenly announced the new arrangements for the Bank of England. The whole of that episode will be of great fascination to political and economic historians. That immensely important decision, incidentally, reversed at a stroke a Labour Act of Parliament, not a Conservative one. It reversed the Bank of England Act 1946, which was introduced by the post-war Labour Government.
  The decision was taken furtively and in a tremendous hurry. The policy was not in the Labour party's manifesto, and, in the campaign before 1 May, no Labour Front Bencher said that such a decision would be taken. Indeed, I understand that it was not even discussed and approved by the Labour shadow Cabinet before 1 May. However, it was one of the most important constitutional and economic decisions of this century—indeed, since the reign of Charles II, as anyone who knows the history of the Bank of England will accept—and it was taken in what David Smith, the economics editor of The Sunday Times, described yesterday as a frenetic hurry. It will have

  51
  tremendous implications for the duration of the Labour Government and will, I believe, have very adverse effects on the British people.
  The effect of giving the Bank of England independent operation on interest rates is—as I have said repeatedly in the House from the moment that it was announced—to separate fiscal and monetary policy. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) pointed out that a number of major countries separate fiscal and monetary policy, but sometimes the number is exaggerated—Japan does not separate the two, although I do not want to use Japan as an example for us to follow. People are usually thinking of the United States and Germany, but we should consider the effects of that separation on those countries' recent economic history.
  Nye Bevan, who was the best speaker that I have heard during my time in the House, was fond of saying that one did not have to look into the crystal ball when one could read the book. Recent books show that the United States ran a slack fiscal policy and a tight monetary policy in the 1980s, and that Germany did so in the 1990s, after the Berlin wall came down. The slack fiscal policy in Germany required a tight monetary policy as a counterpoise, which was the cause of all our difficulties as a member of the exchange rate mechanism. The fact that interest rates had to be high in Germany meant that they were inappropriately high in Britain at a time when we were entering deep recession, which—or the reverse—is exactly what might happen if we were in a single European currency. An economy can be organised much more efficiently if elected Ministers are responsible for both fiscal and monetary policy.
  Mr. Beard: Is it not the case that, immediately after the Monetary Policy Committee took control of interest rates, long-term interest rates fell? That fall, which was the result of the policy about which the hon. Gentleman complains, had a direct impact on one of the longest-standing problems of the British economy—the lack of investment.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Treasury Ministers have often made that point, but I do not think that they understand—any more than I think that the hon. Gentleman understands—the significance of long-term interest rates. It is perfectly true that long-term interest rates in this country are exceptionally low—they are at 6 per cent. In the United States, however, which has a totally different system and is not preoccupied with the things that we are discussing, long-term interest rates are 5.5 per cent.—that is almost a post-war low. One can, this afternoon, buy the 30-year US long benchmark bond on a 5.6 per cent. yield. In Japan, which also faces a totally different set of circumstances—it is in technical recession, perhaps moving into slump—long-term interest rates are even lower.
  There can be a variety of reasons to explain the fact that long-term interest rates are low. People may fear a recession and savers may not be spending. There are many influences on long-term interest rates, and it is a great mistake to make deductions of the kind that the Government make from the fact that our fixed interest yield curve is more or less flat and that our long-term
  52
  interest rates are low—one would have to make a close and scholarly comparison between Britain and the United States if one wanted to draw such academic conclusions.
  The fact that the Government sacrificed control over monetary discipline—they can no longer determine it—means that the Chancellor can pursue a laxer fiscal policy than he otherwise could. I suppose that he was so keen to give the Bank of England independence over interest rates because he knew that, sooner or later, political pressures would force him to increase public expenditure, contrary to the pledges that he gave before the general election—he wanted to be able to blame another body for the increase in interest rates. There have already been six increases in interest rates since the general election, as the motion points out, and there are undoubtedly more to come. The effects of those increases are serious and extremely damaging to our exports. Indeed, I fear that sterling will become even stronger and that the high pound will persist for many months. The impact of that on the green pound will have a tremendously bad effect on British agriculture. We always talk about this problem in terms of exporting, but I represent an agricultural constituency and I know that farmers are having a desperate time as a result of Government policy.
  The Chancellor has now announced a 2.75 per cent. increase in public expenditure per annum, but, when he is challenged on it, he says what I have heard Chancellors say time and again over the years—the deja vu that I experience in listening to him and the Chief Secretary is uncanny. Last Thursday, in response to a supplementary question, the Chief Secretary said:
  "When the Tories … accuse us of going on a spending spree or of having too loose a fiscal policy, they really must tell us, what do they want us to cut? Are we spending too much on health, too much on education, too much on transport? They must answer those questions."—[Official Report, 25 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 1161.]
  No Opposition have ever answered those questions, but I tell the House who has—first, between 1964 and 1967 under the Wilson Government, they were answered by the international community, which forced the 1967 Callaghan devaluation of the pound, and secondly, between 1974 and 1976, when Lord Healey was Chancellor, they were answered by the International Monetary Fund, which told the Labour Government how the show was to be run.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who was a Treasury Minister at the time, is temporarily not here, as he could confirm that, after the IMF had told the Government what to do, the quartet of Labour Treasury Ministers imposed the most savage cuts on all the public services. The Chief Secretary asks what services Opposition Members would cut and reads out all the popular public services on which the Liberals ask him to spend more. Those were precisely the services—health, education, transport and so forth—that the IMF cut most savagely under the last Labour Government. No new hospitals or roads were built: new building was cancelled—the whole thing.
  I hope that we shall not have to listen for another three or four years to Treasury Ministers saying, whenever they increase public expenditure, "What would you cut?" I have never been one of those Conservatives who opposed public expenditure in principle. I am a Keynesian—I believe in public expenditure when it can be justified. One has to be careful not to increase public expenditure too quickly or out of line with GDP indexes.

  53
  Indeed, until his extraordinary statement on the matter a fortnight ago, I thought that the chief message that the so-called iron Chancellor had for the country was that public expenditure had to be kept under the tightest possible control. However, because of a few minor revolts by a few Labour Members whom the Government are now trying to strike off their candidates list, that iron Chancellor was panicked almost overnight into announcing that restraints would be considerably eased. We shall wait to find out how long it is before the IMF starts to take an interest.
  The shadow Chancellor said the other day that we have boom and bust at the same time, which is true. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said only last week that our latest increase in interest rates might well tip this country into recession, and I share that view. On 27 November last year, in a supplementary question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I asked:
  "Has it occurred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by 1999 the danger of inflation may be rather less than the danger of deflation?"—[Official Report, 27 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 1082.]
  That is my view, and I said that before the Thai baht collapsed and before the chaos in Indonesia and the economic crisis in Asia. The dangers of deflation are demonstrably much greater now than they were in November, and the latest increase in interest rates by the Bank of England was a mistake.
  The Bank will make further mistakes, which brings me back to my opening remarks. I do not have much confidence in the new Monetary Policy Committee that has been set up to run such affairs instead of the elected Government. Members of the MPC are mostly respected economists, but they do not have wide business experience—certainly not in exporting—and they are not at all preoccupied with employment levels as far as one can tell.
  When the Chancellor announced the new Bank of England set-up, he said that its chief obligation would be to keep inflation at 2.5 per cent. If Labour Members are right that he felt when he came to office that he had inherited from the Conservatives far too lax a monetary policy and that an inflationary danger was building up so that a 2.5 per cent. inflation target had to be announced, surely he must have understood the implications. If one suddenly introduces a 2.5 per cent. target at the beginning of an inflationary splurge—this is what Treasury Ministers are now trying to pretend that they thought—one is, in effect, asking the Bank of England to take severe monetary measures indeed, which will dramatically affect employment levels. It is worth remembering that the level of unemployment under every one of the five previous Labour Governments has been higher when they left office than when they took it, and I am certain that that will again be the case.
  Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the effect of Conservative economic policies on manufacturing employment between 1979 and 1981, particularly in Liverpool, which I remember well at the time? They destroyed 24 per cent. of manufacturing jobs and one sixth of all jobs in Liverpool.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I remember that clearly because I resigned as a Treasury Front-Bench spokesman on the
  54
  issue and spent the period from 1979 to 1981 attacking Lady Thatcher's Government and Lord Howe's chancellorship precisely on the grounds that their monetary policy was far too tight. I publicly described the 1981 Budget on the day that it was delivered as being economically illiterate. When Sir Alan Walters was eventually appointed as her economic adviser by Lady Thatcher, his first report to her confirmed exactly what I said and she changed her policies.
  Getting things wrong once is not a good argument for getting them wrong a second time. We made great mistakes over the exchange rate mechanism and excessive monetarism, but, apparently, this new Government have learnt nothing. They are the Bourbons of modern times—they have learnt absolutely nothing—and, as the Talleyrand of the House, I am trying to remind hon. Members that we faced some of those problems before, and the wrong answers were given. For goodness' sake, do not let us do so again.
  One of the great problems is that people develop a commitment to a general theory. During my time in the House, the theories have changed. First, we had socialism, then corporatism, then monetarism and now we have Euro-federalism. One of the great advantages of an Oxbridge training, which is under considerable attack from Labour, is that it develops in one a mood of intellectual scepticism at an early age. I was deeply sceptical about all those four "isms". We really should aim for a situation in which all "isms" are "wasms" and in which we concentrate on good, sound Government by experienced Ministers rather than thinking that all the world's problems can be solved by one theory.
  Finally, every Government ought to aim at four things simultaneously. I am thinking of the 1944 all-party White Paper at the end of the war. People go on as though the Labour Government invented everything after 1945 and one would not think that there had been a Beveridge report on the social services, a Willink report on the health service or anything of the sort. George Isaacs and Nye Bevan did a good job, but a lot of work was done for them beforehand. They inherited the blueprints for the post-war welfare state, including the educational structure, which was based on Rab Butler's Education Act 1944, and it was built on plans that had been drawn up under Churchill's wartime Government, largely by Conservative Ministers.
  The 1944 White Paper on employment stated that one must aim simultaneously for stable prices, a high level of employment, a healthy balance of payments and an expanding economy. If one gives a particular instruction to the monetary authorities—now the Bank of England—as this Government have and tells them that they have to give a 2.5 per cent. rate of inflation overriding priority, those other three aims will all be put at risk and this Government will come to the ignominious end that I am longing to see.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Foster: It is perhaps in the nature of debates on a censure motion, but Ministers will be grateful to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell), and the faces of Opposition Front Benchers show that they were not too keen to hear his relatively interesting contribution.
  The Government are hoping to achieve long-term economic stability. Businesses share that aim; they want to avoid boom and bust, with the peaks and troughs of

  55
  economic activity. I think that everyone in the House will understand the analogy of a small ship that does not want deep, heavy waves, because there might be the occasion when one rides the crest like a surfer and has super-success but, more often than not, businesses will be wiped out when the wave crashes down.
  Between 1991 and 1993, nearly 70,000 companies were liquidated: wiped out. In the same period, there were 170,000 business failures.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Dun and Bradstreet report, published today, showing that business failures among small companies have increased by 25 per cent. under the Labour Government?
  Mr. Foster: The popularity of the new Labour Government among business people is as high as it has ever been.
  Stability in the economy is a great aid to planning. Certainty is essential when we plan long-term investment in new technology, in research and development, or even in people. That is why I welcome the news that long-term interest rates are at historically low levels. We must acknowledge the fact that there will be some variation in our economy. We are not operating in a closed economy. The essence of good government is to avoid economic shocks and destabilisation.
  The motion refers to
  "6 increases in interest rates",
  but those increases have raised the base rate only 1.5 percentage points, from 6 to 7.5 per cent. As regrettable as that may be, we should consider what happened when the Conservative Government were in charge of the economy. In one day alone, they raised interest rates first by 2 per cent., and then by a further 3 per cent. The base rate was in double figures for four consecutive years; in 1989, it peaked at 15 per cent., remaining between 13 and 15 per cent. throughout 1989 and 1990, yet Conservative Members have the brass neck to criticise the Labour Government, under whom interest rates have peaked at only 7.5 per cent.
  In Worcester, business has welcomed the new Labour Government. On our first anniversary, BBC Television came to find out what Worcester woman, Worcester man and Worcester business people thought. Mr. Noel Duffy, finance director of Dolphin Computer Systems, said how much he applauded what the Government were doing for business.
  A stable economic environment will be essential in addressing the fundamental problems that we inherited from the previous Government. The most obvious problem is that economic growth is more often than not associated with wage-push inflation. That effect is caused partly by skills shortages, as workers can bid for higher wages when they know that their skills are in demand and there is no competition from other skilled workers.
  The Government are addressing that serious supply-side problem. A Japanese-owned manufacturing tool company, Mazak, has its European headquarters in Worcester. It has great difficulty in explaining to its Japanese owners that, when it takes on new workers, productivity does not immediately go up and it takes six
  56
  months before there is any noticeable increase. That is because the workers who are being taken on do not have the skills or education standards of their German or Japanese counterparts.
  I am pleased to say that the Government are addressing such problems. The university for industry will enable people in work to train and to develop their skills, and will give access to the best possible management practice. Individual learning accounts will enable people to take the time to bring themselves up to speed with new skills. That is good for their motivation, for the business, which will benefit from greater productivity, and for the economy as a whole. The new deal will give quality training to unemployed people and bring them back into work, not only making work pay for them but making taking on workers pay for businesses.
  We have endeavoured to improve education standards across the board, with nursery provision for all four-year-olds; the pledge on small class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds; a focus on literacy and numeracy; and encouragement for more young people to go into further and higher education. That is all absolutely essential if we are to solve the problems that we inherited.
  For many years, the economy has been troubled and unable to grow without causing the bust part of the business cycle to come into play. We intend to tackle that problem through a stable economic plan and I hope that, after 20 years of Labour government, we shall be able to look back on what will truly be a golden legacy.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: It is incredible that the Chancellor has chosen to be elsewhere for such an important debate. That shows some contempt for Parliament, and may say a great deal to businesses that have been looking to him for leadership. Everywhere, we see signs that the economy is in severe difficulties, but he cannot be bothered to come to the House.
  Over the past few weeks, report after report, including the most recent one from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has warned of real danger in the economy, yet the way in which the Government and their Back Benchers have responded this afternoon shows complete contempt for the warnings that have been offered. The economy is in real peril. While the Chancellor fiddles, the economy burns.
  It is an extraordinary fact that inflation has almost doubled in the past year, yet Government Members want to talk about history. The reality is that the economy requires leadership and attention today, but the Government are deaf to all pleas. Mortgage interest payments have increased by almost 30 per cent. since the Government came to power, but they are deaf to our arguments. We have seen excise duties increase by nearly 20 per cent., but Labour wants to talk about tax rises under the previous Conservative Government. We have seen dramatic increases in council tax bills, but the Government choose to ignore the consequences.
  It is hardly surprising that the result of all those increases is that wage settlements have increased. The average family must pay nearly £1,000 more a year because of the Government's tax increases, and the only way to fund that is to ask for more money. Meanwhile, the Governor of the Bank of England tells us that the economy is closer to overheating than it has been for a

  57
  long time. Do the Government pay any attention? No. They prefer to talk about history than take responsibility for dealing with the economy now.
  The Governor is not alone. Other members of the Monetary Policy Committee say the same. Soon—probably on 9 July—interest rates will rise once again. The inflation target has been missed 12 times out of 13—a pretty impressive record. Yet the Government prefer to talk about the time before they came to power instead of taking responsibility for their appalling economic choices over the past year. That is why headline inflation is up from 2.4 per cent. last April to 4.2 per cent. today.
  Mr. David Borrow: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, the Conservatives supported increases in taxation and expenditure equivalent to £6 billion. That would add £6 billion to the public sector borrowing requirement, and that is what the Conservatives supported. How does that fit in with the Governor of the Bank of England's concern that the economy is overheating? To put £6 billion more into the economy would surely add to overheating, and would add to, rather than reduce, pressure for increased interest rates.
  Mr. Woodward: The reality is that running the economy requires prudence. The Chancellor likes to borrow the language of prudence, but shows none. There are areas in which the Finance Bill should be amended, and we shall debate them over the next two days. However, the action that should have been taken by the Chancellor—the United Kingdom's Chancellor, alas—has not been taken. He pretends to be an iron Chancellor, but he is in reality in the vein of old Labour Chancellors. He wants to spend, spend, spend.
  The UK faces two futures. In the first, and better, our economy will soon give way to a very hard landing. In the other, more worrying scenario, which we can read about in every newspaper and every forecast, our economy is on course for recession. In either case, there will be a downturn, and that is bad news for Britain. Both scenarios were created in Downing street by the Chancellor's poor choices and bad judgment. He may not want to be here today, but they are his fault, arising from his decisions, for which he must bear responsibility. The Chancellor does nothing but allow the economy to slide into downturn or recession.
  Mr. Borrow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Woodward: I shall not. I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to make a speech, the House will look forward to hearing from him.
  The Chancellor wants to wear the clothes of prudence, and wanders round the country telling us how prudent he is. In truth, however, he is about to set off on a huge spending bonanza that every commentator says should not happen. Soon, the Chancellor will preside over public spending of nearly £1 billion a day, and it will be upward from there. Why does he claim prudence? Why not admit to being a giveaway Chancellor? He has been dazzled by his legacy, and by the tax revenues that he has received. In February, he let himself believe, from what his Treasury
  58
  officials said, that his Budget would balance. In true Labour speak, with the help of the spin doctors, out he went to claim that that was all his doing because of his prudence.
  As the Chancellor has claimed to be prudent in the past, he must accept responsibility now for what he has done. Consumer spending has been, and remains, out of control. The march of consumer spending has been closely followed by a battalion of pay rises. If the Chancellor had asked what had really gone wrong with the economy, and what was the real reason why tax revenues were going up, he would have learnt that they were consequences of the market's marching ahead, and had nothing to do with him. The economy is overheating, and it has been for a long time. He has refused to take the right action. He should have reined expenditure in, but he is about to let it go. The economy is overheating, and the Chancellor is in the kitchen stoking up the flames.
  Monetary policy can, of course, be used to rein in the economy, but the consequence will be higher interest rates. Tell that to a single person in manufacturing, exports or farming, the people who suffer the consequences of the Government's disastrous interest rate policy. The Chancellor claimed that he would end boom and bust, but he inherited a boom and the evidence suggests that he is taking Britain towards being bust. Our balance of payments plunged into the red for the first three months of this year; after a year and a half of surpluses, the deficit for the first three months of 1998 was £3.2 billion. Is that prudent? Of course not. The trade deficit has widened by £500 million, and our exports are falling. Earnings from Britain's stock of overseas assets have declined by £600 million.
  The Government seem complacent. They tell us about history, and will not accept responsibility for their policies of the past 14 months, which are driving Britain headlong towards recession. Industries, businesses and farmers are going bust, but the Government arrogantly deny that anything needs to be done. They pretend that everything is fine. The consumer boom continues, not funded by exports as our recovery was, but because spending is being funded by a massive plundering of savings. To the left of him, to the right of him, in front of him and behind, the Chancellor is surrounded by people who say that the economy is in trouble. Yet he cannot be bothered to come to the House to answer legitimate questions.
  The Chief Secretary has shown the same contempt for what we say, but what we say is what others are reporting all over the country. The latest evidence from the OECD warns that rising inflation, tight labour market conditions and upward pressure on earnings will mean a bumpy landing and a "serious challenge". Where is the leadership from the Chief Secretary, which would show that the Government take that challenge seriously, or even that they recognise it? All we hear from Government Back Benchers is what they read on their pagers, readings that tell them that everything is fine.
  The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) talked about businesses in the midlands doing well, but today's Dun and Bradstreet report shows that all is not well. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do well to learn from the mistakes that were made by the Conservatives when we were in government. It is vital to listen to businesses on their problems, and businesses are screaming with the pain of the Labour Government's policies.

  59
  The truth is that, as the Financial Times said, Britain is stumbling towards recession. The reality is there to be seen if people are prepared to look, but the Government continue to paint another picture. They talk about getting rid of boom and bust, but they are the ones bringing back the bust to this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, the spin doctors tell them that if the mantra is rehearsed often enough, people will come to believe it. The problem is that the same people will soon join the unemployed. This month, for the first time in years, the number of unemployment benefit claimants rose. It rose because of this Government's policies. It is the fault of the Chancellor and the Government. If they believe that soundbites are a substitute for policies, this country will come undone.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: The number of claimants rose by 1,000 in May, but it went down by 35,000 in the quarter to May. In the first quarter of this year, business investment went up 10 per cent. and the annualised growth rate was 2.9 per cent. against a trend rate of 2 per cent. Things are growing; people are investing. We are in a boom and things are looking good. There is pressure in the labour market because people are getting jobs. That is not a recession but success.
  Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for that intervention. As every newspaper points out, under the new way in which the Government wish to calculate the unemployment figures, one could argue that this month was as good as the previous one. Under every other method of calculation, more people are losing jobs than for years. That will not be assisted by the minimum wage, which the Government introduced for perfectly honourable reasons. No one wants people to live in bad conditions. A minimum income yes, but a minimum wage is a guaranteed route, as shown by what has happened elsewhere in the world, to throwing people on to the unemployment scrap heap. That is not the right way forward for a prudent Chancellor. When the Government took power from the Conservative party last year, they inherited falling interest rates,falling unemployment and falling inflation, yet today they are rising. If the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that the economy can be in a better condition because of those appalling reversals in our economy, he should think again.
  What will happen when the impact of the problems in the Asian market starts to hit this country at the end of the year? Presumably the Chancellor will blame someone else, because he believes that it is always someone else's fault. The Chancellor and the Government must learn what the Conservative party learned painfully last year. Ultimately, when they are in No. 10, they are in charge. The Government must recognise that they must take responsibility. It is a reckless Government who continue, as do this Government, not to recognise the signs of economic disaster, yet the Chancellor refuses to face the problems.
  Mr. Beard: If there is such havoc in the economy, why do the international markets demonstrate such confidence in the Government and their policies that the pound has risen since the day they took office?
  Mr. Woodward: That intervention is extraordinary. The reality is simple. If one continues to push up interest
  60
  rates in the way that the Government have allowed policy to be prosecuted, the pound will rise. The consequence for manufacturing, farming and the service sector, which is beginning to suffer, is disaster. If the hon. Gentleman went around the country and heard people's worries, he would learn that the so-called encouragement of investment because of high interest rates is not so good for Britain. That is what we are talking about: the right thing to do for Britain.
  Only last week, the Financial Times reviewed the Government's policy and said:
  "The economy lies stranded in treacherous territory. Every indicator…says that the business cycle cannot be wished away."
  However, the Government believe that if they practise the mantra of the day, it can be wished away. While the Government continue to believe in spin doctoring as a substitute for policy, Britain moves from a possible to a probable recession.
  The Chancellor says that he wants a strong, competitive pound. He has a strong pound, but it is not competitive. Ask anyone in manufacturing or business whether they believe that sterling at its current level is the right thing for Britain and they will say no. The villain of the piece may be sterling, but the father of the villain is the Chancellor. He may wish that long-term policy frameworks could banish short-term problems. An independent Bank might allow him to lay the blame for high interest rates elsewhere today, but tomorrow the country will blame him. The sums show that Britain is teetering on the edge of a serious recession. The party is over.
  Mr. Beard: The Conservative party.
  Mr. Woodward: It does not behove the hon. Gentleman to say that. It shows ruthless disregard for the evidence. It is not our evidence, but that of every commentator. Labour Back Benchers fail seriously to address what people who have worked in business say. Most Labour Members have pursued honourable professions, but few have worked in or run a business. That lack of experience is beginning to tell in the way that they run the economy.
  Tomorrow, Britain will face real problems. Inflation is at its highest level in six years. On 9 July, interest rates may rise again. The Government continue to be complacent. The Chancellor goes elsewhere and pursues his interest in Europe. That is fine, but the problem is that Britain still needs to be run by its national Parliament here. His absence is serious and shows utter contempt for running the economy in a responsible, proper way.
  While Rome burns, the senators of this Government are at play, spending here and there and clocking up their new plans for the future. It is totally irresponsible, given the condition of the economy. Ultimately, Britain will pay, and pay heavily. The next rise in interest rates will force all those who have to borrow to pay even more dearly.
  Next year, two futures lie ahead. Either the Chancellor will be here telling us about his package of cuts and postponements or he will not be here at all. To save his own skin, the Prime Minister, a man who likes to be characterised as tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, will find the villain of this crime. The Chancellor may find that he has different responsibilities.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am glad to follow a speech so full of bonhomie, wit and joviality. It was interesting to hear an attack on the Government, because attacks have been conspicuous by their absence so far.
  I have listened carefully to the debate. The shadow Chancellor, who is not in his place, did not get to grips with what is going on. His main beef seemed to be the absence of the Chancellor. As we are debating a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps it is important that he is not here. Where is he? That is equally pertinent. What a flagrant abuse of democracy. What contempt for the House of Commons.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may want to apologise for what he has just said—or perhaps he is embarrassing himself by not knowing that the Leader of the Opposition is in hospital.
  Mr. Leslie: I did not realise that. Of course I apologise if the right hon. Gentleman is indeed incapacitated, but the deputy leader of the Conservative party has also signed the motion and he is not here either. Lots of people who signed motions today are not here, so it is a little hypocritical to start criticising others for their absence.
  This idea of a golden legacy is a wonderful piece of revisionism—the rewriting of history. Some golden legacy it was: interest rates at 15 per cent., inflation at 10 per cent., public sector borrowing and national debt costing, because they doubled in six years, £25 billion in interest payments—[Interruption.] The Tories do not like to hear about that—which is intriguing—but the public know it.
  The Conservatives seem not to realise that they lost the election because of their abysmal failure to manage the economy. People looked at their claim to a golden economic legacy and laughed at it.
  Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman mentioned revisionism. What did the leader of the Labour party mean when he said, in 1996 during the lead-up to the election, Labour had no plans to raise taxes?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Labour manifesto set out my party's plans and policies on taxation and spending in black and white, whereupon we were elected by an overwhelming majority. We are keeping every single one of our pledges—a concept with which the hon. Gentleman is unfamiliar. That is why his party lost the election: it could not keep its promises, meagre though they were.
  It has been interesting to see, in the Standing Committee scrutinising the Finance Bill, the amendments the Conservatives have tabled. As we have heard, they do not deny that they were going to abolish mortgage interest tax relief—earlier, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary hammered that point home. We have also seen in Committee the Tories committing themselves to reducing public sector income by astronomical amounts. Where would they find the savings? From putting up taxes—even income tax? From cutting vital public services? Or from adding to the national debt?
  Taken together, Conservative amendments proposed in the Standing Committee amount to a staggering £5.8 billion in reduced spending. With their proposed
  62
  amendment to the social security bill of £1.5 billion and their commitment to abolish capital gains tax, at a cost of £1.3 billion, they would leave an £8.5 billion black hole in the national finances and wipe out the public sector debt repayment that the Chancellor has proposed for 1999–2000.
  Mr. Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we followed the advice of the Conservative party and increased the public sector borrowing requirement by as much as £8 billion, we would only repeat the mistake made by the Chancellor of 10 years ago—a mistake that led to the boom of the late 1980s and the bust of the early 1990s?
  Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is correct. It is clear that the Conservative party has learnt nothing from its defeat as it continues to table profligate amendments to the Finance Bill, espousing reductions in tobacco tax and bingo tax, for instance. The Tories have not as yet proposed any reductions in income tax—it will be interesting to see whether they do. We want to know where all the money will come from.
  Mr. Gibb: There is a limit to how much one can stand of this nonsense. It is the Labour Government who have raised taxes although they said before the election that they could fund all their spending programmes by reducing spending on social security. The fact is that they are spending a mammoth amount more on social security, not cutting it. When will the hon. Gentleman apologise for misleading the public during the election about how Labour would fund its spending pledges?
  Mr. Leslie: That was a brave attempt by a stalwart member of the Finance Bill Standing Committee to defend ill-thought-out Conservative amendments. He deserves full marks for trying. The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government are reducing the welfare sector's consumption of public money over the lifetime of this Parliament by means of initiatives such as the working families tax credit and welfare to work, which will take people off benefit and into work, thereby reducing social security expenditure. It is that sort of fiscal prudence which will ensure sound long-term public sector finances.
  Mr. Woodward: Does the hon. Gentleman think that all the reports being written about Britain heading for a probable recession are wrong?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman's reading glasses are obviously tinted a certain shade of blue. Not all the reports predict such doom and gloom. The Chancellor has done a remarkable job of striking the right balance between the sort of depression and recession being experienced by Singapore, Indonesia and Korea—in the space of one year their economies have shrunk by between 8 and 20 per cent.—and the enormous rates of growth, perhaps unsustainably high, in America.
  Mr. Loughton: Why is a booming economy in America not a problem for inflation there, whereas in this country, uniquely, inflation is rising and has hit 4.2 per cent; indeed, the underlying rate is well above the Chancellor's target? How does the hon. Gentleman explain that dichotomy?
  Mr. Leslie: Perhaps it has something to do with the national minimum wage in America. Perhaps we need to

  63
  look into how the Americans operate it in such a way that their inflation stays low. It proves, at any rate, that it is not impossible to combine a minimum wage and low inflation.
  I want to reiterate a point I made earlier about the Liberal Democrats' spending commitments. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) did not deny the Liberals' commitment, made in the Finance Bill Standing Committee, to a policy of, effectively, an extra 8p on income tax. That derives from the £17.5 billion involved in equalising the personal income tax and capital gains tax allowances.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman pulls his fantasy claims out of the air, but fails to explain his party's policies or what they would cost. For example, the Chancellor is on record as proposing a 10p income tax rate. If that were introduced tomorrow, it would cost billions.
  Mr. Leslie: I am sure that any proposals the Chancellor introduces will be fully funded and costed, just like all the other Government proposals so far. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "We should consider making the income tax allowance and the CGT allowance the same…In the next few weeks and months, my party will put on record the cost of our proposals for an increased income tax allowance."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 June 1998; c. 799.]
  We await that announcement with bated breath. I look forward to hearing how the Liberal Democrats propose to fund their commitments—it always appears easy for them to spend, spend, spend in a way that the Conservative party is learning to do, but they never say where the money will come from and that is what we need to hear. A bit more responsibility from Opposition Members would not go amiss.
  On fiscal policy, it is important to highlight the way in which the Government have been working towards reducing the national debt and the public sector borrowing requirement, so ensuring that that burden around the necks of taxpayers is reduced. The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) claims to be a Keynesian; I wonder what Keynes would have to say about the astronomic levels of national debt created by the Conservative Government. I was interested to hear Opposition Members' rather contradictory arguments on that point.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Keynes was in favour of deficit financing during a recession.
  Mr. Leslie: And, boy, we certainly had recessions—not just one, but two. We are glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded us of that.
  I also want to highlight the way in which the Government have chosen to prioritise capital and infrastructure investment. That announcement, made in the past few weeks, has not yet been fully appreciated: the state—the great oil tanker—has begun to be turned around. Year on year, taxpayers' money was consumed at the expense of investment in capital infrastructure in schools, hospitals and transport networks.
  64
  Capital infrastructure helps to improve the quality of the economy and helps business by ensuring that we have long-term infrastructure available throughout the economy to support the industrial capacity we need for future generations. The Government's well-placed policies to give tax breaks through the working families tax credit and the lowest ever corporation tax rate are also welcome; and the acclaim with which many in the business community have greeted the Government's policies has been alluded to.
  In monetary policy, the Government have struck the right balance by depoliticising interest rates and passing decisions to the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Before the hon. Gentleman reaches the end of his list, will he explain why, under the Chancellor's economic stewardship, the savings ratio has fallen from 12.7 per cent. in the second quarter of 1997 to 9.1 per cent. in the first quarter of this year?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to me—it might be useful if he made his own speech. My point in respect of monetary policy relates to the depoliticisation of interest rate decisions and their removal from the scope of political intervention of the sort seen under the Conservatives. In the run-up to the election, they took great risks with the economy at the expense of long-term investment in their attempt to front-load the economy and make it appear as sweet as possible to the electorate. They failed abysmally and, as a consequence, the new Labour Government had to clear up the mess they left.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in the savings rate is a symptom of a buoyancy and confidence in the economy which, as the motion tells us, we last saw in 1990, during the boom years of the Lawson era? It is a symptom of confidence and it is not necessarily linked with tax changes, as has been spuriously argued.
  Mr. Leslie: That is right. Commentators have talked about consumer confidence.
  Mr. Loughton: Given the hon. Gentleman's comments about how right it is that the House is no longer in charge of setting interest rates, will he applaud the Bank of England if, on 9 July, it puts up interest rates for the seventh time, with the result that mortgage rates rise for many of his constituents and mine?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap of the previous Government. Politicians have always tried to make decisions about technical and important economic indices, but I prefer to leave such matters to the intelligent and informed views of the members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, who are in a far better position to take such decisions than I am as a politician.
  The hon. Gentleman likes to think of himself as an expert on such matters—I am sure that his ambition is to be Chancellor one day. He has been impressive as a member of the Finance Bill Standing Committee, making many long and intricate speeches—and he certainly has

  65
  the braces for the role. I am sure that the country prefers experts to make decisions on such important matters, and the Chancellor's depoliticisation of monetary policy has been widely acclaimed. However, it is not wholly outside the realm of the Government to influence monetary policy; it is important that we deal with inflation and try to achieve targets when and where we can.
  Something that has disappointed me most as Member of Parliament for a Yorkshire constituency is the ridiculous boardroom excesses of companies such as Yorkshire Water. This week, the board of directors of Yorkshire Water awarded themselves a 30 per cent. pay rise. Kevin Bond, the chief executive, has, in one year, awarded himself a 69 per cent. increase in salary, taking it to £298,000. The salaries of the board of directors now total almost £1 million, with increases of 69 per cent. at the helm and 30 per cent. as a whole—but what are they going to say to Yorkshire Water's employees when they come seeking pay increases for the new year? Are the directors going to tell the employees that they are not important? Are they going to give them 30 or 69 per cent. pay increases? It will be interesting to see what they do. It is vital that company directors across the country act responsibly, recognise that they must set an example and show pay restraint.
  Mr. Woodward: As the hon. Gentleman has such high moral views on the subject, will he comment on the remarks made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)? Having castigated those involved in the water industry, what is his response to Mr. Gavyn Davies's reaping a £16 million benefit from changes that the Labour Government have made to capital gains tax? Does the hon. Gentleman applaud Mr. Davies for doing that, or does he think that he should hand the money back, as he would have those working in the water industry do?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman lists in the Register of Members' Interests a shareholding in Sainsbury and, although he might no longer do so, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), has declared a directorship in Asda. I should be interested to know what were the pay awards to the directors of those companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Perhaps the shadow Chancellor will tell us what pay was awarded to him as a director of Asda—
  Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman cannot answer my question.
  Mr. Leslie: It would be interesting to discover whether the award was within the inflation target or above it. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We should not have all this noise.
  Mr. Leslie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that company directors set an example by showing restraint. The same applies to all people in a position of responsibility.
  Throughout today's debate, we have watched an Opposition who have not got their act together. They attack the Government for not spending enough in some respects, but say that we spend, spend, spend in others. It
  66
  is difficult to know whom we should believe. We have had an interesting look at the history of the Conservative party in office, and the House has been reminded of the exchange rate mechanism debacle. That has been very instructive in reminding us of the mess that the Conservative party created. It is clear that the legacy that it calls golden is an outrageous, appalling mess, and it is left to us to help to clear up the problem and put the economy on a sound footing, ensuring that we focus on the long-term interests of the people and businesses of the country.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: In this debate, Government Members, particularly the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, have talked about every period of economic history except the past year. They were willing to debate every policy except their own. It seems that, after only a year, Labour Members are already terrified about talking about what the new Government have done. We can understand their embarrassment, but it does not excuse the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer the debate or at least be present to answer for his policies.
  We understand the Chancellor's discomfort, because he has created two economies in this country. We heard in the debate about the boom economy affecting the City, the service sector and consumer expenditure, but there is another economy for manufacturing and exporting, which is going into recession. That ought to worry Government Members. Instead of making platitudinous remarks about how everything is wonderful in their constituencies, they should start to take note of the letters that we know they are receiving from businesses in their constituencies which tell a different story.
  We know that Labour Members are receiving those letters because businesses have begun to copy them to Conservative Members on the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill. My hon. Friends will confirm that we are receiving letters from businesses exasperated by the failure of Labour members of the Committee to speak up about the gathering recession in their constituencies.
  Mr. Woodward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was extraordinary during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill that Government Back Benchers had letters from their constituents that were copied to Conservative Members, but they consistently failed even once to speak on behalf of their constituents and simply allowed themselves to be railroaded by the Government Whips?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend was a member of that Committee, and he knows that the Forum of Private Business copied to us letters written by businesses represented by Labour Members, who were entirely silent about the difficulties that those businesses faced as a result of tax increases. It was up to us, as it always will be, to defend the interests of working Britain.
  The reason for that distortion and the two economies that the Government have created is that this country has not one economic policy, but two. Indeed, one could almost say that we have two Chancellors, or a single Chancellor in two disguises. One Chancellor is panicked

  67
  by the broken promises on waiting lists and class sizes into reverting to the tax and spend policies that Labour Chancellors always follow.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will complete this point.
  The other Chancellor is a stern monetarist. He is in favour of higher interest rates, a tightening of monetary policy and suppression of wage rises. However, that policy is not working, for the reasons so well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) in a notable speech. He showed that one cannot have a sensible economic policy that pulls in two directions. There is a mismatch between monetary and fiscal policy, which we pointed out last year and which is causing damage.
  The mistakes were first made almost exactly a year ago in the Government's first Budget, in which they broke all their promises on tax, as has been amply demonstrated. The average family are now enduring an extra burden on their budget of £981 a year because of the tax and mortgage increases that they have suffered. However, not only have there been 17 tax increases, but the Chancellor deliberately took the opportunity to target savings. He carried out a £5 billion a year raid on pension funds, which is exactly what the economy did not need. The economic damage will be with us for many years.
  Mr. Beard: The right hon. Gentleman made the charge, which has so often been repeated, that the abolition of advance corporation tax was a hit on pension funds. The aim was to give an incentive for profits to be put into investment and research and development rather than distributed, so that the economy would be put on a proper foundation. Nothing could demonstrate more the difference in economic policy between Conservative and Labour Members. We are concerned about the real economy, and Conservative Members' sole concern is manipulating money.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman makes that remark from the comfort of a protected parliamentary pension scheme. That sophistry does not go down well with the millions of pensioners and contributors to pension funds, all of whom know perfectly well that there was a £5 billion a year hit on their savings by a Government whose rhetoric was all about the need to build up long-term savings and increase personal self-reliance. They will never again trust the Government on savings. My economic point is that that is exactly what the economy needed least.
  One does not need to be an economist to know that if one taxes savings, there will be less savings. The Government figures support that. I hope that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) will at least heed the Chancellor's Budget statement. Page 91 clearly shows that the savings ratio is due to fall this year, next year and even further the following year. Instead of building up savings, the Chancellor is predicting that there will be a further drop in savings. He has made that worse
  68
  with his botched attack on TESSAs and PEPs—the most successful savings vehicles of all time—which the Government are simply abolishing.
  The Bank of England is now left with the job of salvaging something from the anti-inflation strategy. Its only response can be to put up interest rates, which it has had to do again and again. There have been six rises since the general election. The Bank is now required by statute law to give overriding priority to the Government's inflation target, which is being missed month after month. Policy will not work as long as there is a mismatch between the tax and spend policies of the Treasury and the monetary policy enforced by the Bank of England.
  That tale of two economic policies gets worse.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, because I am conscious of the time.
  A new chapter has been opened in that tale of mismatch. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor announced a dramatic further loosening of expenditure policy. Expenditure is now due to rise by at least 2.75 per cent. above inflation each and every year. The rise is greater if all the fiddles and changed definitions are added in—a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) made well in his speech.
  What is particularly shocking is that the Bank of England, which is supposed to be in charge of counter-inflation policy, was not even told of that development. The Governor said rather lamely that he had been informed by the Treasury that nothing in the Chancellor's statement would affect the economy for two years. That is untrue—the Governor was misled. The brakes come off expenditure from 1 April next year. Either the Treasury representative on the Monetary Policy Committee was kept in the dark or he failed to inform the Bank of England about what the Chancellor had in mind.
  Frankly, there is already enough confusion about interest rates, without this further failure to co-ordinate monetary and fiscal policy. We already know that, at its May meeting, the MPC voted 7:1 against raising interest rates, but in June it raised interest rates. Now, the Governor of the Bank of England has signalled a further increase. The Bank of England is not to blame. It has been given an impossible task—trying to make sense of the Government's economic policy, which is muddled and contradictory.
  There have been two economic policies, one pursued by the Treasury and the other by the Bank. That has created two economies, one in boom and the other in bust. The Government's achievement is that they have done both at the same time. That is why the inflation target is being missed month after month. The Chancellor's only response is to blame firms for paying workers too much— and that from a Government who are trying to intervene in the labour market to get those same firms to pay other workers more.
  In the non-boom parts of the economy, it is an entirely different story, as I am sure Labour Members truly know. Unemployment is rising, and there is a yawning and growing balance of payments deficit. Bankruptcies are up 10 per cent. in this quarter over the last quarter,

  69
  and investment is down. Again, Labour Members only have to read their Chancellor's statements on investment. We have heard a great deal about the need for investment, but I refer hon. Members to page 94 of the Red Book, which shows that investment in the whole economy is falling this year compared to last, is due to fall again next year and is due to fall even further in the year after. With business investment, the fall is even steeper.
  If Labour Members do not believe the Treasury's statistics, I refer them to Goldman Sachs, which said in its recent circular that
  "the rise in net capital spending to 1.4 per cent. of GDP by the year 2001/02 is less than the average of 1.6 per cent. of GDP achieved during the last Parliament."
  After all the huffing and puffing, future investment will be less than we achieved in the last Parliament.
  It is not just the economy today that is going wrong; the Government are storing up problems for the rest of this Parliament. I believe that, in their hearts, Labour Members believe that. That is why, in the debate, they have talked about everything except the past year. Apart from the feeble attempts to justify their record in their constituencies, their bleepers have quite clearly told them, "Keep off the economy."
  I am sure that both sides of the House know—certainly the country does—that the Government inherited the strongest economy in Europe, with steady growth, stable inflation and falling unemployment, all confirmed by the statistics. It took considerable determination by the Chancellor to mess up that legacy, but he has done it in less than a year. He has done it through a series of policy mistakes, all of them preventable and all of them pointed out to him at the time. All our warnings have turned out to be true.
  Hon. Members who served on the Finance Bill Committee will remember one particular moment when it was shown, again by their constituents, that the abolition of retirement relief and its replacement by a highly complex and probably unworkable system of tapering capital gains tax was highly regressive. It is all very well if one is a partner in Goldman Sachs and enriched by, it is estimated, £16 million simply by one clause in the Finance Bill£but it is not quite so rosy for small entrepreneurs planning for retirement, especially as they would have had to pay no capital gains tax under the Conservative Government's provisions.
  The reality is always different from the rhetoric. The reality is that the Finance Bill that we will be discussing tomorrow and the next day is in practice highly regressive. It was an interesting glimpse of new Labour priorities that the Government make the rich very rich and the smaller entrepreneurs—
  Mr. Leslie: No, we did not.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, the Government did. The hon. Gentleman voted for this regressive provision and he will be getting letters from small businesses in his constituency. If he wants anything done about them, all he has to do is pass them over to us.
  The golden economic legacy has turned into a boom-bust economic derailment. It is not surprising that the Chancellor has chosen to address a committee of the European Parliament rather than defend his policies in this House. That is a disgraceful affront to the privileges and
  70
  rights of the House—but, in his absence, we judge him and, in our motion, we condemn him. I invite the House to vote for that motion.
  6.45 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I deeply regret that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is not present this afternoon, because he could not possibly believe just how bad the Opposition have been. The debate had made being savaged by a dead sheep seem like a stimulating experience.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) began his attack on the Government's economic policy by saying that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was addressing a committee of the European Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out, there is a Pavlovian response from Conservative Members at the mere mention of the word "Europe". What galls them even more is that, after 14 months in government, Britain at last has a respectable position in Europe. The Government are acknowledged by the British people to be carrying out their responsibilities in Europe. It is a measure of the extent to which this country was undermined by the previous Government that we had a beef ban.
  The Opposition are thoroughly ashamed of their record; otherwise, why would they be so frightened of our going back over their record of 18 years in government? I can tell hon. Members who are new to the House that, in 1997, the previous Government were very fond of casting minds back to 1979. Is it not interesting that they were prepared to count back 18 years, but object to our counting back 18 months. We have to live with the consequences of their economic incompetence, which was so graphically exposed by my hon. Friends earlier.
  Mr. Tyrie rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: I will come to the hon. Gentleman later. After all, he is giving seminars to his Front Bench on whether the public finances are sound.
  It is no wonder that hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies—in fact, no hon. Ladies took part in the debate; perhaps they have too much good sense in these matters—are ashamed of the previous Government's record. We have only to look at their performance: whole economy investment fell by 16 per cent. from its 1989 peak to its 1993 trough; business investment fell by 20 per cent. from 1989 to 1993; manufacturing investment fell by 27.7 per cent.; labour force survey unemployment rose by almost 1 million, but they laughed at rising unemployment—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We cannot have conversations all over the Chamber. The hon. Lady should be heard.
  Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not surprised that Conservative Members do not want to hear about their record in government. It was a shameful record. Indeed, it is clear from some of the performances that they have learnt nothing from the arrogance of their years in government. They should have come to the House tonight and apologised for the state in which they left the

  71
  economy. They talk about the golden legacy, but it is fool's gold. We are now having to deal with an economy that has inherent structural problems caused by the incompetence of the previous Government.
  Talk of a golden legacy is nonsense. Thanks to the boom-bust policies of the Conservative party—policies which have damaged growth, held back investment and cost jobs—in the past 20 years we have had the two deepest recessions, and one of the largest booms, since the war. We must set the economy to rights, because it affects ordinary people.
  Let us consider some of the structural problems that have been caused by the performance of the Conservative party. Productive investment has fallen. We badly need to boost productivity in our economy, for the simple reason that, from day one of the Conservative Government in 1979, government was characterised by short-termism and a lack of attention to the fundamentals of the economy.
  Mr. Tyrie: By how much did the British economy grow under the last Labour Government, and by how much did the British economy grow, on average, during the 18 years of Conservative rule?
  Mrs. Liddell: I thought that we were not supposed to look back. The last Labour Government was 18 years ago, and we are now setting right the errors of the Conservative Government. [Interruption.] As Conservative Members want me to talk about the Labour Government's performance, I am happy to do so. Gross domestic product growth in the first quarter of 1998—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not expect anyone to shout at the hon. Lady while she is speaking.
  Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Shouting is usually the way in which Conservative Members try to get through these arguments; they want to introduce irrelevancies because they do not want to talk about facts.
  Mr. Maude: If productivity and investment are so important, why do Government figures show that productivity, which was rising, is now falling, and why does the Red Book show business investment falling consistently in future years?
  Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should have another seminar from his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) about the impact on productivity of the previous Government's performance. There is a fundamental requirement to make basic structural changes in the economy. Structural changes are about improving education and skills, and about putting back to work people whom the previous Government abandoned on the dole queue. From their patrician standpoint, the Conservatives do not care about the ordinary people who were thrown on the scrap-heap by their policies. Labour Members lived daily with the consequences of their economic performance.
  Less than two years into a Labour Government, GDP growth in the first quarter of 1998 was 3 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Whole-economy investment in the first
  72
  quarter of 1998 was up 8.6 per cent. on a year earlier. Over the same period, business investment was up 10 per cent. In March, employment was up 429,000 on a year earlier. The International Labour Organisation figure for unemployment in April was 264,000 lower than a year earlier.
  Conservative Members do not like those facts; they have gone quiet because they cannot deny the impact that we have had on the economy. With our long-term policies, we shall restructure the economic policies and economic performance of the country. We want to do that partly because we want to ensure that the people of the country enjoy a much better life style.
  There was an interesting vignette as the Chief Secretary was talking about the national health service. This is a week of extreme importance to Labour Members, as we mark the 50th anniversary of the national health service. Fifty years ago, the Conservative party opposed that national health service. During earlier exchanges, my right hon. Friend pointed out that the shadow Chancellor had said that the national health service—and the welfare state—was responsible for a downturn in private provision of medical services. Yes, it was—and thank goodness, because, where I come from, before there was a national health service, young and old people died. Day in, day out, we lived with the consequences of the objections that the Conservative party has to public funding of the health service.
  In 1998, the Government are proud of the national health service, and our policies are designed to ensure that we will maintain—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already appealed to the House to come to order.
  Mrs. Liddell: That noise was a measure of the contempt that Conservative Members have for the national health service and for ordinary people.
  I shall discuss some of the arguments that have been made.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No; I want to make progress.
  The shadow Chancellor failed to take into account his hon. Friends' performance in the Committee of the Finance Bill. They utterly failed to acknowledge the responsibilities of a responsible Opposition. Conservative Members, who cannot even decide whether they support higher public expenditure, would have spent £6 billion more than the Government.
  In the seminar provided for the shadow Chancellor, he could not make up his mind whether the country's finances were in a good position. He has yet to respond to the challenge that the Chief Secretary made to him about MIRAS. As Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman condemned mortgage interest rate relief. He repeatedly refuses to address the key issues for the people of this country.
  I am grateful for some of the things that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said in recognition of Government economic policy, but we differ on some points. Listening to his colleagues' performance, in the

  73
  Committee on the Finance Bill and elsewhere, one would conclude that they want £17 billion of additional expenditure. They know how to spend, but not how to tax. The hon. Gentleman asks us for fiscal tightening when the Government are tightening the economy by 2.75 per cent. and yet, whenever we introduce a measure requiring fiscal tightening, the hon. Gentleman's colleagues vote against it. He must decide which side he is on.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On many occasions we have supported—as did the Conservative party—fiscal tightening, especially on anti-avoidance measures.
  Mrs. Liddell: What about all the other measures? The hon. Gentleman wants reports to Parliament; he wants to delay implementation of measures that the Government have introduced for fiscal tightening.
  If we study Conservative Members' performance during the passage of the Finance Bill, we see an Opposition who do not even know how to oppose. As a Government, they did not know how to govern; as an Opposition, they do not know how to oppose. They are as useless as an Opposition as they were as a Government.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No; I will not. In the debate, there were a number of—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not even been in the Chamber all day. At one point, there were only five Opposition Members in the Chamber, two of whom were from the other Opposition parties. Indeed, I began to think that something might be going on elsewhere in the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) made sound points about Conservative Members' performance. She made the telling point that 1,000 homes a week were being repossessed as a consequence of Conservative policies.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The hon. Lady should not criticise the Conservatives, as the current Government are in danger of emulating them. In the past year, in Scotland, house repossessions have increased by 16 per cent., and half of that increase took place in the last quarter.
  Mrs. Liddell: That is the representative of the party whose Treasury spokesman, on Friday, defined its economic policy as hoping for the best—the fingers crossed school of economics. The only growth industry in an independent Scotland would be the selling of lucky white heather. That is the economics of the Scottish National party.
  In a speech that reminded us of the great divisions in the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) spoke about the effect of the establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee on long-term interest rates. In April 1997, long-term interest rates were 7.6 per cent; today, they are 5.87 per cent. For someone who has been an hon. Member for 40 years, he should be well aware that that is a very good indicator of the future of British business.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) complained about the Government's "spending bonanza".
  74
  Perhaps he would care to have a conversation with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who said that
  "spending under this Government is less than it would have been had the Conservative party stayed in office."—[Official Report, 16 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 183.]
  Conservative Members cannot even make up their minds on the nature of their attack on the Government. I therefore commend to the House outright opposition to the ludicrous motion tabled by Conservative Members, who have not even deigned to provide this debate with some rational argument.
  The policies that the Government are pursuing to ensure long-term economic stability will set right the structural problems that have been created by the economic illiteracy and incompetence of the previous Government. It is no surprise that they are so horrified at the prospect of our alluding to their record in Government.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 310.

  Division No. 316]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gill, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gray, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Green, Damian

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Greenway, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bercow, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hammond, Philip

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heald, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brazier, Julian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Horam, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Colvin, Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Day, Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Loughton, Tim

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, Sir David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Maples, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Gibb, Nick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  75

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Steen, Anthony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Ottaway, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Townend, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Trend, Michael

  Prior, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Randall, John

  Walter, Robert

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ruffley, David

  Wilkinson, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Willetts, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wilshire, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Soames, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainger, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Chaytor, David

  Allan, Richard

  Chidgey, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Banks, Tony

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coleman, Iain

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cotter, Brian

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Crausby, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Boateng, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darvill, Keith

  Breed, Colin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Burden, Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, John

  Burnett, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Byers, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Doran, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  76

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fatchett, Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Linton, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAllion, John

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  Gibson Dr Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  Macshane, Denis

  Golding, Mrs Eileen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWilliam, John

  Grant, Bernie

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gunnell, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hain, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maxton, John

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Milburn, Alan

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Miller, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Mitchell, Austin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Olner, Bill

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Öpik, Lembit

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Illsley, Eric

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Kidney, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  77

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Roy, Frank

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Sanders, Adrian

  Touhig, Don

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tyler, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Spellar, John

  Willis, Phil

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wilson, Brian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wood, Mike

  Stevenson, George

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stott, Roger

  Wyatt, Derek

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Jane Kennedy.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the Government inherited an economy in which the current Budget was in deficit by £21 billion, inflation was set to rise because of the failure of the previous Government to take the necessary action on interest rates and nearly one in five households of working age had nobody working; recalls that the previous Government presided over a boom and bust economy with interest rates peaking at 15 per cent. and the two worst recessions since the war, doubled the national debt in the 1990s, doubled unemployment during its time in office, worsened inequality and failed to tackle the weaknesses in the British economy; commends the actions of the Government in its first year, which has established a credible framework for monetary policy that has led to the lowest long-term interest rates in 33 years, set two clear fiscal rules which provide for both prudent public finance and strong public services in the years ahead, taken action to reduce government borrowing such that the current Budget was in surplus by £1 billion in 1997–98, supported British business through cuts in corporation tax and small business tax to their lowest levels ever, launched the New Deal, the biggest employment programme for decades, reformed the tax and benefit system to tackle the unemployment and poverty traps and invested in education and skills; and notes that Britain now has a government which will ensure that the country does not return to the boom and bust and 15 per cent. interest rates of the late 1980s and early 1990s and instead has an economic policy based on stability, enterprise, employment and fairness.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I must point out that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that primary class sizes have increased since the Government came to power, and that almost half a million pupils at Key Stage 1 are now in classes of 31 or more; condemns the Government's failure to deliver its early pledge to reduce infant class sizes; believes that while reducing class sizes is a desirable objective, this should not be done at the expense of parental choice or by creating more mixed-age classes; and condemns the Government's inability to implement its pledge in a way consistent with raising educational standards.
  We have tabled this motion because we are still waiting for the Government's first annual report on how they have performed since they were elected on 1 May 1997. In particular, we are still waiting to hear from Ministers an account of how they have performed in respect of their five early pledges, which not only appeared on the credit cards that were distributed to the electorate, but were even stamped on coffee mugs distributed at the Labour party conference. One of those pledges was on class sizes. If the annual report were being produced by a company, that company would soon be in breach of its statutory obligations—the report is so delayed that the company would soon find itself hauled before the courts.
  We hope to see the Government's report soon, and we hope that it will explain why, despite the pledge to reduce class sizes, the number of children studying key stage 1 in classes of more than 30 has gone up since the election and why the number of children in primary schools in classes of more than 30 has gone up since the election. That is exactly the opposite of the pledge on which the Government were elected.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—I mean the shadow Minister. Does he accept that local authorities have not been very co-operative, especially Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire which was allocated an extra £9.5 million by the Government to spend on education but failed to do so? Indeed, £1.6 million of it was allocated to other services. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is sitting immediately behind the hon. Gentleman, will confirm what I have said.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was saying that Cambridgeshire was spending above its standard spending assessment. I do not have my hon. Friend's expertise on Cambridgeshire, but had the hon. Lady been at the annual conference of local education authorities last week, as I was, she would have heard LEA members of a variety of political persuasions agree on one thing—that it was not practical to deliver the Government's pledge on class sizes, something to which I shall return in a moment.

  79
  The Government's record compares unfavourably with our record. When we left office, a smaller proportion of pupils was taught in classes of more than 30 than when we came to office in 1979.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Rubbish.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Lady shouts "Rubbish", but I assure her that these are figures from the House of Commons Library.
  Ministers' response to the embarrassing predicament of twice having to announce increases in class sizes was to say that they were going to bring forward the delivery of their pledge. Previously, the plan had been that it should be delivered by 2002. As evidence of how serious the Government were about delivering it, they said that it would be delivered in 2001. However, when the electorate were voting for an early pledge, they did not believe that "early" meant 2002. People do not seriously believe that delivering it in 2001 means delivering it earlier than they had been led to expect by the Government.
  For Ministers now to say that there is no prospect of delivering their pledge until 2001 is a failure to deliver on the expectations that they were happy to excite among the electorate in order to get themselves elected. Their interpretation of "early"—namely, that they made the pledge early on, not that it will be delivered early on—is not an interpretation that one single member of the electorate ever understood.
  What are the Government going to do about delivering their pledge? The Department for Education and Employment will have to make every effort to ensure that the Government can retrieve the position after the embarrassment of their first 15 months in office. What will their efforts to deliver this pledge mean in practice?
  Dr. George Turner: In Norfolk, it will mean that 1,000 pupils who would have been in classes of more than 30 will not be. Could we have a better debate than we had this afternoon—a debate on the facts? Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that that very pledge card said how the pledge would be delivered and that the Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme—the Education (Schools) Bill—was among the first Bills that this Government introduced? It is obvious that, until we have delivered on that, we cannot spend the money.
  Mr. Willetts: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that—I have the copy of the relevant page of the Labour manifesto here—it was described as an early pledge, and I do not regard delivery in 2001 or 2002 as an early pledge. It was also described as being financed by using money saved from the assisted places scheme. We have already seen the new deal money for capital expenditure raided because it was clear that the assisted places scheme was not going to be able to raise enough money to deliver the pledge, so it does not seem that the Government are in any way sticking to the assurances that they gave before the election.
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers)rose—
  Mr. Willetts: I will give way to the Minister, and then I shall try to make some progress.
  Mr. Byers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because, like my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), I hope that the debate can be based on facts. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not a single penny of the new deal capital money has been used for the reduction of class sizes? Additional resources, provided by the Chancellor in the Budget of March this year—an extra £40 million—were made available, but that is over and above the new deal money that was announced in July last year. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case?
  Mr. Willetts: This is, admittedly, a murky area, but what we seem to have is, first, money from the abolition of the assisted places scheme not being sufficient to finance the delivery of this pledge, for the simple reason that the pupils who would otherwise have participated in the assisted places scheme still need to have an education. They do not disappear off the face of the earth, which seemed to be the basis on which the Labour Government were working. Secondly, we have had some new deal money from the capital allocation and, thirdly—I am happy to concur with what the Minister has just said—the Chancellor has found extra money on top of the assisted places money and on top of the new deal; that is further money which was announced in the Budget. The Government are unable, on the Minister's own words, to deliver the pledge by using simply assisted places scheme money.
  Mr. Byers: On the facts—and the record will show that the hon. Gentleman said that the new deal money had been raided to fund the reduction of class sizes—will he confirm that that is not the case, but that a further £40 million has been made available over and above the new deal money to support the reduction in class sizes? Therefore, there has been no raid on new deal money.
  Mr. Willetts: We are getting bogged down here. Of course the Minister is correct to say that there was a further £40 million in the Budget, but it was on top of the money from the abolition of the assisted places scheme. It was made clear that one of the purposes that the Government wanted the capital expenditure under the new deal for schools to go on was reducing class sizes, so the Minister is having to raid three pots, rather than financing the policy simply out of the assisted places scheme. That seems to be the position.
  What we are now going to see is the slow and painful process of a shift from what seemed to do well in the focus groups. I am sure that there are parents throughout the country who want their children to be educated in smaller classes; of course we understand that that is what parents want. It became a pledge, but now it is in the process of becoming a law, and soon it will be unlawful to carry out active education in a class of more than 30.
  At that point, the problems will begin. Something that is, indeed, desirable as one of the many ways in which to raise educational standards will instead become the be-all and end-all of education policy. Parents throughout the

  81
  country who would have liked the idea of their children being educated in smaller classes will find themselves paying a very high price for a rigid, obsessional commitment to delivering that objective, to the exclusion of all the other things that can deliver high-quality education for our children.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: My son is educated in a class with more than 30 pupils and I have no complaint about that; he receives a perfectly adequate and proper education. My fear is that, once requirements are laid on the school to provide for smaller classes, that will make it a target—a marginal school, in the eyes of the education authority—for closure.
  Mr. Willetts: That is a good point, which I hope to turn to later in my speech.
  One of the reasons why we wanted this debate is that there is widespread concern among teachers, people in local education authorities and parents about the implications of this policy for parental choice. The Minister regularly asserts simply that he can implement this policy with no reduction in parental choice, but assertion will not do. He has to provide the evidence to explain how it is possible to implement this policy without any reduction in parental choice. There are popular schools that have been accepting children, even though it will take their class sizes above 30. It is impossible to implement the Government's pledge without parents, whose children could have been educated by teachers who believed that they could deliver high-quality education in schools that were getting high-quality Office for Standards in Education reports, not being able to get their children to those schools.
  I have studied the documents that the Government have sent to local education authorities on this; the outline regulations are out for consultation. The Minister, or his officials, asked for much information from LEAs. They say that the information to be provided must include:
  "Details of how plans are consistent with the enhancement of parental preference".
  They also ask for the
  "arrangements LEA is making for circumstances where there is no suitable school within reasonable distance".
  They expect LEAs to answer an impossible question. How can LEAs develop plans that will always be consistent with the enhancement of parental preference, where there is no suitable school within reasonable distance of a popular school that is over-subscribed and has been taking classes of more than 30? What the Minister is doing is asking LEAs to deliver a variety of inconsistent objectives.
  Last week, the Minister spoke at the conference of the Council of Local Education Authorities in Derbyshire; I was there myself. After he had given his now standard performance, when he says, "I can absolutely assert that there will be no reduction in parental preference," the LEA conference promptly passed a motion that "constraints on parental preference" are essential to reducing class sizes, so it did not find him very persuasive. The chairman of a Labour-controlled education authority—Lewisham—said:
  "You shouldn't make pledges if you aren't in a position to carry them out. The Government has made two pledge, on class sizes and parental choice. It is in danger of failing to deliver on either".
  82
  The Minister failed to persuade his own allies in local government that he could credibly assure them that there would be no reduction in parental choice, and we all know why. There are popular schools that are taking children in classes of more than 30 and where there is no practical scope for building new classrooms. It may not be physically possible. They are going to have to turn away parents, when they would have been happy to educate their children.
  However, it is not just a matter of the constraints on parental choice. What will happen about mixed-age classes? The most serious work that we have had on the implications of the Government's policies has come not from the Department—all that we have had from the Department and the Minister have been assertions and questions—but from Coopers and Lybrand, for the Local Government Association. It says:
  "In our view the policy of reducing class sizes is likely to result in a rise in the incidence of pupils in mixed age classes in primary schools".
  That is not a Conservative spokesman speaking. That comes from the most expert review of the subject, carried out for the Local Government Association.
  Just at the time that the Government are going to force more pupils into mixed-age classes, their commitment to literacy and numeracy has been described by Ofsted as requiring that there be fewer mixed-age classes, and that children be taught with children of as close an age to them as possible, and at a similar stage of development. Therefore, the Government are not going to be able to deliver their pledge without making it more difficult for teachers to deliver their literacy and numeracy targets.
  Ministers sometimes say that at least the parents who get their children into classes of under 30 will gain, but they are unwilling to say what will happen to the number of teaching assistants. They do not appear to realise that schools are funded largely on a per capita basis. Telling a school that has been educating children in classes of 35 that it can have classes no bigger than 30 will result not just in five unhappy parents losing the school of their choice, but in the school having a smaller budget. Teaching assistants will be laid off, resulting in fewer of them supporting teachers. How does the Minister plan to avoid that?
  There will also be heavy-handed intervention in the affairs of schools throughout the country. The Minister has talked about a light touch on the management of schools, but instead there will be remorseless pressure from the centre—another expression that Ministers have used from time to time. As the local education authority report said:
  "Essentially they"—
  head teachers—
  "are handing back to the LEA the management and organisation of Key Stage 1."
  To answer the intrusive and heavy-handed questions and deliver the requirements that Ministers have placed on them, LEAs will have to return to an old-style, command-and-control relationship with their schools, when one of the most healthy developments in British education in the past 20 years was a more sensible relationship between LEAs and their schools. The implementation of the policy will push that back.
  There are many other questions that Ministers have to answer. Many of my hon. Friends are keen to ask those questions, so I shall not pursue detailed issues about,

  83
  for example, children with special educational needs. For some extraordinary reason, the only serious exception to the pledge is that classes can be larger than 30 if they include children with special educational needs. Most of us would have thought that smaller classes were particularly necessary in such circumstances. I shall not ask about the distributional impact of the pledge, but it looks as though it will have the extraordinary result of shifting resources to more affluent areas, where larger classes are concentrated. Labour Members do not appear to understand that there is nothing in the policy for inner-city schools. It will give more money to Bromley; it has nothing for Tower Hamlets.
  Helen Jones: How can the hon. Gentleman maintain that argument when, from September, 800 children in Warrington—which definitely does not consist of leafy suburbs—will benefit from smaller class sizes?
  Mr. Willetts: The Coopers and Lybrand report clearly states that the policy will shift resources to more affluent areas. I am surprised that Labour Members have not considered the implications of their policy. If they had thought for a moment about where popular schools and larger classes were, the implications would have been obvious.
  I saw an interesting story on the front page of The Daily Telegraph today, which may have had something to do with the Minister's preparations for this debate. It announced that there would be capital funding for 100 Church schools to deliver the class size pledge. There are 3,557 Church schools taking children in infant classes. An estimated 46 per cent. of those have infants in classes of more than 30. That is a rough estimate and if the Minister can improve on it, I should be happy to be corrected. Based on that estimate, there are 1,600 such Church schools. If he believes that his announcement of special assistance for 100 of them will go any way towards dealing with the widespread anxieties in denominational schools throughout the country about how they will be affected by the pledge, he has another think coming.
  There are not many aided schools in my constituency. St. Alban's is a popular and well respected Church of England primary school, which has taken 35 children in each year hitherto. It has good Ofsted reports and the parents in Havant who want their infants to have a denominational education have only that school to opt for. The head teacher wrote to me, saying:
  "This will mean that five children who would have been admitted to this school in the past will not be offered places, although they have chosen a Church of England school, and will probably have a church reference to back up their application. I am aware that there are schools in the area who will be able to admit these children"—
  those are the surplus places that the Minister is so keen to get rid of—
  "but parental choice will be limited."
  At the moment, those classes have one teacher and two teaching assistants. When I visited the school, I met some very despondent and confused teaching assistants, because one teaching assistant in each class would have to be sacked because of the reduction in the per capita funding to the school. That will be the reality on the ground when
  84
  what began as an attractive pledge goes into law as a rigid commitment to be implemented whatever the practical implications for schools.
  Since the Government launched the policy, we have heard no more than assertions that the problems that are widely feared in the educational world will not occur. We hope to hear more than assertions and talk about money tonight. We want to hear a practical example of what will happen to a popular school with a good Ofsted report that is taking 35 children, but does not have the physical capacity to expand. How will the pledge be delivered in that area without a reduction in parental choice or an increase in mixed age classes? The duty on the Minister is to offer a clearer and fuller explanation than he has done so far.
  7.36 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government on the excellent progress it has already made towards honouring its pledge that no child of 5, 6 or 7 will be in a class of over 30 by the end of this Parliament, which will mean that 100,000 fewer infants will be in large classes from this September and the pledge will be met ahead of schedule by September 2001; and notes the Opposition's continuing hostility to class size reduction, having presided over year-on-year increases since 1988.".
  The Conservatives' central charge is that the Government have failed to honour one of the key pledges that we put before the electorate in the run-up to the election. We take that as a serious charge, because we intend to honour and discharge our commitment to the electorate by ensuring that those pledges are met. I welcome the opportunity provided this evening—thanks very much—by the Opposition to outline how the Government intend to honour that pledge. I should like to go beyond that and explain how the pledge can be met by not just maintaining, but enhancing, existing parental preference, and how the implementation of the pledge will ensure that we can deliver on our standards agenda. We believe that smaller class sizes help to improve the standard of education. That stands in stark contrast to the assertion of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that there is no correlation between class sizes and educational achievement. I shall outline why we disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
  The motion talks about
  "the Government's failure to deliver its early pledge to reduce infant class sizes".
  The hon. Member for Havant made little reference to exactly what we pledged. The Labour party manifesto says, on page 7:
  "We will reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or under, by phasing out the assisted places scheme".
  Our pledge card, which every loyal Minister keeps in his or her top pocket, says almost exactly the same:
  "Cut class sizes to 30 or under for five, six and seven-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme."
  That is the pledge. We made a clear link between the phasing out of the assisted places scheme and the reduction of class sizes.
  Mr. Don Foster: Is the Minister telling the House that there never was a commitment to fund

  85
  class-size reduction solely from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme? The House will recall some of his earlier remarks suggesting something very different.
  Mr. Byers: I shall come to the timing of the delivery of the pledge. The hon. Gentleman will see that we always intended that it would be delivered by the end of the Parliament. The additional resources provided as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, particularly the £40 million capital, enables the pledge to be delivered early. That is why the additional resources are necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would support the Government in providing additional spending in order to deliver on the pledge.
  Mr. Foster indicated assent.
  Mr. Byers: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government in our efforts to reduce class sizes.
  We felt that it was important to demonstrate how revenue spending on the assisted places scheme could be used to employ more teachers and to reduce class size. That is exactly what the pledge states, and that is exactly what we shall do—showing that the Government act for the majority of our children and not just the few.
  It is worth reminding Conservative Members that the assisted places scheme provided independent sector places for 38,000 young people and that the revenue from phasing it out will provide smaller classes for nearly 500,000 five, six and seven-year-olds. That is a clear demonstration of the Government's priorities, which are in clear contrast to policies of the Conservative party, which represents the vested interests of the few—that is its historical role—but denies good quality opportunity to the majority.
  Mr. Graham Brady: I find it rather bizarre that the Minister is accusing us Conservatives of standing up for the vested interests of poor children in the inner cities, whom I see being denied places in schools such as Manchester Grammar and William Hulme. I am quite happy to be accused of standing up for their vested interests. I thought that the Labour party used to try to stand up for such vested interests. It is clearly now failing to do so.
  Mr. Byers: We do. The great difference is that we believe that those children should be provided with good quality education in the maintained sector and should not have to rely on the independent sector. Our view is that we can make far better use of the more than £100 million of public money a year that was spent on the assisted places scheme.
  Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way again?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress.
  We could not phase out the assisted places scheme by Executive action; we needed primary legislation. Once in office, we acted with speed and commitment to introduce the Education (Schools) Bill, which phases out the assisted places scheme and releases the money spent on it so that we can use it for the benefit of far more young people. Within 21 days of the general election,
  86
  the Education (Schools) Bill was published and given a First Reading. The Second Reading was on 2 June, and Royal Assent was given on 31 July. It was one of the first Bills to reach the statute book under this Government.
  As a result of the fact that the pledge was about phasing out the assisted places scheme—which required legislation—and using the liberated money to benefit the majority of our young people, the first element of the money will not become available until September. That was made very clear—
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make this point. The earliest time at which the money released from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, which is to be devoted to, and ring-fenced specifically for, cutting class sizes, can have an impact is September. In September, it will have an impact.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister confirm that the abolition of assisted places was only a money-saving measure? Does he therefore accept the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords, with cross-party and cross-Bench support, which will allow schemes such as that in Surrey to go ahead? That scheme does not have financial implications, but it will benefit the education of children in the county that I represent.
  Mr. Byers: I am still awaiting details of the Surrey scheme. I have on several occasions asked the hon. Gentleman and the director of education for them, but still have not seen them. I await with great anticipation this much-vaunted Surrey assisted places scheme. When I see it, I shall judge it accordingly—not on dogma but on its practical realities and implications.
  From September, £22 million will be available as a result of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. That money will be used to employ 1,500 more teachers, ensuring that more than 100,000 five, six and seven-year-olds will be taught in classes of 30 or fewer. Such benefits do not extend just to the leafy shires, as the hon. Member for Havant implied. Nine thousand youngsters in Derbyshire and 8,900 youngsters in Lancashire, as well as those in places such as Gateshead and in inner-city areas throughout the country, will benefit as a result of our class-size reduction proposals.
  More money will come on stream. Next year, £61 million will be used specifically for reducing class sizes. In 2000, £80 million will be used, and by September 2001, when the pledge will be delivered in full, £100 million will be available from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. Of course, many local authorities and schools will benefit before September 2001. It is crystal clear that the pledge will be met—and under the terms that, clearly, were put to the electorate.
  Mr. Damian Green: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to move on to the issue of parental choice. I want to address square on the very important point raised by the hon. Member for Havant.

  87
  The class-size policy could be implemented in a way that would be detrimental to parental choice. The thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Havant was that popular schools would be forced to turn children away, and that empty desks at less popular schools would be filled. If that were the intent, the policy would merely be an administrative shuffle of children around the system. Such a policy would have very limited or no cost. We would not need the £100 million in 2000 from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. We need that money because that is not the way in which we shall go about matters. We shall target the money that is released from the assisted places scheme—as well as the extra money that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has got from the Chancellor on capital for this year—on schools that are popular with parents.
  Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister give a pledge that no parent will fail to get their child into the school of their choice as a result of his policy?
  Mr. Byers: I shall come shortly to how the policy will not only maintain parental preference but enhance it. I hope to be able to demonstrate that to the hon. Gentleman in just a couple of minutes.
  The School Standards and Framework Bill, which is before the House of Lords, will require local education authorities to draw up plans for the implementation of the class-size reduction pledge in their areas. Those plans must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State will not approve plans that fail to demonstrate that the LEA has given due regard to the exercise of parental preference. However, we want to go further. When submitting their proposals to reduce class size, LEAs should plan on the basis of enhancing the exercise of parental preference. What does that mean in practice?
  First, no child should have to travel an unreasonable distance to school as a result of the policy. Secondly, surplus places in poor schools should not be filled by keeping children out of schools that offer higher standards and a better quality of education. Thirdly, where extra places are needed, they should be created in popular, over-subscribed schools with high standards that have been demonstrated by key stage 1 or key stage 2 assessment results—which might be valued added—or reports of the Office for Standards in Education.
  Fourthly, and this takes up the point raised about the Church school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Havant, the proportion of denominational provision for any denomination shall not be reduced. Finally, local education authorities should seek to increase the proportion of provision in popular over-subscribed schools with high standards. Plans that fail to meet those criteria will not be approved by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Willetts rose—
  Mr. Don Foster rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. Foster: The Minister has told us that he is making these announcements to the House for the first time this
  88
  evening. First, will he confirm that every one of the points that he has listed comes directly from the consultation document? Secondly, will he confirm that local education authorities were required to comment on that document by 12 June, only about two weeks ago? Thirdly, will he tell the House whether all those who responded to the consultation document said that it was possible to deliver what it contained? Did the consultation responses all support the particular points to which the Minister has referred?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have consulted on many of those points. The House should be made aware of them because they were not referred to by the hon. Member for Havant when he introduced the motion. The issue is whether we should go along with the views expressed as a result of the consultation. Some reservations are held in some quarters. There are some people, and no doubt some in local education authorities, who say that what we propose cannot be done. Will the hon. Member for Havant say why they say that it cannot be done? I will tell him why that is said; it is because what is proposed will interfere with LEAs' planning processes for places. It will make it more difficult. Yes, I accept that it will make it more difficult, but this Government are not about making life easy for local government; we are about delivering high-quality education for parents and children.
  It was interesting that, yet again in a contribution from the Opposition Front Bench in an education debate, the interests of parents, children and high standards were not put first. Once again, we heard about the difficulties that would be experienced by local government. That is regrettable. However, we shall put the interests of parents and children first. We shall not cave in to the vested interests of local authorities.
  I read with great interest the speech made by the hon. Member for Havant at the Council of Local Education Authorities, where he talked about the time coming for Conservatives to build bridges with local government. The hon. Gentleman said that things had changed and that the authorities could forget 18 years of local government being denigrated, with its powers reduced, by the Conservatives. He suggested that, somehow, there was a new dawn, a new renaissance for local government.
  Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Byers: I will in a moment.
  I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there should be a new dawn in terms of central-local government relations. The relationship should be one of real partnership, a partnership that puts the interests of children first.
  Mr. Willetts: I shall tell the Minister why we find ourselves in an extraordinary position. There is an improving relationship between Conservatives and local education authorities. That is quite simple; the LEAs cannot believe that the Minister is serious when he makes those assertions. The factor is not the self-interest of LEAs, as I tried to explain. The Minister cannot have been listening to me. He has not explained how he can deliver on his assertions when a school physically does not have the capacity to build more classrooms—many schools do

  89
  not have the space to do so—and is currently taking children in classes of more than 35. The hon. Gentleman produces long lists of criteria, but he does not explain how, in practice, in the real world, they can be delivered. That is why LEAs, schoolteachers and parents are losing confidence.
  Mr. Byers: As for losing confidence on issues such as reducing class sizes, the way in which the hon. Gentleman's political colleagues in the other place have tried to block legislation that will reduce class sizes is an example of measures that will continue to cause loss of confidence in the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman's party is standing in the way of a desirable policy that parents want, which is a reduction in class sizes.
  Earlier, the hon. Gentleman was scornful of the front-page story in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph about the fact that we intend to give money to Church primary schools to help them with their capital costs. For the first time—
  Mr. John Hayes: How many?
  Mr. Byers: I shall deal with the figures in a moment.
  For the first time, a Government have been prepared to say to the Churches that, if it would help them, we shall fund 100 per cent. of their capital costs. That was never done under a Conservative Government. All right, it will involve 100 schools—actually, more than 100 when the announcement is made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Thursday. In any event, it will be 100 more than under the Conservative Government. That is the reality.
  I agree that there are many Church primary schools with high class sizes. How many of them need capital money? The hon. Member for Havant did not address that in his contribution. He confused revenue, and the need for teachers, with capital. The reality is that the applications that we have received from Church authorities are being supported. The details will be made available on Thursday. It will be good news for many more than 100 Church primary schools, and they will be able to join in the crusade to reduce class sizes. I am sure that they will be delighted at that.
  Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Minister confirm that the announcement that will be made on Thursday on Church schools will be yet again a change in Government policy? In a debate in Committee on that specific point, when I challenged the hon. Gentleman on the resource implications for Church schools, he said that the Churches were quite happy because they would be able to meet the resource implications. We now find that they cannot meet those implications and that the Government will have to move in.
  Mr. Byers: Unfortunately, the hon. Lady did not specifically refer to the dates of our exchanges in Committee. Off hand, I cannot remember them. However, I think that they would have pre-dated the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, I would have been unable to say—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will wait for a moment,
  90
  I shall let her know exactly what the Churches were invited to respond to. The letter that went out from the Department explained to the Churches that, if they wanted to, they could have the 15 per cent. made up by central Government, and that, if they chose not to, that was fine. It was a choice for the Churches themselves to make. The majority of them have responded positively to that choice, saying, "Yes, it is a Government initiative that we want to be part of in reducing class sizes." As a result, well over 100 Church schools will benefit from the additional capital that we are making available.
  The reduction in class sizes should not be seen as a one-off step to improve the standards of education that we are offering. We believe that the reduction will make an important contribution. That is because we believe that smaller class sizes, especially in early years, make a difference to the quality and standards of education that can be offered.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress.
  In reducing class sizes, we have the support of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, who said in 1996:
  "Our class size report"—
  Ofsted's class size report—
  "looked at whether there was any connection between the number of children in the class and the quality of education. With early years, that is 5 to 7 years of age, we agree: there was a connection."
  He gave some advice, saying:
  "And we think"—
  Ofsted thinks—
  "that if this government"—
  that was the Conservative Government—
  "or any subsequent government is going to find more money it ought to invest that money in early years education."
  That is exactly what the Government are doing.
  That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Government's approach. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), said that there was
  "no accumulated evidence to link class size with attainment."
  The hon. Member for Havant, in that little red book entitled "Why Vote Conservative?", states that
  "there is little evidence of any correlation between class size and educational achievement."
  It would be interesting to know whether he still holds that view. We did not hear during his contribution whether that was the case. Now that the hon. Gentleman speaks for the Conservatives on education matters, it would be helpful to know whether he still subscribes to the view that he expressed in that pamphlet.
  Mr. Willetts: I shall tell the Minister how this can be resolved. All that the hon. Gentleman needs to do is to publish the results, school by school, of the national curriculum tests at the end key stage 1, and in the same information publish the class sizes in those schools. That would finally resolve a question about which educationists

  91
  have different views. I should be happy if the Minister cast some light on that subject, but, so far, he has refused to publish the information.
  Mr. Byers: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he still subscribes to the belief that he expressed in "Why Vote Conservative?" That will be one of the numerous reasons why people will not vote Conservative—they see a clear link between class sizes and standards.
  The Government believe that cutting class sizes will not, on its own, be enough to raise standards in the way that we want—if the hon. Gentleman said that, he would be on far stronger ground. From September, there will be a revolution in primary and early years education. At long last, there will be a place for every four-year-old whose parents want it. A daily literacy hour will be introduced as part of our £50 million national literacy strategy. All primary school teachers will receive in-service training on how to improve the teaching of basics. Those in teacher training must follow a new national training curriculum in English and maths, so that they, too, will be effective in teaching the basics.
  The Tories were in power for 18 years, but did absolutely nothing to tackle the scandal of ever-increasing class sizes—indeed, they presided over year-on-year increases. Hundreds of thousands of our children were the innocent victims of the Tory Government's neglect and indifference. Now, the chapter of increasing class sizes is coming to an end. This September will be a new beginning. There will be 1,500 extra teachers and hundreds of additional class rooms, so that more than 100,000 infants will be in smaller classes.
  Let the House be in no doubt—we are on course to deliver our pledge on class sizes, and we shall deliver it in a way that will enhance parental preference and play a key part not only in raising standards in our schools, but in ensuring that education becomes a valuable learning experience rather than a matter of crowd control. Our children deserve the best possible start in life, which means a high-quality education—under this Government, that is exactly what they will have.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: Like the Minister, I, too, found listening to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) somewhat surreal. It was almost as if he was trying to persuade us that 1 May 1997 was year zero and that nothing had existed before then. He seemed to be saying that the Conservative party of 1998 had no connection with those nasty Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s, and that any similarity was purely coincidental.
  We must remember what the Conservative Governments did—everything that Conservative Members have said tonight, and their apparent concern about class sizes, will not wipe away that record. In particular, we must remember that, in their final years in government, the Conservatives presided over year-on-year increases in class size—indeed, in every year of the Major Government, class sizes continued to rise.
  The Minister was uncharacteristically unkind to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). He will recall the leaked memorandum
  92
  that she sent to her Cabinet colleagues, in which she begged for money, saying that if schools did not receive more resources, class sizes would continue to rise. Of course, her request was rejected—there was no additional money for schools, so class sizes continued to rise.
  It was no surprise that the Conservatives showed no real interest in class sizes. We have heard the views of the hon. Member for Havant, but we should not forget that Conservative Ministers expressed similar views. I am sure that the House will recall the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who said in 1994 that
  "there is no proven causal connection between class size and educational output."—[Official Report, 13 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 767.]
  I hope that at least one thing has become clear from this evening's debate—that we all agree that class sizes really matter. Recently, I was fortunate enough to join a number of my colleagues from the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, on a visit to the canton of Zurich. We were impressed by much of what we saw, but what impressed us more than anything else was, I think, the impact of small class sizes on educational output.
  Mr. Hayes: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he at least acknowledge that, in other parts of the world, such as the far east, schools with class sizes much larger than those in this country achieve equally strong educational success?
  Mr. Foster: According to some statistics, that is true—in some countries, children are crammed into classes and can still achieve reasonable results in some tests of their ability. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the quality of education must be measured on something more than reasonably good raw scores in basic tests.
  In the canton of Zurich, we were able to see the educational benefits that small classes could bring, as classes there were almost always of 20 or 22—they were certainly never more than 25. The Liberal Democrats have long recognised those benefits, which is why we have long advocated a reduction in class sizes. Indeed, the House may be interested to know that I was born in 1947—[Interruption.] I know that that is surprising. I was particularly interested to find out what the policies of one of our predecessor parties—the Liberal party—were in that year. At the 1947 party conference, a resolution was passed that claimed:
  "The most immediate need is to reduce the size of classes in primary schools."
  We have a long track record of believing that class sizes should be reduced.
  The House will also be aware that, at the general election, Liberal Democrats committed themselves to class size reduction. Indeed, we went further than the Labour party. We proposed, and explained how we would fund, class size reduction for pupils not only in infant classes, but in junior classes. We believe that all primary school pupils should have the benefit of smaller classes.
  The Government propose to reduce class sizes for the approximately 500,000 children in key stage 1, who will, of course, benefit from that. However, the trouble with that proposal is that it will leave, in England alone,

  93
  more than 800,000 pupils in key stage 2 in classes of more than 30—indeed, many tens of thousands will be left in classes of more than 35. We believe that those children, too, deserve a better deal.
  Sadly, the Labour Government, because of their adherence to the previous Government's spending plans, have been timid in their response to the educational problems created by large class sizes—indeed, they could have started to reduce class sizes earlier. Unlike the Conservative Government, they have at least started to take action, which we support, but they seem to have been concerned—I have heard nothing in this debate to allay my fears—only about whether the headlines are right, so that they receive credit for class size reduction; they have not done their homework on the details. As a result, a number of problems are coming to light. I shall not repeat the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Havant; I want to raise other questions, to which I hope the Minister will give some answers when she winds up.
  Evidence that the Government have not thought this through can even be found in the pilot scheme. The House will recall that, in September, local education authorities were invited to bid for the standards fund grant 5 moneys as pilots for class size reduction. They were notified of the outcome in February, but were not notified until 20 April—with precious little time to get all the preparation done for implementation in September—that they would get the money for a whole academic year. From February until April, it was uncertain whether they would get seven twelfths of the money or money for the whole year.
  Even now, the pilot authorities do not know whether—presumably subject to meeting some agreed criteria about which they have not yet been told—the money will continue into subsequent years. I hope that the Minister will listen and perhaps respond on that. Also, will they be allowed to bid for additional funds to reduce class sizes for pupils who are still in over-large classes?
  Mr. Byers: I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The class size reduction for this September is not being carried out with a statutory underpinning—that will come through the local education authority plans, which will be submitted in the autumn. Provided that the plans from the 65 authorities that will get money from this September are satisfactory, the money will roll through into subsequent years.
  Mr. Foster: The local education authorities involved in the pilot will definitely welcome that assurance, although they were not given it until that moment.
  The hon. Member for Havant mentioned another concern that illustrates that the homework has not been done—funding. The Minister will not deny that he clearly said tonight that he accepts that assisted places money alone would not have been sufficient to deliver the pledge. Of course, we welcome the additional money from the Chancellor, but, without those additional sums, there is no evidence that the Government would have been able to deliver their pledge.
  When I looked at the calculations, I was worried whether there would be sufficient money even with the additional funding. For example, the Minister told us in the Standing Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill that, to deliver the pledge by 2001, 5,000
  94
  extra teachers would probably be required. To date, none of us has seen an explanation of how that calculation was made. The Minister told us—it is clearly on the record—that 500,000 key stage 1 pupils are in classes of more than 30. If all of them were put into new classes of 30—this is a simple calculation—16,500 additional teachers would be required. We accept that some of those pupils will go into classes of fewer than 30, but even if one assumes that half of the 500,000 will do so—how that can happen when the Minister has told us that parents will be able to choose the most popular schools I do not know—and only 250,000 have to be put in new classes, it will still require not 5,000 but more than 8,000 additional teachers. I confess that I do not understand how the sums add up.
  Another example of how the figures do not add up is obvious from the departmental press release of 22 May, which many hon. Members will have studied and which categorically told us that the £22 million was being allocated
  "from the Standards Fund to recruit around 1,500 new teachers which will ensure that over 100,000 infant pupils will be kept out of large classes from this September."
  I checked the figures carefully with the Library, as I do not claim to be a better mathematician than the Minister. To the starting salary for a new teacher I added the appropriate superannuation and national insurance costs and discovered that the starting figure from 1 December, when the new teachers will be in post, is £17,595 per annum. I divided that sum into £22 million, expecting the answer to be 1,500, but it came to only 1,250. Therefore, there is no money to provide for 250 of the additional teachers the hon. Gentleman is promising us.
  The Minister also needs to consider some of the other concerns mentioned to him during the consultation period. As he was able to give such a clear statement about what he will do about the various criteria announced earlier in the light of the consultation, perhaps he will tell us what he can do about the concerns of local education authorities over information technology. The additional IT skills and the work necessary to produce all the data for the Department will require additional staff, unless staff are taken away from their existing activities—that is, improving standards. Will additional money be made available to help LEAs with that task?
  Leaving aside the money, another question is whether, in certain parts of the country, we shall be able to find the teachers to carry out the tasks that will be required. For example, LEAs in the inner London weighting pay area collectively have a smaller percentage of pupils in classes of more than 30 than those in other parts of the country, but nevertheless face the problem of existing vacancies, which have increased to 3.6 per cent. in the past two years. They will need to find additional teachers to reduce their class sizes, but there are already a large number of vacancies in their primary schools. The Government are convinced that all that will be delivered, but how do they expect that problem to be resolved? The problem is made worse by the fact that authorities in suburban London have the largest percentage of pupils in classes of more than 30—in Bromley, it is 56 per cent. and in Kingston, 62 per cent.—and will need a large number of extra teachers. The worry is that they will suck teachers out of the inner-London authorities where it is less popular to teach, which will make life there difficult indeed.

  95
  We have heard mention of the problem of what to do about popular schools. The Minister has stated that, following consultation, the extra places that are needed should be created in popular, oversubscribed schools with high standards shown by key stage 1 and 2 assessment tests, which is straight out of the consultation document. If that is to be the approach, I find it difficult to reconcile with some of the other Government requirements of local authorities, not least for the provision of best value. It seems to mean that the number of vacant school places throughout the country will increase. It is difficult to know whether that is the case, because consultation has not finished on the Government's admission policies.
  The hon. Member for Havant mentioned mixed-age classes; I look to the Minister for a clear answer tonight. What will happen in the case of a mixed-age class that has pupils from key stages 1 and 2—that is, both seven and eight-year-olds? May we have a clear assurance that none of the pupils will be in a class of more than 30? I assume that the Minister will say categorically that the answer is yes. After all, the pledge clearly states:
  "No child aged 5, 6 or 7 will be in a class of more than 30 pupils from September 2001 at the latest."
  The answer would have to be yes, but the very first paragraph of the consultation document that was issued to LEAs on 27 April says:
  "A class is covered by limits on class sizes if the majority of pupils in that class are in the relevant age group."
  That means that if only a few pupils are seven and most are eight, the class can have more than 30 pupils, so the seven-year-olds will lose out. That is not compatible with the pledge and will cause confusion for the local authorities bidding for funds to reduce class sizes.
  Has the Minister read her own document, "The National Literacy Strategy, Module 1, The Literacy Hour", which says that schools are required to organise classes so that there are no more than five groups of children, with no more than six in each group? Like the Minister, I am not brilliant at maths, but I can multiply five by six and get 30. How can that maximum number of pupils in a class for the literacy hour be achieved when even the Government do not expect class sizes for key stage 1 to get down to 30 for this September? Key stage 2 is not even covered, so we need to know how that all adds up.
  The Government have failed to do anything about school space standards. The Minister was extremely critical when the previous Government decided to abolish the minimum space standards. It is a great pity that those standards have not been reinstated, especially as many new classes will be created in the drive to reduce class sizes. We need to have an assurance that those classes will not be created in inadequate spaces.
  I am well aware that the ministerial answer will be that if there are no requirements, at least there are recommendations, which appear in building bulletin No. 82, "Area Guidelines for Schools". I seek an assurance that, in the creation of new classes, there will be an absolute requirement that those recommendations be adhered to by local education authorities and schools.
  Class size reduction is vital if we are to raise standards. Frankly, it is hypocritical of the Conservative party, which presided over huge and rising class sizes, to berate the
  96
  new Government, so we cannot support the motion. Equally, although we welcome the Government's determination at least to get some class sizes down, we cannot whole-heartedly congratulate
  "the Government on the excellent progress it has already made",
  as the amendment says, because that would be to ignore the numerous unanswered questions and the failure to start early enough and to go far enough.
  8.22 pm
  Helen Jones: I confess to being somewhat puzzled by the Opposition's choice of subject. For Conservative Members to initiate a debate on class sizes is like King Herod wanting to debate child welfare. If there were educational prizes for effrontery and sheer brass neck, they would certainly be at the front of the queue.
  To hear the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) speak, one would think that Conservative Members were born guiltless on 1 May 1997. They would have us believe that they are without a past, but they are not, and it is right for the House to be reminded of that past, not because we want to evade responsibility for our actions—we shall be happy to be judged on them—but because it is important that the size of the task facing the Government, and their success in taking it on, should be put into context.
  Mr. Brady: I, of course, am completely guiltless and blameless. I wonder whether the hon. Lady regards herself and the Labour party as free from blame for the incompetence of many Labour local education authorities, which have been responsible for such bad performance in education throughout much of the country.
  Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is very selective in his references. Perhaps he would like to look at recent reports on the failing schools in Westminster before pointing the finger at Labour LEAs.
  Conservative Members would have us forget that, before the Labour Government took office, we had 18 years of Conservative mismanagement of the education system. I am sure that the whole country would like to forget that, but it happened. Those 18 years left 477,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30. During those years, pupil-teacher ratios rose consistently and the previous Government continued to deny that class sizes had any effect on education.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) rightly quoted the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who said:
  "there is no proven causal connection between class size and educational output."—[Official Report, 13 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 767.]
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Is the hon. Lady aware that, although there are large class sizes in Bromley, there are also outstanding academic results? That may suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) knows what he is talking about in his own patch.
  Helen Jones: Perhaps it suggests that the right hon. Gentleman had not read the research.

  97
  In Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill, Conservative Members appeared to change their stance. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said:
  "We do not contend—and nor did the previous Government—that class size, for infant classes in particular, is wholly irrelevant."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 January 1998; c. 31.]
  That was backtracking on previous comments. Conservative Members felt no guilt in government, because they were conscious of no obligation. Never once did they express any outrage about what was happening to children in our schools.
  It is possible that the sinners have repented, and I believe in the possibility of redemption—although that belief has been sorely tested by daily contact with the Conservative party in opposition—but if they had learnt the error of their ways, why did they oppose the Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme and use that money to reduce class sizes? Why did they consistently argue that the money should be spent on a small minority of children, while children in constituencies such as mine continued to suffer large class sizes? Why did they table amendments that would have made the pledge on class sizes totally unworkable? It is no use their posing as defenders of lower class sizes now, when they sold the pass a long time ago.
  By contrast, the Labour Government not only desire the end, but are prepared to put in place the means. The Conservative party found reasons why class sizes should not be reduced, but we are prepared to build for success, because we believe that many of the problems in our schools stem from a failure to devote enough resources to the education of very young children at the beginning of their school life.
  I taught not in primary but in secondary education, but I believe strongly that our policy of reducing class sizes is a key part of raising standards and that money put into the education of children at the beginning of their school life will pay dividends later and prevent many of the problems that secondary school teachers now deal with. The Government are delivering on their commitment.
  In my town, 800 children in what is not by any means a leafy suburb will find themselves in smaller classes in September because of money put up by the Government. That is the effect for a single local education authority in a single town. My hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that £22 million will go to the rest of the country in September, to keep 100,000 pupils out of oversized classes. Opposition Members have opposed that at every possible stage.
  In future, there will be more money. The £40 million in capital funds to be allocated to schools has already been referred to, but there will be £100 million from phasing out the assisted places scheme by 2001–02. We are determined to use that money to reduce infant class sizes, and to ensure that LEAs will not be able to do so in any way that restricts parental choice. LEAs will have to expand popular schools that have high standards, and we have consulted them on the best way in which to do that. We are no longer prepared to tolerate the failure that existed under the previous Government, when half our 11-year-olds failed to reach expected standards in English and maths, and when the reading standards of seven-year-olds were falling.
  98
  Research in the United Kingdom and in the United States has convinced us that lower class size in the early years is a key factor in raising education standards and allowing children to acquire basic skills. Parents know that. Teachers know it, too. The only people who do not appear to know it are the Opposition, whose decisions in government gave us the large class sizes that exist today, and which our Government are reducing. That is the difference between the Conservatives and Labour. They favour lower class sizes for those who can buy their way out of the state system, while we favour lower class sizes for all our children. For too long, children suffered a second-class education under Tory Governments, so that they were destined to be second-class citizens.
  Most Opposition Members do not use the state education system. If large class sizes are not good enough for their children, for whose children do they think large class sizes are good enough? The Opposition's motion is a piece of political chicanery, and an attempt to dodge the consequences of their past actions. The people will not be misled. I urge the House to vote against the motion.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I bring bad tidings for the Minister from my constituency. Since the class sizes debate began, I have visited my local schools as a Member of Parliament, and as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, and I have not once heard a positive welcome for the Government's policy on reducing class sizes. At one school, I was told that if class sizes must come down, the library will have to be used as an extra classroom, removing a resource available to the entire school. Another school fears that the reduction in class sizes will use the money that has previously been put into a reading recovery programme.
  At the school in the village where I live, we opened a new porch in the school entrance only the other day—built with money that the Government were not responsible for finding; it was raised by the efforts of the local community. That school hopes to raise class sizes, and I asked whether the class size policy would help the school by encouraging more parents to send their children there, which would raise the numbers to 30. I was told, however, that the policy would not help the school; in fact, classes of more than 30 would be welcome as more resources would go into the school, and could be directed towards the children who most need them.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) told us of his recent trip to Zurich. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and I also made that trip, and what the hon. Gentleman did not mention was that during 18 years of Conservative Governments here, the difference in income between the people of Switzerland and the people of the United Kingdom narrowed. People in Switzerland used to have a per capita income 60 per cent. higher than that in the UK; now it is barely 20 per cent. higher. The trend of the past 20 years has been one of economic success for the UK, which is why people in Zurich are looking to our education system to learn lessons for their own system.
  We went to Zurich in a spirit of cultural exchange, intending to learn from the Swiss, but we found that the Swiss were interested in learning from us. What is more, in order to produce an education system closer to ours,

  99
  they were prepared to contemplate an increase in their class sizes. Class sizes are not regarded in isolation in any other part of the world. It is a great mistake to do so here.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the Opposition's position on reducing infant class sizes? In government, the Conservatives increased class sizes. In opposition, they voted against the means to reduce class sizes. Their motion equates the reduction of class sizes with a reduction in educational standards. Will he clarify their position?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I hope to get across to the small class of Members here tonight the message that the education system will be damaged if the Government isolate one aspect of policy and make it an overriding priority. It is, of course, desirable to have smaller classes, but all education research demonstrates that unless very low sizes—well below 20—are achieved, there is no significant impact on teaching. There are other ways in which the ability and strength of a school can be improved. Lower class sizes are clearly desirable, but they cannot be sought in isolation, at the expense of other important matters.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: We have heard many times of the hon. Gentleman's support for the assisted places scheme, which he wants to continue in special form in Surrey. Does he support that scheme so that a few people can seek desirable small class sizes in private schools?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of what the Minister has said. We already knew that the Minister could not multiply, but we have learnt that he cannot add up either. He told us that the saving from the assisted places scheme would be £100 million a year, but everyone who has examined the matter knows that it will be £40 million a year. The cost of his programme may be £100 million a year, and the cumulative saving after three years will be £100 million, but the Minister should check his sums carefully, because he has got them wrong again.
  The abolition of the assisted places scheme, which, like many right-thinking people, I regret, has nothing to do with class sizes. The Government's class size priority will, as the Minister has admitted, cost a great deal more than the £40 million annual saving from the assisted places scheme. The cost of the new capital programme could not be announced until the Chancellor's statement—an admission by the Minister that he had put forward a policy that he did not know he could afford. The cost of that programme, and of reducing class sizes without significantly damaging parental preference or undermining the quality of teachers, will be a great deal more than will be saved from the abolition of the assisted places scheme.
  It is significant that when the assisted places scheme was discussed in another place a couple of weeks ago, the Government's policy on having a say over policies on assisted places was cut down by one vote, with support from Cross Benchers and Liberals and not because of a resurgence of Tory backwoodsmen. In areas such as Surrey, where we have our own scheme which local
  100
  people understand and can vote on, policy should be determined by local people. We should not have to justify it to the Secretary of State if we are not relying on additional central Government money to implement it.
  Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Surrey scheme and said that people had been able to vote on it. Does he accept that the Government had an overwhelming mandate for their policy of reducing class sizes by phasing out the assisted places scheme, and that they have a duty to implement it?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: No one is denying the Government's right to withdraw the £40 million cost of the assisted place scheme, but, on 1 May last year, the people of Surrey also gave an overwhelming mandate to the Conservative party to take back control of Surrey county council and follow sound Conservative education policies in the interests of Surrey. We object to the centralised control that lies behind both the new regulations on partnership schemes and the Government's class size plans.
  We welcome any efforts to improve education. Smaller class sizes have a role to play, but, as we have heard already, in many ways the Government's scheme is too expensive and too costly, especially in terms of parental choice. How is it fair to tell parents with a child at a school that a sibling cannot go there because it would increase the numbers going into a class? How will the Minister respond? Will he say that he is prepared to sanction the building of an extra classroom in that school for siblings? Even if he were prepared to do that, at tremendous cost if it were done across the country, how could he possibly achieve it in time to deliver on his promise to satisfy the needs of those children? Many families' children will be split up or will have to travel further. Where I live and in my constituency, the problem of traffic on the roads when children are travelling to and from school will be accentuated by the Government's policy.
  We have not yet heard where the extra teachers will come from. The Government have offered no incentive to teachers, and their golden economic inheritance means that there is greater demand for teaching skills in other sectors of the economy. With such a problem of teacher supply, about which our Select Committee has already warned them, how will the Minister deliver quality teachers? When I put that to the National Union of Students and the National Association of Head Teachers there was concurrence that teacher quality is as important, if not more so, than class sizes. Parents and teachers would rather have children in slightly larger classes taught by first-rate teachers than in mathematically correct classes that underperform because the quality of the teacher available is not up to the standard that children and their parents have a right to expect.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend develops an interesting line of argument. Does he accept that, contrary to what was said by the Minister, Ofsted acknowledged exactly that point in its comments on the issue in 1996? Ofsted said that class size was a factor, but not the sole determinant of the quality of teaching and learning; the Labour party, however, has irresponsibly created the opposite perception among our people.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have the latest Ofsted report. I read carefully its section

  101
  on primary schools. In the priorities for action listed by Ofsted, there is not one mention of class sizes. There are important issues for our primary schools that should be addressed, but for the Government to be hung up on a soundbite—an early pledge that will be delivered late—is a betrayal not only of the children but of the trust that passed from our party to theirs on 1 May last year.
  It is regrettable that, behind the smirks and self-satisfied looks of Labour Members, there have been no real answers tonight. We will leave the Chamber knowing that the Government are concerned only with presentation and not with the practical effects of their proposals or the high cost for the people whom I and my colleagues represent.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: We all know that it is the job of the Opposition to oppose, but it is revealing that, on a topic of their choice on one of their set-piece days, only six of them have turned up to oppose. That is not strong evidence that the Conservative party feels strongly about the issue.
  It is the job of the Opposition to oppose, but there is a difference between opposition and disingenuous opposition. What we have heard tonight is disingenuous opposition. Their first complaint was that the Government's pledge was not happening early enough, but they know, because some have served on education committees and, I hope, know something about schools, that the pledge cannot be implemented any quicker. They know that classes are set up at the start of each school year, and that only then can one alter their configuration. They know that the classes that children are in now—the ones referred to in the survey mentioned by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—are the same as those set up in September 1997, and the same as those planned and organised, and for which staffing arrangements were made, back in May and June 1997, based on the budgets of April 1997 set by the previous Government.
  We have always made it clear where the money would come from. My hon. Friend the Minister read out from our plastic pledge card that it was always linked to the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. Last June, we discussed the Education (Schools) Bill, which received Royal Assent in July. That was a fast pace. We could not have moved any faster, but the dates did not permit activity on class sizes to fulfil the pledge until September 1998.
  The Education (Schools) Act 1997 honoured the assisted places that had already been organised for September 1997. Do the Opposition now suggest that we should not have honoured them, but should have told the children that they could not take up their assisted places in 1997 because we had to move more quickly and wanted the money right away? If so, it is the very opposite of what they argued for during the passage of the Bill, when they tabled a raft of amendments to a short, seven clause Bill—the purpose being to slow down the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. They asked for more time, for more youngsters to be kept on until the age of 13, for more of everything. In short, they wanted to delay the implementation of the class size pledge.
  I made my maiden speech during the debates on the Bill, and I followed the right hon. Member for South—West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), whose main point was that the Bill was being rushed through without enough thought
  102
  being given to it. At the time, the complaint was that we were going too fast; tonight, the complaint is that we are going too slowly.
  The fact is that there was no possibility of fulfilling the pledge in 1997: September 1998 will be our earliest opportunity. Would the Opposition have us disrupt classes in the middle of the academic year? If so, I wonder what parents would say. Alternatively, we could have put in additional resources besides those liberated by abolishing the assisted places scheme. Even so, taking action by September 1997 would have been extremely difficult—schools make their plans in May. In any case, we have heard time and again that the Opposition do not want any more money spent. They have argued that the whole idea should be called off owing to a lack of money from abolishing the assisted places scheme. Indeed, they have never argued for extra resources for education.
  This September, we will see the beginnings of children benefiting from the Government's policy. That would never have happened under the Conservatives. The real horror for the Opposition, of course, is that they can see that the pledge is being acted on. They can see, too, that phasing out the AP scheme is delivering the money and that the pledge will be fulfilled. So they are trying to muddy the water by confusing people about the timetable for implementation.
  The second example of the Opposition being disingenuous is that they are criticising the Government for allegedly not doing something with which they wholly disagree anyway. They spent years denying that class size had anything to do with education standards. Throughout their 18 years in government, I was teaching in the classroom. Nothing infuriated teachers, parents and pupils more than hearing various Conservative Ministers say that class sizes were irrelevant. The Minister referred earlier to crowd control. Anyone who has taught large classes knows that there are times when teaching feels like crowd control—and the way to control a crowd is to reduce its size. That is, after all, the selling point of the private schools.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) has said, we witnessed some spectacular somersaults by Conservative Members in Committee—I note that they are not here today. The new Tory move to suggest that class size did count was led by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Indeed, the right hon. Member for Charnwood said:
  "there is some evidence that class size has a strong influence on educational attainment for children aged five to seven."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 January 1998; c. 31.]
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I spent many years as a county councillor and always acknowledged that class size was a factor. Would he agree, however, that it is most important for children with special needs? If so, does he agree with the Government's exemption from the pledge of children with special needs?
  Mr. Blizzard: Class size is a factor in all types of education, mainstream and special needs. The point is that unless the Government take steps to do something about

  103
  class size, nothing will happen. That is what happened for 18 years under the Conservatives, when class sizes never came down.
  Mr. Hayes: It is time to nail this one. Class sizes were at their peak in 1978; Library figures show that they were higher then than in 1997. I seem to recall that we had a Labour Government in 1978.
  Mr. Blizzard: It is easy to come up with all sorts of figures, depending on the starting and finishing points.
  The Conservative conversion to the cause of smaller class sizes has now vanished. The right hon. Member for Charnwood and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton have disappeared from the Front Bench. I have to say that we questioned their conversion at the time, when amendments were tabled to ensure that no movement was made on class sizes. One incredible amendment was designed to enable parents to choose whether to put their child into a class of 30. The result would have been that 30 parents could choose the legal-sized class of 30, but the 31st parent could come along and insist on a class size of 31. That is a good example of the sort of amendments that we had to put up with in Committee.
  The revised Conservative policy evidenced in the motion is that smaller classes are desirable, but that nothing should be done about that. At the time of the Standing Committee's deliberations, my survey of my constituency showed that we had 25 classes of six and seven-year-olds containing more than 30 pupils—involving a total of more than 800. Thanks to the new Act, that will change during this Parliament.
  As in Committee, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has again expressed his strong vision for education. He asked the Minister some probing questions about how the Government's plans will be implemented, but he was very weak on the specifics of his own party's plans. When he began describing Liberal policy back in 1947 or thereabouts, I thought he was going to say that his party put an old penny on income tax for education—but had since made progress because that was 1/240th of a pound whereas now 1p is 1/100th of a pound.
  I read in the local press this week that the Conservatives have begun to listen to the electorate. Indeed, the local paper announced that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) had turned up in my constituency while I was at Westminster—he made page 63 of the Lowestoft Journal, which shows just how successful his visit was. Had he really listened to parents in my constituency, he would have heard them asking not why smaller class sizes were being imposed but when it was their turn to have them. For as long as the Conservative party refuses to listen, it will remain unpopular, because people do not like a disingenuous Opposition.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who made his case well—although that does not take much doing because there can be no doubt that, under the Labour Government, class sizes have increased. I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers, but I profoundly disagree with their approach to this and other policies.
  104
  I am sick to death of attending in the Chamber and listening to Labour Members talk about the 18 years of Conservative government. Essex county council has been controlled by the Conservatives for only seven weeks and the leader of the Labour party jumps to the Dispatch Box and blames them for all ills, but, after 15 months of a Labour Government, no one seems to want to take responsibility.
  When hon. Members speak, they tend to draw on their personal experiences, which is what I shall do. First, I shall talk about my experience as a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Byers: What—about Basildon?
  Mr. Amess: If the Minister wants me to talk about my former constituency and what the Labour party did on a private matter relating to education, I shall be happy to speak publicly on the subject. In the years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have taken a great interest in education matters—
  Mr. Tony McNulty: In Basildon.
  Mr. Amess: Yes, in Basildon. It should be to the eternal shame of the Labour party that when my wife and I decided to send our son to a non-selective, not grant-maintained Church school outside my former constituency because there was no such school in the constituency, the then former Member of Parliament for Basildon, who was at that time the leader of Havering council, decided to make a big issue of the matter and to interfere with our private lives, yet several people who now have responsibility in the Government send their children to highly selective schools. The Minister attempts to chide me about Basildon, which is now represented by two Members of Parliament, one Conservative, one Labour, but he and other Labour Members should ensure that they are better informed than they appear to be at the moment.
  As I was saying, I take a great interest in education and in the schools in my constituencies, past and present. I go around schools all the time. If Ministers think that the public are pleased with what they have done in education for the past 15 months they are very wrong. Only weeks ago, not in my constituency, but in the London borough of Bexleyheath, the Conservative party won by-elections, and Bexley is now controlled by the Conservatives. I am informed by the chairman of the education committee, Mrs. Sharon Massey, that education was a leading issue on the doorstep. In May, we took seats from both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats.
  I also draw on my experience as a teacher in a primary school in the east end of London dealing with children with special educational needs. That is why I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) had to say about the need for class sizes for children with special educational needs to be limited to 30. In addition, while I realise that Labour Members think little of playing politics with their own children—the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) shakes her head, but I can assure her that the Labour party in Basildon did exactly as I described earlier—I have five children, all in state schools, so I am deeply involved in and conscious of their experiences.

  105
  I represent the constituency of Southend, West. At Question Time a few weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), said that there was no problem with the size of classes in Southend and that we had spare capacity. She is quite wrong, and I shall prove that shortly. All the classes and the schools in my constituency are full, and what is happening in Southend is a disgrace.
  Southend is controlled not by the Conservative party, but by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party working together. That is why I was appalled by what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said about education. The Labour party's promises have not been borne out and the Liberal Democrats' claptrap at the general election about the 1p on income tax to be spent on education will never be borne out. They have controlled Essex county council for the past four years and they should be ashamed of their record. At the moment, they control Southend-on-Sea borough council.
  All schools in Southend are operating at full capacity. A document written by the Conservative spokesperson, Mrs. Sally Carr, says:
  "The restriction of class sizes to no more than 30 will require an absolute restriction on admissions once class sizes have reached 30".
  That is what the council has decided, which is stating the obvious, but when the Minister replies, will she tell us how on earth schools in Southend will achieve that? There is no room for Portakabins. All our classes are full—they have more than 30 pupils.
  I know that some hon. Members were laughing at my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). Someone said that he is an old Etonian. My hon. Friend represents a constituency and he is entitled to give his view on behalf of his constituents. I thought that he made his case very well. Is it the case that, under this Government, if one happens to be a Conservative Member, the people one represents do not count? I hope not.
  In Southend, 25 per cent. of schools have classes in excess of 30 pupils and that proportion will rise over the next year. I shall give three examples. At Prince Avenue school, which is in a challenging catchment area, the average class size for key stage 1 is 32 and increasing. The head teacher is already having to turn down pupils for next September, and many of their mums and dads are coming to my surgery. At Westleigh junior school, the average class size for key stage 2 is 32 and increasing. In year six, there is even a class of 37 pupils.
  I raised the subject of Westborough school with the Minister a few weeks ago. With 800 pupils, it is the largest primary school in Essex. I sought a meeting with the Minister for School Standards about the issue, which I shall come to at the end of my speech. The school is so crowded that there is no room for any more children and the head teacher does not even have an office from which to operate. The average class size is 33 and the largest class has 35 pupils. There are four mixed classes. At present, the school can afford to employ some teaching assistants to help staff, but it will be unable to continue to do so if class sizes are decreased and alternative funding arrangements are not found.
  Westborough, which is in a very challenging part of my constituency, has an acute funding problem. I had a long chat with the headmistress this afternoon. The chairman
  106
  of the governing body is a Liberal and the chairman of the education committee in Southend. The headmistress and the governors do not know where the money will come from. When the Under-Secretary winds up, will she tell me—if she does not have the time, she can write to me—what is the solution to the problem of those three schools in my constituency?
  In Essex local education authority area, 13,805 key stage 1 pupils and 28,850 key stage 2 pupils—40 per cent. of the total—are in classes of more than 30.
  Although one or two sedentary interventions began to exercise me a little, I said at the outset that I did not doubt Ministers' sincerity—and they are courteous in dealing with correspondence—but it is galling that whereas, under the previous Government, I was able to bring representatives—the head or deputy head—from every school in my constituency to meet the Secretary of State, I am now told that I cannot have any sort of meeting with any Minister because they are too busy. That is deeply disappointing, especially as the Government tell us time after time that they are listening to the people. They are jolly well not listening to those whom I represent in Southend, West.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have had a brief conversation to determine whether we can recall any correspondence from the hon. Gentleman requesting a meeting and we are unable to do so. My hon. Friend and I have a good record on meeting hon. Members from all parties when meetings are requested. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to us—I do not remember receiving any correspondence from him, but I shall check—I am sure that we will treat his request as sympathetically as possible.
  Mr. Amess: I take the Minister's words in good faith, but three days ago—this is a little embarrassing—my secretary received a call from the diary secretary to one of the Ministers to say that a meeting was not possible. As the Minister expressed his view at the Dispatch Box I felt it necessary to respond, but I take what he said in good faith and I should be grateful if he will meet some of the headmasters in my constituency.
  I end by reiterating my main point about all the nonsense that has been said about saving money on the assisted places scheme. Labour Members know only too well that the Government may want to reduce class sizes—which I think will be impossible, given that our playgrounds are already overcrowded, not to mention the issue of choice—but from where will the money come? The Chancellor keeps telling us that he is relying on the previous Conservative Government's spending plans; then he says that there is to be a three-year strategy that will be more draconian. I want to know where the money will come from. Frankly, many people in my constituency feel that, under this Labour Government, they will not be able to afford children.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who unfortunately is no longer in the Chamber, put his finger on the issue when he distinguished between opposition and disingenuous opposition. Tonight, we have heard a great deal of the latter from the Opposition Benches.

  107
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to the year zero mentality of Conservative Members. I thought that they were more like a collection of Rip Van Winkles who have slept through the last 20 years and now suddenly discovered all these new ideas. I had hoped that, when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) spoke, we would hear some opposition to that argument, but I could not find much of that in his speech. He said that the Conservative party understood that parents wanted their children to be educated in smaller classes, but there was precious little evidence of that while the Tories were in government. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, those of us who served on the Standing Committee saw much evidence of confusion and outright schizophrenia. I thought that schizophrenia had been confined to the previous members of the Conservative Front Bench, but it has clearly been inherited by the present incumbents.
  I understand that, in some quarters, the hon. Member for Havant bears the epithet "two brains". I had always assumed that that referred to his outstanding intellectual capacities, but clearly one brain is there to operate pre-1997 and the other post-1997. By that process, the two brains, rather like something in an H. G. Wells story, are able to proceed on their way without any conflict, but, unlike in science fiction, this problem has not just dropped from the planet Zog. As has been said, the build-up of class sizes has been strong and remorseless. In 1988, 804,000 children in the five to seven age range were being educated in classes of more than 30; by 1997, the figure had risen to 1,344,000. It is instructive to ask ourselves why. What series of factors over that period produced such a rise?
  In 1994 and 1996, Professor Neville Bennett of the school of education at the university of Exeter prepared an interesting report on class sizes in primary schools. It was a large survey and took into account the perceptions of head teachers, chairs of governors, teachers and parents. It is interesting to recall what some respondents to that survey said about the then Government and their policy on class sizes.
  One head teacher said:
  "The Government"—
  the previous Government—
  "has a policy (unstated) to increase class size. LMS determined budgets for schools, this was rate-capped and therefore budget was reduced. The last pay increase had to come from the budget. The only way to pay for this was by reducing staff."
  Another head spoke of
  "teachers in primary schools disadvantaged by a historical funding system which mitigates against smaller classes and non contact time—both sorely needed but not possible under present funding".
  Another reason for the increase in class sizes was the previous Government's severe attitude to local authorities that were trying to raise their game and raise educational standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who is in her place, can give eloquent testimony of the problems that Lancashire county council experienced in that connection.
  The previous Government hampered local authorities; moreover, they gave no thought to expenditure to improve the infrastructure that might support initiatives to reduce class sizes. They gave no thought to the number of
  108
  classrooms that rapidly became unusable, to the number of classrooms that were prefabricated or to the continuously lengthening list of necessary repairs.
  Perhaps the most significant reason for the increase in class sizes is the fact that the previous Government gave no thought to it because, as hon. Members have pointed out, too many of their own children were not educated in that system. As a result, they had no first-hand experience of the problems that were building in the primary school sector.
  Thankfully, the Government have begun—speedily, as Labour Members have said—to remedy the problem. From September, £22 million will be made available to 65 local education authorities. They include my new unitary education authority in Blackpool where, from September, 1,000 pupils will be kept out of classes of more than 30 as a result of the taking of money from the assisted places scheme.
  No sensible hon. Member would argue that it is easy to institute a policy of lower class sizes. There is a complex structure of schools. In my constituency there are 1950s or 1960s schools, where it would be relatively easy to implement the pledge, and schools where space will be a problem. That is precisely why the Government have not gone for a knee-jerk process of implementation, but are ensuring that the policy is implemented in a way that will not restrict parental choice. Tonight, the Minister gave a detailed and thoughtful list of the criteria that will be used. The wide range of schools also explains why the Government have given £40 million extra to build 600 additional classrooms in 1998–99, and why LEAs have been given searching and penetrating targets to institute their own strategy this autumn.
  In implementing our strategy, we must take every care not to restrict parental preference. The Government have made a strong and competent start and they deserve more than the Conservatives' knee-jerk reactions and schizophrenia. No Labour Member would argue—as some Conservatives have attempted to portray us as doing—that reducing class sizes is the be-all and end-all of education policy. A measured examination of what the Government have done in early-years education shows that that policy is only part of a raft of measures. My education authority has benefited from the new class sizes initiative, but not only that. We have benefited from an above average rise in education standard spending assessment; £73,000 for reducing class sizes; £24,000 for the national learning grid; £19,000 for literacy; and a total of £1·5 million of extra allocations for 1998–99.
  Those funds underline the holistic approach that the Government have taken to early-years education policy, and the pledge on class sizes is an important element in achieving those policy objectives. The Conservative motion therefore deserves to be rejected—and rejected decisively.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: As I said in an intervention earlier in the debate, I should like to nail as an untruth, or at least as a misapprehension, any statement that Opposition Members have not before spoken sensibly or in a balanced manner on education issues. Many of us, like Labour Members, have a long history of being involved in education—as teachers, governors and members of local education authorities—

  109
  and, of course, we acknowledge that class size is a factor and an issue in judging the quality of teaching and learning. The crude caricature of Opposition Members drawn in this debate by Labour Members does them far less justice than it does us.
  Three calumnies were preached—I use the word advisedly—by Labour Members in the run-up to the general election. The first was that class sizes were at an unprecedented level when the previous Government left office. That is certainly not true. Class sizes were not at an unprecedented high. Figures clearly show that secondary school class sizes, for example, were higher in 1978–79 than they were in 1996–97. The numbers were about the same at primary school level.
  The truth is that—largely because of demographic and birth rate factors, not because of Government policy—class sizes dipped in the 1980s. I should not claim Conservative credit for that dip, any more than Labour Members should claim that the Conservatives deliberately increased class sizes through the 1990s as a matter of public policy. Such a claim simply does not bear scrutiny. The full history of class sizes—not over 15 or 20 years, but over 50 years—suggests that not public policy but demography, population growth and the birth rate have been the major determinants of class sizes, both in the primary sector and the secondary sector. However, no Labour Member has mentioned that fact in this debate.
  The second calumny was that class sizes were the single most important factor in teaching and learning—in a child's educational progress. That is not borne out by the facts or by a wealth of research. Even those who take the most pro-Government perspective in educational research would argue that class size is only one of the key factors that affect a child's educational progress and the nature of teaching and learning. The truth is that the relationship between class size and educational success has as much to do with teaching and learning methodology as with anything else.
  The key factor of methodology has been mentioned in this debate by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who spoke about experience in Switzerland, and by me in my intervention in his speech when I spoke about the far eastern experience. There are a range of views on the importance of class sizes, just as there are a range of teaching methods. There are adherents to and protagonists of each of the different perspectives.
  The third calumny preached by Labour before the general election was that a Labour Government would quickly—immediately—do something about class sizes. Let us be absolutely clear about that pledge. Labour Members have told us today that it was always clear that it would take five years to reduce class sizes, but I remember that during campaigning before the general election Labour party campaigners told electors—Labour party candidates who are now hon. Members may have said the same—"Your child will be better off, because your child will be in a smaller class."
  Today, we have heard that many of those who currently have children in primary school will not benefit because—in the Minister's own words—the pledge will not come to its full fruition until 2001. We are talking largely about the next generation of children benefiting. That is hardly an early pledge. It is at best an early pledge delayed; at worst, it is a medium or long-term pledge in
  110
  respect of many children's life experience and educational progress. I fear that parents will judge that harshly against the propaganda that preceded it.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman represents a seat in Lincolnshire, I think. This September, 900 five, six and seven-year-olds in Lincolnshire who will be in classes of 30 or fewer would have been in larger classes had the previous Government remained in office.
  Mr. Hayes: The Minister will acknowledge that I did qualify my remarks. Although I said that not all children would benefit, I then hesitated and said that, to be fair, some would. However, many of the people who voted Labour on the understanding that their children would be better off will not benefit. Many parts of the country will not see an improvement because, as the Minister acknowledged openly and fairly, the pledge will not be implemented in toto until 2001. That does not accord with the impression given during, or the marketing used by the Labour party before, the election. That is why people are coming to the hard, and arguably fair, judgment that Labour has not lived up to the expectations it created.
  I was about to talk about omissions from the pledge. One was the trade-off between class size and choice. We know that many large classes are the result of children being admitted to a school as a result of an appeal. It usually happens at the most popular schools, for obvious reasons. Burgeoning classes stem from the extension of choice—parents want to get their children into a particular school because of its reputation and record.
  Inevitably, there is a trade-off between class size and choice. One has to make a political and educational judgment: is it more important dogmatically to put every child in a class of fewer than 30, or to place more emphasis on choice?
  Mr. Brady: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the contradiction in the fact that the Government appear to have understood the importance of choice by accepting our policy of league tables for schools, but that, by capping numbers in classes of five, six and seven-year-olds, they are limiting choice? That limitation will not only affect parents; it will stop the good schools from dragging up the standards of the bad schools.
  Mr. Hayes: It is even worse than that. My hon. Friend points out a contradiction, but there is an implicit reduction in local discretion. Local education authorities have to prioritise and, with governors and parents, they may decide to place more emphasis on factors other than class size. The Government's bland, blanket policy prevents them from so doing.
  I had a state education and I have never had any parental connection with private education, contrary to the nonsense we heard from Labour Members. They talk as though the only factor that parents take into account when they choose to send their children to a private school is small class sizes. If that were the only basis on which private schools marketed themselves, they would do considerably less well. People are concerned about the quality of teaching. about leadership and about a school's ethos. Parental support is also a critical factor in a child's educational progress. Constantly focusing on class size dilutes the argument about those other vital factors and may even detract from their importance as issues to be considered in respect of the quality of teaching and learning.

  111
  The figures speak for themselves. Class sizes have risen. I cited figures from the Library that are available to everyone and show that class sizes in the secondary and primary sector have risen under this Government. We may argue about why that has happened. It may be said that the Government cannot proceed with their pledge on class sizes quickly enough as there are other priorities, or that this matter is not so important to them; in any event, average class sizes have increased, but to dwell on averages is in itself deceptive. If we look at LEA-by-LEA comparisons, Labour LEAs are worse. Class sizes in Labour LEAs are typically greater. That raises questions about the historical record of those LEAs in prioritising class size. As hon. Members will know, there is nothing to stop an LEA directing money towards that goal.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I accept that there will be variations, but will the hon. Gentleman accept—this is borne out by the allocations for this autumn—that many of the Labour LEAs to which he refers have those figures precisely because they are in areas of deprivation and need?
  Mr. Hayes: LEAs in areas of deprivation and need could have chosen to place greater priority on class size and to transfer money to subsidise, if you like—in the way that many LEAs subsidised nursery education as that was discretionary expenditure head—smaller class sizes. Many LEAs have chosen not to do so, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point in that LEAs are particularly poorly off because, as he will know, the largest classes tend to be in the most popular schools, and the most popular schools are frequently not in Labour LEAs, for obvious reasons.
  Mr. John Randall: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would be interested to know that the average class size in Islington is smaller than in the Oratory school.
  Mr. Hayes: I do not want to draw unnecessary attention to the fact that the Prime Minister is a highly privileged man who chooses to send his child to a highly privileged school, rather than the local comprehensive. I do not want to repeat that and would not do so, so I shall move swiftly on, but I also find it slightly distasteful that we have a Prime Minister with no background in local government or of using the state sector; he went to a private school with all that entails.
  The hon. Member for New college, Oxford and Harvard—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden)—speaks as though he is one of the people's champions. I note that his interests are mediaeval history, theatre and other, equally arcane, matters—not football and real ale—so when he speaks as the people's champion we have to treat that claim with a certain latitude.
  The other omission from the Labour party's account before the election was the issue of the difference between schools within LEAs. Labour LEAs' failure to deal with surplus places means that a number of very small schools—some people would argue unviable schools—with relatively small classes, which are not necessarily the best or the most popular schools, are distorting the average. I should be interested to hear the Minister say in
  112
  her summing-up how we reconcile this class size policy with the issue of surplus places, and how surplus places are to be dealt with in this context.
  Valerie Davey: I give just the example of Gloucestershire, where schools such as the hon. Gentleman has described existed and the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment refused to take action.
  Mr. Hayes: I am afraid that I cannot give that intervention the credit or indeed attention that it deserves because my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) was speaking in my ear and, as I am very deaf, I did not hear it all. However, in the spirit of the Minister, when he was dealing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), if the hon. Lady writes to me, I shall deal with her intervention fully.
  Class size is a factor in children's educational progress, but it is not the most important factor. The debate continues. The jury is still out on how important class size is. The important thing about this debate is that the Labour party, now the Government, raised expectations about immediate action on class sizes which it has failed to deliver—indeed, it has been thwarted. The British people are extremely angry that Labour has disregarded those expectations in its priorities.
  9.34 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Tonight's debate has been characterised by Tory hypocrisy. That has been clearly demonstrated by the assertion that we are choosing between smaller class sizes and good teaching. This Government offer both. When I was the leader of a local authority while a Tory Government were in power, we battled against cuts in revenue and capital, we battled to stop class sizes rising, we battled against cuts in resources and we battled to keep open opportunities for pupils in access to the arts, basic standards in education and discretionary grants in further education.
  We are offering smaller class sizes where it matters most, in infant education, and expanded opportunities for all. That is the beginning of a new era. I congratulate the Government on the splendid start that they have made. I condemn the hypocrisy of the Conservatives. I hope that they learn over the next few years, as the nation gets the benefit of expanded education opportunities for all.
  9.35 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: The Government
  "has made two pledges on class sizes and parental choice. It is in danger of failing to deliver either."
  Those are not my words or the words of my hon. Friends, who have made such excellent contributions to the debate. They are not even the words of Conservative councillors. They are the words of Gavin Moore, the Labour chairman of education in the London borough of Lewisham, speaking last week at the conference of the Council of Local Education Authorities, which was reported on Saturday in The Times in the following way.
  "Parental freedom to choose a child's school must be constrained if class sizes are to be reduced, Labour councillors said yesterday.
  The election pledge made by Labour last year to reduce primary class sizes to under 30 pupils…will be impossible to achieve if parents have the right to decide which school their child attends, the councillors claimed."

  113
  The Minister dismisses the words of those local education authorities. They are the words of people who will be responsible for delivering the Minister's pledge at local level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made clear, there is real local concern about the practical implications of putting the pledge into practice.
  It is not surprising that the Minister for School Standards dismisses local education authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) pointed out, the Government are taking away local decision-making powers and centralising control in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  The Minister dismissed the concerns of his Labour colleagues in local government, saying that the issues were administrative and managerial, but they are not. The concerns of councillors are about whether children can attend the schools that they and their parents want them to go to, but the issue is about more than that; it is about the quality of education that children receive in our schools.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to the only analysis that has been carried out on class sizes—the Coopers and Lybrand report commissioned by the Local Government Association. Coopers and Lybrand talked to LEAs, head teachers and governors about their concerns. On the opinions of head teachers and governors, the report says:
  "Whilst there was widespread support for the policy of reducing class sizes in principle, we found that many heads were not convinced that a slight reduction in class sizes in their own schools would recompense for the upheaval and loss of flexibility that could result."
  The report goes on to talk about where the policy might have a negative impact:
  "At Key Stage 2 (or other Key Stages) if the development causes resources to shift towards Key Stage 1 at the expense of other Key Stages
  at Key Stage 1 and 2 if the policy causes a change to mixed age teaching…
  at Key Stage 1 if non teaching classroom assistants are withdrawn…
  at schools in areas of social deprivation if the policy causes a shift of resources towards schools in more prosperous areas."
  I recognise that the Minister may dismiss the Coopers and Lybrand report because it was commissioned by local government, and he has no interest in and no time for local government. Perhaps he will take some interest in the findings of research undertaken by the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, which surveyed head teachers' concerns about the practical implications of the class size pledge. The survey said:
  "While supportive, in principle, of class size reduction, headteachers were concerned that fixed limits for key stage 1 classes…could produce three unwelcome and, they felt, adverse outcomes: the creation of more mixed age (vertically grouped) classes, even larger key stage 2 classes, and a reduced capacity to employ classroom assistants."
  In other words, the pledge will hit the quality of education that children receive in the classroom.
  The point about the impact on key stage 2 classes was made very clear to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), when she appeared in front of a number of teachers in Derby, as reported in
  114
  Friday's Derby Evening Telegraph. When repeatedly challenged on the subject of overcrowding in junior schools, she replied:
  "Our current priority is to fund key stage one and we don't have any plans to deal with key stage two at the moment."
  In other words, children over the age of seven will suffer as a result of the Government's pledge on five, six and seven-year-olds.
  All that the Minister for School Standards did in the debate was constantly to assert that parental preference would not be affected. Yet, when we got to the subject of what decisions the Secretary of State will take, we were told that he must consider only whether local education authority plans have "due regard" to parental preference—not whether it is affected. That is not a pledge to parents who are worried that their choice will be restricted as a result of the Government putting their pledge into practice.
  Earlier, the Minister for School Standards refused to give the following pledge. In responding to the debate, will the Under-Secretary pledge that no parent will have a child—be they five, six or seven years old—turned away from the school of their choice due to the class size pledge? Will she also pledge that no parental appeal will be turned down on the basis of class size? We await her response to both those specific questions.
  It is clear from the debate that the Labour Government's pledge was ill thought out; it was not properly planned. It sounded good, and fitted on the pledge card, but Labour did not know how it would be put into practice. It is clear from the Minister's refusal to answer all the specific questions put to him that he still does not know how the Government will put the pledge into practice.
  The hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred to attacks of amnesia. The brief comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) implied the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) pointed out, Labour Members are the ones who have had an attack of amnesia.
  The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a valiant attempt to protect his Front-Bench team—I sincerely hope that the duty Whip took due notice of his contribution—on the timetable of the pledge, by saying that there was absolutely no prospect ever that it would be met in the Government's early days. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Waveney, and to the Secretary of State, who just seems to have confirmed that from a sedentary position, that if that were so, why did Labour Members tell the electorate that the pledge was an early one? That meant to the electorate that it would be met quickly. Now we hear that an early pledge is simply one about which they thought before any others. That was not what they said during the election campaign. They told members of the public, parents and teachers that there was an early pledge to cut class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. The public believed the Labour party and thought that the pledge would be implemented quickly.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell us whether the Conservative party is saying, as a consequence of its belief that the pledge was to be

  115
  implemented by September 1998, that it expected the assisted places scheme simply to be stopped and no further children to be allowed to continue through it?
  Mrs. May: Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to give a pledge now about whether the Government will implement their pledge within the life of this Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman give that pledge now?
  Mr. Blunkett: Absolutely.
  Mrs. May: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Absolutely" from a sedentary position. So we know that. Thank you very much.
  When the Labour party unveiled its pledge on class sizes, when it distributed its pledge cards and when those who are not Labour Members campaigned on the doorstep, they did not provide any small print. They did not add any caveats to what they were saying. I see that the Minister for School Standards has to get out his pledge card to check whether there is any small print on it, just to remind himself of what it says. I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who will reply to the debate, has had to borrow the pledge card of the Minister for Schools Standards. I think that the hon. Gentleman said earlier that any self-respecting Minister made sure that he or she had a copy of it.
  When the pledge card was produced, when Labour candidates went on the doorsteps during the election campaign, when shadow Labour Ministers in the previous Parliament were interviewed during the election campaign and prior to it, and when the now Prime Minister unveiled all the pledge posters and pledge coffee mugs, there was not any small print. There were no caveats. They did not say to parents that they would achieve the pledge only by taking away parental choice. They did not say to parents that it depended on where people lived as to how early—
  Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No. I must make progress.
  Parents were not told that it depended on where people lived as to how early the pledge would be delivered. The Government did not say to parents that they would deliver the pledge only by increasing mixed-age teaching. They did not say that they would do it by taking resources out of key stage 2 so that those children would suffer from a lack of resources. They did not say that they would do it by reducing the number of classroom assistants. They did not say that they would achieve their pledge only by refusing appeals. However, those are the implications of putting the pledge into practice.
  That is the reality and that is what will happen to parents and children throughout the country. They will find that choice is being taken away from them. They will find that other classes will suffer. Head teachers will say, as they say to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, that they have real concerns about the impact of putting the Government's pledge into practice in the classrooms. The reality is that the Government have failed to deliver on an early pledge, and they have failed to deliver the truth to the electorate.
  9.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I have spent three hours listening to the debate; I am a very disappointed person having listened to what Opposition Members have said. I am still not clear about what they really think about class size. I was in a Standing Committee earlier this year and I heard the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) say that
  "there is some evidence that class size has a strong influence on educational attainment".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 January 1998; c. 31.]
  I thought that that was a conversion; I thought that Opposition Members had seen the light. I thought that today, we would see some sort of revivalist rally—some sort of coming-out celebration—where one Opposition Member after another would say, "Yes, we were wrong. We have seen the light and we have been converted." However, they did not say that. I do not believe that any of them, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Charnwood, has changed his or her mind about whether class size matters. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman has gone off to think for the Conservative party; I can only hope that he will have more influence on the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) who, having taken over as shadow Secretary of State, has spoken in stark contradiction to what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee.
  Conservative Members may show empathy and say that they want to reduce class sizes, but, at every turn, and again tonight, they have spoken and voted against the means of doing so. Last July, they voted against securing the money and, last year, they opposed the Bill that would have made the reduction possible. Now that we are implementing our pledge, they are warning of imaginary obstacles.
  To be fair—we always want to be fair—I must give Conservative Members some credit. There is a yawning chasm between even what they have said tonight and what they did when they had the chance to act on the issue. We have heard three hours of pious words, but they do not make up for 18 years of hopeless inaction. We have heard siren voices galore, but why were those same voices not raised when the Conservative Government were in office? Did we hear any Conservative Member protest when, year after year, class sizes rose? Did we hear a murmur from any of them when, just before the general election, the number of infant children in classes of more than 30 hit the 500,000 mark? More than 4,000 of those infants were in classes not of more than 30, but of more than 40. Given the Conservative party's record, can anyone take seriously what it says today about class size?
  As if the Conservative party's preaching about class size was not audacious enough, we have had to put up with a lecture by the shadow Secretary of State on the fulfilment of election pledges. That is the big conversion of the night—a member of the previous Government worrying about whether Governments keep their election pledges. However, not one Conservative Member has said, "Sorry we got it wrong; sorry we were so mistaken about the importance of class size." Not one of them has said sorry to the hundreds of thousands of kids whom they let down, or sorry to the parents and teachers who wanted and deserved better.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) said, the Conservatives act as if the past 18 years did not happen. They may wish that that

  117
  were so—indeed, I wish that it were so—but parents, teachers and the Government cannot act as if it were; we have to pick up the pieces and face up to the consequences of the 18 years of Conservative Government. The fact that the Conservative Government cut budgets year after year and forced up class sizes had a direct effect on educational standards. We inherited a situation in which more than four out of 10 11-year-olds had not effectively mastered literacy and numeracy. One reason—it is not the only one—why that is the case is that class sizes were too large in those children's early years. That is the Conservative party's record on class sizes—we are putting it right, as we promised we would, and we are doing so ahead of time.
  From this September, 100,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in 65 local authorities across the country—both Conservative and Labour controlled—will be kept out of classes of more than 30. Moreover, 1,500 extra teachers will be, and have been, recruited to teach those children, and £40 million will be spent to build new classrooms. By 2001, the pledge that we made to the electorate before the general election will be honoured in full and ahead of time.
  Equally important, reductions in class size are only part of the wider strategy to raise standards—the hon. Members for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) were right about that, if about nothing else. The 100,000 children who go into smaller classes in September and the children who join them in smaller classes in the next few years will also learn in school buildings that, in some cases, have had repairs for which they have waited for years. They will read better and they will master numbers better because they will be taught by teachers who have been retrained in best practice, and because money has been put in the classroom for the most modern resources. They will use new technology because we shall have ensured that schools are equipped and teachers trained. They will learn both in and outside school because by 2002, one in every two secondary schools and one in every four primary schools will have the opportunity of a homework centre.
  We need no lectures from any Conservative Member about class size not being the only thing that matters. We know that it is not. All those initiatives and many more that have been announced are properly funded and, together with class size, will make a real difference to the life chances of children.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) went into semantics about when is an early pledge not an early pledge but, whether it is one year or three, it is a damn sight quicker than 18 years with no action. The hon. Lady wittered away about parental choice. I think that choice is important, but, under the previous Government, the number of appeals by parents who did not get their first choice of school shot up year after year, and they took no action.
  Mrs. May: If the Minister is saying that parental choice is so important to the Government, will she now give the pledge asked of her and of the Minister for School Standards, that no parent will find that their preference for a school is refused because of Labour's class size pledge?
  Ms Morris: When my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards opened the debate, he made it clear that
  118
  local authorities would not be able to meet the class size pledge by reducing parental choice. We have taken action to ensure parental choice, which is far more than the Conservatives ever did in 18 years in government.
  While Conservative Members work out what they think about class size, we have been getting things done. We secured the money with one of the first Bills to receive Royal Assent—the Education (Schools) Bill—and it has already been passed to schools in the first full academic year on which we had an influence. More places in popular schools that have high standards—that is what parents want and, with this Government, that is what they will get.
  The Conservatives have shown tonight that they are still in that state of confusion. They have still not understood the urgency of cutting class sizes. This September—only a few months away—100,000 children will benefit because we are keeping our promise. By 2001, classes of more than 30 for infant schoolchildren will, for the first time in the history of this country, be a thing of the past. That is good news for parents and for teachers, but most of all, it is good news for the children who need that best start if they are to reach their potential and have a real chance in life.
  What we have heard tonight is no more than cynical scaremongering by Conservative Members, but their words cannot take away what many parents already know—that Labour is delivering. We have shown that already and we will continue to show it in the next three years. The Opposition motion is nothing more than a cynical attempt to detract from a Government who are delivering on their pledge. It is not worthy of the support of the House and I urge hon. Members to reject it.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 297.

  Division No. 317]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Faber, David

  Bercow, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Flight, Howard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brady, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gibb, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gill, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gray, James

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Green, Damian

  Greenway, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Cran, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hayes, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Heald, Oliver

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Day, Stephen

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Horam, John

  119

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Key, Robert

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spring, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Syms, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Townend, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Luff, Peter

  Trend, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacKay, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles

  Madel, Sir David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Maples, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wilkinson, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Willetts, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paice, James

  Woodward, Shaun

  Paterson, Owen

  Yeo, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Prior, David

  Randall, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burgon, Colin

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Casale, Roger

  Austin, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Chaytor, David

  Banks, Tony

  Chidgey, David

  Battle, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clwyd, Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cohen, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coleman, Iain

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Connarty, Michael

  Boateng, Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Borrow, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  120

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dowd, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Drew, David

  Kidney, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Edwards, Huw

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fatchett, Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Flint, Caroline

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McAllion, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Steve

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  MacShane, Denis

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grant, Bernie

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gunnell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Maxton, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Michael, Alun

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Milburn, Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hill, Keith

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Olner, Bill

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hutton, John

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jamieson, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  121

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Pound, Stephen

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Purchase, Ken

  Stringer, Graham

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Radice, Giles

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rapson, Syd

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Timms, Stephen

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooker, Jeff

  Truswell, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Roy, Frank

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Vaz, Keith

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Salter, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  White, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Woolas, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. John McFall and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  122
  That this House congratulates the Government on the excellent progress it has already made towards honouring its pledge that no child of 5, 6 or 7 will be in a class of over 30 by the end of this Parliament, which will mean that 100,000 fewer infants will be in large classes from this September and the pledge will be met ahead of schedule by September 2001; and notes the Opposition's continuing hostility to class size reduction, having presided over year-on-year increases since 1988.

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    ANIMALS
    That the draft Welfare of Livestock (Amendment) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 1st June, be approved.
    VALUE ADDED TAX
    That the Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1375), dated 3rd June 1998, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
    PUBLIC HEALTH
    That the draft Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

    CIVIL AVIATION
    That the draft Air Carrier Liability Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.—[Janet Anderson.]
    Question agreed to.

  Wembley Stadium
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: By this time tomorrow evening, we shall know the fate of the England football team, which will be playing Argentina. I am sure that all hon. Members wish the team good luck. We have all been captivated by the excitement of the world cup and the skills on display; similarly, we all recognise its beneficial impact on the economy of the host country. That is why we all look forward to England winning the bid to host the world cup in 2006.
  Tonight's debate is about the future of Wembley stadium, the spiritual home of football. Those of us who have played there or been supporters there would be happy to see it redeveloped, but the reason for this debate is that a number of colleagues and I are concerned that the redevelopment is not taking place as smoothly as it might. We are worried about the speed at which the stadium is to be redeveloped.
  In April 1995, a competition was held to evaluate proposals for a national stadium, which was to accommodate football, athletics and rugby. Over a six-month period, five bids, including one from Bradford, were considered. The feeling at the time was that the process was a bit of a sham, because everyone knew that Wembley needed redeveloping. Many of us argued that there should be two national stadiums, one in the north and the other in the south at Wembley, to complement redevelopments at Hampden park, Murrayfield and Cardiff.
  History shows that Wembley was selected and that the other bids, although credible, all failed. The feedback, limited though it was, implied that the Bradford bid was too commercial—but Bradford's case was very strong. Bradford can be accessed by 10 million people in an hour and by 20 million in two hours. Two international airports are within an hour's drive, and the Euro-ports on the Humber and the west coast ports are all within two hours' travelling time. I hope that the door will not be closed on a stadium of the north—I hope that it will be actively considered.
  We all want Wembley to be redeveloped and wish the English National Stadium Trust well in its endeavours. However, owing to a combination of events, I understand that progress is slow and unconvincing. Of the £140 million available, £103 million will have to go Wembley plc for the sale of the leasehold. Wembley plc is making a great deal of money out of Wembley stadium; many of the supporters who go there are from the north. The sale needs to be completed quickly and contracts need to be exchanged.
  The Sports Council, which is also a partner, intends to hold a golden share to prevent the stadium from being sold on for future housing development, and so on. The Football Association is embroiled in complex issues such as covenants for games at Wembley for the next 20 years, and raising £200 million to spend on the stadium. The trust will hold the freehold, and the lease will be handed to the FA at £1, for 125 years. As planning permission is required, a start must be made on all the grand plans within the next 12 months to meet the deadlines.
  124
  Brent council has worked well with the trust, requiring social amenities under a section 106 planning agreement, at a cost of more than £45 million; but the trust is not a commercial operation and money needs to be found to ensure progress soon. There is a lot of good will among the parties involved, but it needs to be turned into meaningful action. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide both leadership and answers to the outstanding questions.
  One such question is: will buying the freehold from the current owners leave the trust with enough funds to complete the redevelopment? Another is: will the issues surrounding the section 106 agreement be resolved? Will the funding from other sources be available? Has the contract between the Sports Council and the trust been signed? And what is to stop Wembley plc entering a deal with Arsenal football club? I hope for answers to all those questions; I also hope that the viability of a stadium in the north will be considered.
  There will be a development in Bradford and, if the £140 million had been available at the time, I am sure that our stadium would have been in place. We are seeing developments in Manchester and Sheffield and investment in many of the football and rugby grounds in the north, but we can develop and sustain two national stadiums. I hope that we have the opportunity to host the world cup in 2006 in stadiums that are equivalent to, if not better than, those in France. I am sure that my hon. Friends will talk about the impact on their communities and the need for Wembley to be redeveloped as quickly as possible.
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on securing the debate, which is one for which I, too, have been petitioning the Speaker's Office for many months. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me some minutes from his own allocation to speak as one of the local Members of Parliament. I hope to be able to repay his generosity in kind in future.
  The basic business structure of the national stadium is becoming clear: the FA will raise £200 million and the Sports Council will put in £120 million; the English National Stadium Trust will hold the freehold of the stadium and its narrow curtilage; but Devco, the development company currently owned by the trust, will be transferred to the FA. Devco will have a board ultimately comprised of 12 people: seven will be FA appointments by right, and five will be transferred across out of the trustees of the ENST, who are 10 in number. It is Devco which will ultimately be responsible for the emergence of the new stadium and for its continued operation, because it is Devco which will have the 125-year lease on the site. That is why the composition of the 12-man board is so critical.
  Under the guidance of Ken Bates, the board will no doubt have a strong chair, if not one who will always score the highest marks for tact and charm—at Chelsea, Ken Bates has certainly proved that he can get things done. However, if Wembley is to be a national stadium and not just the FA's stadium, it is vital that the seven FA representatives on Devco's board are balanced by the five transferring trustees from the ENST. Yet, of the 10 trustees of the ENST, five were nominated by the FA

  125
  in the first place. I believe that a monumental fix is about to take place, where 11 of the 12 members of the board of Devco are either directly or indirectly nominated by the FA. I look to the Minister to ensure that that does not happen.
  I have here a copy of a letter from the FA to the English Sports Council, which sets out what the FA calls
  "the position following recent meetings with The Sports Council and The English National Stadium Trust".
  The letter states:
  "In particular:

  1. The English Sports Council has grant-aided to The English National Stadium Trust £120 million.

  2. The English National Stadium Trust will buy the business of Wembley Stadium Ltd. for an amount not to exceed £103 million subject to due diligence. Completion will be no later than June 1999. This is not conditional on either planning or funding being in place… Grant aid shall be used to meet the professional fees and architect fees in the design phase of the project. Neither The Football Association nor the development company shall be responsible for any costs in relation to any infrastructure improvements and/or section 106 agreements."

  What concerns me is the way in which the FA appears to believe that it is possible to create an 80,000-seater national stadium without worrying about things like public transport infrastructure, new roads, or other environmental improvements, which will be vital to that stadium's success.
  Of Wembley's visitors, 55 per cent. arrive via Wembley Park underground station. It is a dilapidated, urine-stained, outdated station, which has no proper crowd-management facilities to meet the requirements of a world cup bid. In response to a written question tabled last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport today wrote to me as follows:
  "Following the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a Public/Private Partnership for London Underground and an additional £365 million of funding for London Transport over the next two years, LT and the Government have been considering together what additional investment projects should go ahead in the next two years. London Underground has proposals for a comprehensive redevelopment of Wembley Park Station, including improved platforms, Canopies, Ticket hall, Staircase and walkway. Subject to that review, and securing substantial contributions from outside parties, London Underground has indicated that construction of the Wembley Park Station redevelopment could start in 1999/2000."
  The Minister referred to substantial contributions from outside parties. These are, of course, usually achieved through the very section 106 agreements that the FA letter scorns.
  Major questions of public confidence must be answered. First, will any conditions be placed on the Sports Council grant to protect the £120 million of lottery money? Secondly, what controls will there be over the future use and operation of the stadium? Thirdly, who will approve the contract between the Sports Council and the FA, and can the Minister assure us that that will be done at the highest ministerial level?
  If the stadium is to be a national stadium, it is right that the nation should be proud of it and have a stake in it. At the moment, Wembley is set in the midst of a car park, surrounded by derelict and semi-derelict warehouses and flanked by a rundown industrial estate. I urge the Government to announce that they will invest in the regeneration of the surrounding area. If they do not, the new Wembley stadium may become a jewel set in
  126
  the midst of dereliction. I urge the Minister to see the wider vision for the future of Wembley and the people around it, whom I represent.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on securing this Adjournment debate. I want to make two brief comments.
  First, I share my hon. Friend's view about the importance of the speedy redevelopment of Wembley as the national stadium. Wembley has an enormous impact on the economy of the surrounding area and supports many service jobs in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). Harrow town centre is extremely close to Wembley stadium—which many of my constituents enjoy and where many of them work—and depends in part on the resources brought to the area by those visiting the stadium. I seek the same assurances as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that the development of Wembley will be completed speedily and effectively.
  Secondly, a modernised national stadium will clearly be crucial to the success not only of our 2006 world cup bid, but of our London Olympic bid for 2012. While Wembley is the centrepiece of our national game—it is the home of football—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can offer reassurance that its redevelopment will ensure that it is modernised and capable of being the centrepiece also for an Olympic bid.
  10.27 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on securing this debate, and I welcome the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). I share their aspirations and, perhaps, some of their concerns.
  I simply do not have the answers to some of my hon. Friends' questions, and I shall not flannel my way around them. I shall examine them and give considered responses, because they are serious questions and merit good and proper answers. The construction of a national stadium is crucial. This might be the last comment that I ever make at the Dispatch Box, but there are times when one has to admire the way that the French secured their national stadium. They went straight out and did it, as they did with their fast rail link for the channel tunnel. They do not muck about and go around with begging bowls asking people whether they would throw in a few coins. I rather like that approach.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: Much as I admire the French, there is a 10-year debt on the stadium in Paris, which we would not want to carry.
  Mr. Banks: There is always a down side, which is why we shall not approach matters as the French have done. However, there are times when I admire the French approach.
  The construction of Wembley is crucial to all the matters that have been raised. Wembley was selected as the preferred bid for the national stadium following a two-stage selection process. At stage one, three bids were

  127
  rejected. The Sheffield bid proposed two stadiums on one site and did not comply, while Birmingham's bid involved a site in the green belt which did not have planning consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred to the Bradford bid. These are old issues, but it is worth putting the facts on the record. I know that the English Sports Council was impressed with Bradford's proposals. The concept had strong local support and there was genuine enthusiasm for the new ideas. However, the Bradford bid was eventually rejected on the ground of transportation. It would have required substantial investment to provide the necessary public transport and road access.
  At stage two, Wembley was preferred to the competing bid from Manchester. It had significant access advantages, given the existing transport infrastructure. However, both sites were successful in attracting funding. Investment was promised to Wembley as the site for the new national stadium and to Manchester for the 2002 Commonwealth games.
  It would be unreasonable to expect that there would not be difficulties with Wembley. We knew that there would be difficulties, and there are difficulties, in trying to plan a project of this size. There are difficult negotiations still to overcome. However, the English Sports Council's objectives remain clear—to build a world-class stadium within an appropriate setting; to provide 80,000 seats with appropriate public access; to secure benefits for the development of sport from the project; to provide a stadium for the three sports of football, rugby league and athletics; to ensure that the stadium can be developed with a maximum grant from the lottery of £120 million; to ensure that the project is completed by 2002; and, finally, to ensure that the project meets the English Sports Council lottery sports fund eligibility criteria, including viability and quality.
  To ensure the last of those objectives, the English Sports Council is, naturally, keeping a close watch on the costs of the project. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that, for a variety of commercial confidentiality reasons, I am unable to provide a detailed breakdown of the total costs, now estimated at about £320 million. However, as it currently stands, the rough breakdown is £103 million for the purchase of the site and £217 million for demolition, construction, planning and design. Some £120 million will come from the lottery, with the rest being made up of debt financing via the FA. That is one of the problems; it is a national stadium, but the FA—I am not here as an apologist for it—is being required to find £200 million. Consequently, it will not be just Ken Bates who will give me grievous bodily harm of the ear; it will be the FA generally. As it will have to borrow that £200 million against the income that the trust will receive through England games, it will want a large say in what happens. We can hardly blame it for demanding that.
  Mr. Alan Meale: Perhaps my hon. Friend, like me, is worried about the nominations from the FA, which are very unrepresentative of football. All the nominations bar one come from the premier league teams. The one that did not was made only because it involved the chairman of the football league, who happened to represent a town that very nearly got into the premier
  128
  league. If it is to be a truly national stadium, it is worrying that only a minority section of football will command its management.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that when Hansard is read by the FA, the trust and the others involved, those matters will be considered. I am not trying to tell my hon. Friend that I have detailed control over these events on a day-to-day basis. As I have said in the House, that is what the arm's-length principle is all about; we let other people get on with it. However, my hon. Friend has raised a good point, which the FA must take seriously.
  I want to pick up on some other points. Devco must be representative of all the interests that will be involved in the redevelopment of Wembley. As I said, this is a national stadium, so we must consider Wembley in its wider context. It is not only about building a new national stadium, but about infrastructure investment. It is about the regeneration of the entire area. I feel ashamed going to Wembley and saying, "This is our national stadium at the moment." It might be a venerable institution, but it is long past its sell-by date. That is why we want to proceed with the demolition of the old Wembley after the cup final next year, and with the construction of the new Wembley by 2002. Some of those issues have yet to be resolved, because we need to consider the regeneration of the entire area.
  Obviously, those matters are well beyond the remit of a humble Sports Minister standing at the Dispatch Box. I imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer—probably at this moment—being given a briefing on what I am saying about the likely cost implications for the Exchequer. Obviously, the Deputy Prime Minister will be involved because of the involvement of English Partnerships and the single regeneration budget, and the necessary development of the transport infrastructure. All those Departments and all those Ministers are involved. However, if—as I keep saying—it is to be a national stadium, we must get ourselves together to ensure that it works. We do not want a half-hearted effort that does not stand the test of time and does not give us the things that we want—the centrepiece of our bid for 2006 and, perhaps, the centrepiece for a future Olympic bid, if the British Olympic Association is prepared to submit it.
  Does one regard the FA, putting in that £200 million as a developer for the purposes of section 106, as one would any other developer that exists to make a profit? I may be wrong, but I make a distinction between the FA as the major putter-up of the funds and borrowing £200 million, and someone who wants to develop for private company purposes and make a profit from that development. I believe that such developers must be expected to put a considerable amount back into the community for the profits that they take out of it. I do not quite see the FA in the same role as a large property developer in London.
  Mr. John McDonnell: As the Minister is aware, in a former life I was involved in the establishment of the English National Stadium Trust. The question that is posed to him directly is: who protects the public interest in all this? In reality, this is the largest development that the Sports Council has ever been involved in, and, to a certain extent, I consider it not out of its depth, but certainly inadequate in the negotiations

  129
  with a body such as the FA, because when one negotiates with the FA, one lies down with a tiger. The onus is on the Minister to protect the public interest. Although I accept his relatively hands-off approach, a more day-to-day overview is required to ensure that the public interest and the London interest are protected, especially with regard to the environment.
  Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. I can assure him that if I had not previously been convinced of that point, the serried ranks behind me would quickly have concentrated my mind on it. Of course the public interest must be protected. After all, £120 million not of Government money, but of public money, will be involved.
  One needs to safeguard public money, but there is a—perhaps marginal—qualitative difference between lottery money and straightforward Exchequer grant money; in the latter case, there is an obvious, direct and deliberate connected ministerial responsibility. I have to follow—we all do, as this is lottery money—the arm's-length principle, but, if anything went wrong, Ministers would be held to account, you can bet your life on it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That being so, I do not want to get the sharp end of the stick poked in my eye at some future date; I want to ensure that things go smoothly.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that Sir Rodney Walker's involvement in the negotiations until now has convinced me that, whatever else one says, he is not the type of person one can easily walk over, either. Some pretty tough cookies are involved in the negotiations. I understand that absolute priority is given to preserving public funding while ensuring that this development goes ahead.
  It is important that we ensure that there is proper regeneration of the entire area around Wembley stadium. I understand, of course, that Brent council is committed to making the new stadium a success, and is developing positive working relationships with all parties involved in bringing about a transformation of the stadium and areas around it.
  Making Brent a priority area for the Greater London authority seems to be a development which we can look forward to. I return to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North about London—as Wembley is the national stadium, it is, naturally, located in London. I say "naturally" because London is where people want to make such big investments. If such people come to the United Kingdom, they want to come to London. Speaking as a London Member rather than as a Minister, I think that that is right.
  The recent White Paper contained proposals for new regional development agencies which, working in partnership with central and local government, businesses and other key regional interests, will bring greater coherence and a sharper regional focus to the public resources available to promote development and regeneration. Our plans for London differ from the national picture—reflecting the influence, importance and uniqueness of our capital city—and impact on the proposals for Wembley. As endorsed by Londoners, there will be a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, and any decisions on priorities for funding will eventually be for the mayor and the assembly to take.
  I know that hon. Members are concerned about progress with Brent on the planning brief, and I am aware that there are difficult issues, which need careful
  130
  consideration. That is why we have asked the Government office for London to chair a working group, to establish the principles of the planning application connected with the Wembley site. It will aim to facilitate agreement between the English National Stadium Trust development company and Brent. One of the specific issues on which it will focus is the best way of achieving an integrated public transport system.
  I know that accessibility by public transport will be central to the new stadium's success. The public transport factor has been reflected in the focus of the Government office for London. We are also in regular discussion with transport operators, with a view to improving the three main stations serving the stadium and bus penetration into the Wembley complex.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North asked some specific questions about timetabling. I understand that, on 6 to 7 July, the English Sports Council will consider the grant application for the next phase—by which time all key agreements and project structures will be in place, and the feasibility studies on planning, funding and development issues will be concluded. I am therefore expecting that to happen in the next week.
  In July 1998, contracts will be exchanged with Wembley for site acquisition. Also in July, design team appointments will be confirmed. In November to December, planning applications will be submitted. In April to May 1999, planning consents and the section 106 planning obligations agreement will be completed. In September 1999, secured partnership funding will be completed. Also in September, site work will start. The site work will be completed by the spring of 2002.
  That is the timetable, although I expect that there will probably be some slippages in it. Such projects tend to happen that way. I expect also that there will be some movements on the budgeted figures. However. I come back to the original point: Wembley will be the national stadium. Therefore, there must be greater national involvement, particularly in determining the planning infrastructure context for Wembley.
  It is important that we make a success of the project. I do not want it to turn into the equivalent of Blue Streak. Was it Blue Streak?
  Mr. Wyatt: The opera house.
  Mr. Banks: No, I think that the opera house is going quite well. I do not want it to turn into one of those great English disasters. It has to work. As hon. Members have said, a new Wembley is crucial to the United Kingdom securing the great international sporting events that the Government have pledged themselves to go for. It is necessary to support the British Olympic Association in a potential Olympic bid, and to secure the world cup in 2006.
  Going back to the original point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, we are all hoping that tomorrow we shall see England secure a great victory over Argentina. I predict that the score will be 2–1, with Michael Owen scoring both our goals. Then we can move on to greater sporting success, with a new Wembley.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's 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. [47025]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women on 24 June 1998,Official Report, column 557.

  Action Zones
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the initiatives undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 which have involved the establishment of(a) action zones and (b) pilot schemes limited to particular geographical areas, indicating the name of the programme and the action zone or pilot scheme areas covered in each instance. [47054]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Name of programme

  Area(s) covered

  Legal Aid Board pilot franchises for the provision of publicly funded mediation services. Pilots commenced May 1997.

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Durham, Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry, Northampton, Cambridge, Peterborough, Bristol, Cardiff, Bromley and London.

  Pilot to test the administrative arrangements necessary to implement S.9 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Pilots commenced January and June 1998.

  Coventry, Southampton, Oxford and Carlisle

  Pilot to test draft checklist in Crown Court cases involving children. Pilots took place June to September 1997.

  Liverpool and Norwich

  Information Meetings Project (pilot to test arrangements for S.8 of the Family Law Act 1996). Pilots commenced June 1997.

  Birmingham and Coventry, East Anglia, Greater Manchester, Leicestershire and East Midlands, London, North East, South Wales, South West, South Yorkshire and North East Derbyshire.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list, for each of the last four years, all departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by ministers which have been chaired by 2
  individuals outside his Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [46837]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Inquiry/review

  Date established

  Chair

  An inquiry into access to civil justice

  March 1994

  Conducted by Lord Woolf

  Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

  October 1996

  Sir Jeffrey Bowman

  Review of the law relating to profits of crime

  March 1997

  Professor Gareth Jones, Vice-Master, Trinity College Cambridge (sole reviewer)

  Review of civil justice and legal aid

  June 1997

  Sir Peter Middleton

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Payments to Farmers
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of payments due in December 1997 to farmers(a) have not been paid to date and (b) were paid late; and if she will make a statement. [46946]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Under the Arable Aid Scheme in Northern Ireland, 96.74 per cent. of applicants received payments by 31 December 1997 (representing 96.84 per cent. by value).

  At 1 June 1998, all applicants had received payment.

  Elections Review
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects her review of electoral procedures to complete its work; when she expects to publish its report; and when she intends to publish her draft legislation. [46744]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive the Elections Review Report in mid August which will be considered by Ministers, and published shortly afterwards.

  Thereafter, the Secretary of State will consult the Northern Ireland parties and legislation will be drafted and published as soon as possible.

  Union Flag (Ulster Hospital)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Ulster hospital, Dundonald was provided with a Union Flag; if it was flown on the occasion of Her Majesty's official birthday; what arrangements have been made to fly the Union Flag at the Ulster hospital on the appropriate dates; and if she will make a statement. [46727]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Ulster Community and Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust has confirmed that it has always had a Union Flag and that it was flown on the occasion of Her Majesty's official birthday on Saturday 13 June 1998. Management of the Trust have passed the schedule of dates for flying the Union Flag to
  3
  the reception porters based at the main reception of the Ulster Hospital who have responsibility for hoisting the Flag.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were

  Type

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  11997

  Sets of

  (a) twins

  267

  315

  258

  308

  303

  324

  311

  327

  (b) triplets

  5

  6

  8

  9

  6

  7

  11

  6

  (c) quadruplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  (d) quintuplets

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e) sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maternities

  26,338

  26,050

  25,425

  24,729

  24,119

  23,663

  24,398

  24,057

  1Provisional

  With regard to the number of multiple births conceived as a result of IVF and other forms of infertility treatment, the information is as follows:
  In a period 1 August 19911 to 31 March 19962, there were 148 multiple births3 recorded in Northern Ireland following infertility treatment at the Royal Maternity Hospital (RMH), Belfast, the only clinic licensed to provide such treatment in Northern Ireland.
  1Date from which HFEA commenced keeping records
  2Latest verified data available
  3Figures have been provided by the HFEA, whose annual reports appear in the Commons Library. They are grossed up to ensure confidentiality

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [47020]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Policy Appraisal for Fair Treatment (PAFT) administrative guidelines of 1993 require the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments to assess the equality impact of new policies, including legislation, in terms of gender and seven other categories. Such assessments are not published, but are covered by annual reports on the implementation of PAFT. A report for 1997 is in preparation. The White Paper, "Partnership for Equality", published on 11 March 1998, proposed replacing PAFT with a statutory obligation to promote equality of opportunity.

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost to public funds of each of the four area councils for health and social services in each of the last three years. [47115]

  Mr. Worthington
  The table discloses expenditure on Health and Social Services Councils by the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Boards for 1995–96 and 1996–97. The information for 1997–98 is not yet available.
  4
  born in Northern Ireland in each year from 1990 to 1997; what was the total number of maternities in each year; and how many multiple birth of each year were conceived as a result of (i) in-vitro fertilization, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [46929]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information requested in relation to total maternities and total multiple births is set out in Table 1

  Health and Social Services Councils expenditure 1995–96 to 1997–98

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Northern Board

  100

  127

  Not available

  Southern Board

  175

  155

  Not available

  Eastern Board

  313

  305

  Not available

  Western Board

  81

  87

  Not available

  Total

  669

  674

  Not available

  Note:

  The information has been extracted from the Revenue Income and Expenditure Accounts of each of the HPSS Boards Final Accounts for 1995–96 and 1996–97

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the families of the(a) deceased and (b) wounded on Bloody Sunday have been informed of the number of counsel and firms of solicitors who will represent them at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry; and if they will have the solicitors and counsel of their choice. [47003]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 24 June 1998]: I understand that these matters will be discussed at the preliminary hearing of the Inquiry which will be held at the Guildhall, Londonderry on 20 July as laid down in the list of considerations given in the Bloody Sunday Inquiry press notice of 18 June.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if data are available to enable her to make a statement on the religious affiliation of(a) applicants for grants and (b) applicants whose grants have been approved, in both cases by district council area, under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. [47275]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose Chief Executive has advised me that to date, there are still insufficient data to make a meaningful assessment of the impact of the grants scheme on applicants of particular religious persuasions. The Commission for Racial Equality has recommended
  5
  that a completion rate of 80 per cent. to the relevant question on the preliminary inquiry form is the minimum which would allow for meaningful monitoring. At present, only 63 per cent. of applicants are completing the question.

  Higher Education Applications
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those aged(a) under 21, (b) 21 to 24 and (c) over 25 years and over, registered in Northern Ireland, applied through UCAS for admission to a course of higher education for the (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996, (iv) 1997 and (v) 1998 entry cycles; what were the numbers of the population in Northern Ireland aged (a) to (c) for (i) to (v); and what was the proportion of those applying as a percentage of the appropriate population cohort. [47266]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  NI domiciled applicants through UCAS

  (a) Under

  (b)

  (c)

  Year

  21 years

  21–24 years

  25 years and over

  Total

  1994

  11,915

  1,164

  867

  13,946

  1995

  12,419

  1,278

  930

  14,627

  1996

  12,537

  1,188

  821

  14,546

  1997

  13,584

  1,418

  904

  15,906

  1997 as at 16 May 19971

  13,282

  1,254

  789

  15,325

  1998 as at 16 May 19981

  13,167

  1,157

  651

  14,975

  Population estimates (mid-year)

  Year

  (a) 18–20 years

  (b) 21–24 years

  (c) 25–39 years

  1994

  73,717

  104,802

  362,864

  1995

  72,096

  103,125

  366,664

  1996

  71,079

  101,364

  374,246

  1997

  69,805

  99,736

  377,190

  Percentage

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Other

  Missing data1

  Queen's University Belfast

  Full-time undergraduate students who entered via UCAS

  33

  40

  2

  25

  University of Ulster at Belfast

  Full-time undergraduate and postgraduate students (1st year)

  42

  42

  6

  11

  Part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students (1st year)

  2—

  67

  2—

  2—

  University of Ulster at Coleraine

  Full-time undergraduate and postgraduate students (1st Year)

  42

  48

  3

  7

  Part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students (1st year)

  33

  44

  2—

  20

  University of Ulster at Jordanstown

  Full-time undergraduate and postgraduate students (1st year)

  37

  54

  3

  6

  Part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students (1st year)

  39

  35

  5

  22

  University of Ulster at Magee

  Full-time undergraduate and postgraduate students (1st year)

  12

  69

  4

  16

  Part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students (1st year)

  11

  64

  3

  22

  1In these cases students have been asked the monitoring questions, but not answered

  2Percentage not given if based in fewer than 5 students

  Note:

  No religion data are collected on Open University students
  6

  Population estimates (mid-year)

  Year

  (a) 18–20 years

  (b) 21–24 years

  (c) 25–39 years

  1998

  71,099

  95,945

  379,554

  NI domiciled UCAS applicants as percentage of the relevant population cohort

  Year

  (a) Under 21 years

  (b) 21–24 years

  (c) 25 years and over

  1994

  16.2

  1.1

  0.2

  1995

  17.2

  1.2

  0.3

  1996

  17.6

  1.2

  0.2

  1997

  19.5

  1.4

  0.2

  1997 as at 16 May 19971

  19.0

  1.3

  0.2

  1998 as at 16 May 19981

  18.5

  1.2

  0.2

  1Total applicant figures are not yet available for 1998. Therefore the latest available figures (as at 16 May 1998) are included along with the corresponding position at the same date in 1997 to allow comparisons to be made

  University Students
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what equal opportunity monitoring is conducted of students in universities in Northern Ireland; who is responsible for undertaking the monitoring; what are the proportions of Protestant and Catholic students at(a) the Queen's University, Belfast, (b) the University of Ulster at each of its campuses and (c) the Open University; and if she will make a statement. [45821]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), on behalf of the Department of Education Northern Ireland, gathers data on the gender, ethnicity, religion and disability of students in universities in Northern Ireland.

  The figures from the provisional 1997–98 data in respect of Northern Ireland domiciled students are as follows:

DEFENCE

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which battalion will be assigned for public duties in Scotland for the first opening of the Scottish parliament. [48033]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the 1st Battalion The Black Watch will be assigned to public duties in Scotland during the summer of 1999. No decisions have been taken on which units will participate in the opening ceremony for the first Scottish parliament.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the causes of Gulf War Syndrome illnesses. [38601]

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what research is currently being carried out on behalf of his Department into the effects of Gulf War Syndrome on servicemen; [44673]

  (2) what criteria are used to select control groups in studies into Gulf War Syndrome; [44675]

  (3) how many servicemen are currently participating in studies of Gulf War Syndrome. [44674]

  Dr. Reid
  In addition to our present work on the subject of illnesses suffered by Gulf War Veterans, I am today announcing that MOD will be funding an independent systematic literature review of worldwide published research relating to Gulf veterans' illnesses. This decision follows a recommendation from the Medical Research Council (MRC) who advise the Government on research aimed at addressing Gulf veterans' health concerns. The review will be carried by a team led by Professor Glyn Lewis at the University of Wales at Cardiff and will cost £75k over three years. The findings of the review will be published at regular intervals.

  The Government are already funding two major epidemiological studies to look at the health of Gulf veterans and their families. One study, under Professor Nicola Cherry at Manchester University, aims to determine whether Gulf veterans are experiencing greater ill-health than service personnel who did not take part in the conflict and will involve a total of 9,600 Gulf veterans, plus a control group of 4,800 personnel. The other study, under Dr. Patricia Doyle at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, will examine the reproductive health of Gulf veterans and the health of their children. Dr. Doyle aims to contact all personnel who served in the Gulf, some 53,000 in all, plus a control sample of the same size. Controls for these studies are drawn from personnel who were serving at the time of the Gulf War but did not deploy there.

  A further epidemiological study looking at whether service in the Gulf is associated with increased illness of UK veterans is being funded by the US Department of Defense and carried out by Professor Wessely at Kings College School of Medicine. Although this study is being
  8
  carried out independently of MOD, the Department is co-operating with Professor Wessely by providing essential data to the study team. This study involves 4,250 Gulf veterans and two control groups: one of 4,250 non-Gulf personnel and another of 4,250 personnel who have served in Bosnia. The control groups have been randomly selected to form a sample similar to the Gulf cohort on the basis of Service, age, sex and Officer/Other ranks status. The Army and RAF samples are also selected according to Regular/Reservist status and fitness.

  The Government are also funding King's College, London to carry out a clinical study under Dr. Michael Rose and Dr. Mohammad Sharief. The study will focus on those veterans who have, according to their response to the epidemiological study carried out under Professor Wessely, significant neuromuscular symptoms.

  Control subjects for this study will be randomly selected through Professor Wessely's epidemiological study and will include Gulf veterans who do not exhibit any neuromuscular symptoms, Service and ex-Service personnel who were serving at the time of the Gulf War but did not deploy there and personnel who have served in Bosnia. In addition, a group of civilian patients will be used to validate the research methodology, although they will not be used for comparison as part of the study.

  The Government are also funding a programme of research to investigate the possible adverse health effects of the combination of vaccines and tablets which were given to troops in the Gulf to protect them against biological and chemical warfare agent. This research is based principally on animal studies, but it is also planned to monitor the health of staff at Porton Down who receive multiple vaccinations as part of their normal safety regime.

  MOD Police
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of the MOD Police Headquarters; and how many cases relating to(a) grievance and (b) disciplinary procedures took (i) six months or more and (ii) 12 months or more to reach a conclusion in (1) 1996–97, (2) 1995–96 and (3) 1994–95. [46495]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence Police is an executive agency and therefore subject to the same review procedures as all other departmental executive agencies. I have made no specific assessment of the performance of the MOD Police Headquarters in addition to the normal agency reviews. The information requested on the duration of grievance and disciplinary cases is as follows:

  (a)

  Year

  Grievance cases 6 months to 12 months to conclusion

  Grievance cases 12 months or more to conclusion

  1996–97

  1

  3

  1995–96

  0

  2

  1994–95

  —

  —

  Note:

  The current grievance procedure was not adopted by the MDP until July 1995 and so the information is available only from the year 1995–97 onwards
  9

  (b)

  Year

  Discipline cases 6 months to 12 months to conclusion

  Discipline cases 12 months or more to conclusion

  1996–97

  40

  13

  1995–96

  25

  7

  1994–95

  29

  23

  Note:

  Figures for the year 1994–95 cover the 15 month period from 1 January 1994 to 31 March 1995

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [47017]

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

  Divisional Headquarters, York
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed closure of Divisional Headquarters in York. [47101]

  Dr. Reid
  No proposals have been put to Ministers for the closure of the Divisional Headquarters at York. Various options are under consideration as part of the study into the future divisional structure of the Army in the United Kingdom, details of which I set out in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) on 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 349.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's inquiry into the retention of the death penalty in military law will be completed. [45740]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]: Consideration of the review is now in the final stages and I will advise the House of the outcome as soon as possible.

  Greenwich Hospital Site
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implementation of long-term plans at the Greenwich Hospital site under section 26 of the Armed Forces Act 1996. [46650]

  Dr. Reid
  I assume the question refers to section 30 of the Armed Forces Act 1996. The section requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to have regard to the heritage of the Royal Naval College site at Greenwich, the desirability of securing reasonable public access to it, and to prevent use out of keeping with its unique history and character. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence hopes soon to be able to conclude a head lease with the Greenwich Foundation, an independent charitable trust, whose intentions for the site are entirely consistent with Section 30(2). The plans for 10
  the future of the site, which include planned occupation by the University of Greenwich, are being developed by the Foundation in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Defence.

  Large Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when is the anticipated delivery date of the C130-J aircraft; when it was originally due to be delivered; what compensation has been offered for its late delivery; and if he will cancel the order of C130-Js due to late delivery. [46822]

  Mr. Spellar
  On current plans, the Ministry of Defence will receive delivery of the first aircraft for test and evaluation in mid 1998. It was originally due to be delivered in November 1996. We will be claiming liquidated damages from the company, currently estimated at £30 million, which will be used to offset the additional costs incurred by the MOD. We have no plans to cancel the contract.

  RAF Stanmore Park
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the timetable is for the dismantling of RAF operations at RAF Stanmore Park and for the disposal of the site; and if he will make a statement. [46919]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Stanmore Park formally closed on 1 April 1997 with units transferring to RAF Bentley Priory. However, until the necessary work to provide messing and accommodation at RAF Bentley Priory is complete, use will continue to be made of facilities at Stanmore Park. Although on current plans the site will not be vacated until 1 June 1999, a marketing strategy is already being prepared by the Defence Estates Organisation in order that an open market sale can take place as soon as possible thereafter.

  Parachute Regiment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to make an announcement about the future roles of(a) the Parachute Regiment and (b) 24 Air Mobile Brigade. [46813]

  Dr. Reid
  A package of proposals, covering all our Armed Forces, has been submitted to the Cabinet. Once decisions have been taken, the results of the Strategic Defence Review will be published in a White Paper as quickly as possible thereafter.

  WE177 Weapon
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of withdrawing and dismantling the WE177 weapon. [46824]

  Mr. Spellar
  The estimated cost of dismantling WE177 is some £23m; withdrawal costs are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many WE177 weapons were manufactured by his Department before the weapon was withdrawn from service; and in what years these weapons were manufactured. [46826]
  11
  Mr. Spellar
  WE177 was manufactured between 1966 and 1977. Regular servicing was carried out as necessary to ensure continued safety and reliability whilst in service. I am withholding information as to the number of weapons manufactured under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Government Information relating to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which contractors and Ministry of Defence organisations designed each variant of the WE177 weapon; and when this work was carried out. [46825]

  Mr. Spellar
  Design work for WE177 was started over 30 years ago with the design for the first variant completed in 1963, the second in 1965, and the last in 1972.

  The co-ordinating design authority for all WE177 variants was Hunting Engineering, with the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment as design authority for the warhead element. The Royal Ordnance Factories at Burghfield, Cardiff and Chorley, RAF Farnborough, and RARDE Fort Halstead assisted in the work, as did a number of other contractors. Given the age of the programme, it has not been possible to compile a full and accurate list.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 November 1997,Official Report, column 581, if the weights, sizes and yields of each type of the WE177 weapon are now declassified information. [47804]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on the size and weight of all three variants of the WE177 bomb is unclassified and is listed. Technical details relating to the performance of the weapons, including yield, which would reveal information about our design capabilities, or aspects of current operational systems, or be of assistance to proliferators, continues to be covered by exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information relating to defence security and international relations.

  Variant

  Weight

  Size

  Type A

  6001b

  112 inches long

  Type B

  9501b

  133 inches long

  Type C

  9501b

  133 inches long

  All variants had a diameter of 16.5 inches and a fin span of 24.5 inches.

  Commachio Group Royal Marines
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Commachio Group Royal Marines is based; how many companies it comprises; what is the function of each company; and what plans he has for their relocation. [46820]

  Dr. Reid
  Commachio Group is based at RM Condor, Arbroath, and comprises an HQ Company and 3 Rifle Companies. The latter rotate in protecting the UK's strategic deterrent assets at HMS Neptune, Faslane, the RN Armament Depot Coulport, and during related road movements. Following public consultation, I approved earlier this year the Group's permanent relocation to HMS Neptune by April 2001.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 638, when he expects to receive details of the costs and the liability in respect of the damage to the tail shaft bearings of HMS 'Ocean'; and if the (a) costs and (b) inquiry conclusions will be made public. [47074]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Formal Inquiry currently underway into the cause of the damage to HMS Ocean's port shaft "A" bracket bearing is expected to conclude in the autumn of this year. The Inquiry is being conducted by the prime contractor, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited. The costs of, and liability for, the damage will be the subject of negotiation between MOD and the company following the Inquiry and is not expected to be resolved before the end of the year.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 638, what assessment his Department has made of the cause of the damage to HMS Ocean on her launch in October 1995; and what changes to operating arrangements have been made as a result. [47063]

  Mr. Spellar
  The hull damage sustained by HMS Ocean during her launch on 11 October 1995 was attributable to the accidental collapse of a forward launch cradle. It is the responsibility of the prime contractor Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited to ensure that launch arrangements are safe and acceptable and, where necessary, adapted to reflect lessons learnt from previous experience. The damage will not require any change to the proposed operating arrangements of HMS Ocean once she enters service.

  SA80 and M16 Rifles
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the bullets used by British forces using(a) SA80 and (b) M16 rifles have tumbling action. [47044]

  Dr. Reid
  The large majority of bullets used by British Forces in SA80 and M16 rifles are known as ball or tracer rounds. Armour-piercing rounds are also used. These bullets are categorised as spin-stabilised, non-deforming bullets. All spin-stabilised bullets will tumble to some degree when they hit a human target.

  UFOs
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of RAF Brawdy, Pembrokeshire in the investigation of sightings of unidentified flying objects. [47318]

  Mr. Spellar
  Brawdy ceased to be an RAF station on 31 March 1996 when the establishment was transferred to the Army.

  Generally, my Department examines reports of unidentified flying objects only to establish whether there is any evidence that the United Kingdom's Air Defence Region has been penetrated by hostile or unauthorised foreign military activity. Unless a report reveals evidence of a potential threat from an external military source, no attempt is made to determine the precise nature of what might have been seen.

  Underwater Monitoring
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the hydrophonic cables connected with SOSUS Network that extend from the ex-US Navy facility at RAF Brawdy, Pembrokeshire are currently used for underwater monitoring. [47319]

  Dr. Reid
  The sound surveillance system (SOSUS) cables extending from former US Navy Facility at RAF Brawdy are no longer used for underwater monitoring. The facility has now been passed to the Defence Estate Organisation for disposal.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effect on defence aviation of the sell-off of NATS. [47404]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government intend to sustain the principle of equal access to national airspace for all classes of user, and to maintain a joint and integrated civil-military system of air traffic control. We will, therefore, ensure that future arrangements for NATS can continue to accommodate the existing close working relationship with the Ministry of Defence, although there would of course be some structural changes.

  Training Aircraft
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons he chose the Grob 115D aircraft in preference to the Slingsby Firefly as the aircraft to be used by University Air Squadron and Air Cadet Experience. [47321]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 24 June 1998]: As I said in my announcement on 18 June 1998, Official Report, columns 265–66, the Grob 115D was selected in preference to the Firefly because it offered best value for money. The Grob is better suited to the particular requirements of the University Air Squadrons and Air Cadet Air Experience Flights and is both quieter and cheaper to operate than the Firefly. Furthermore, the Grob was the preferred choice of the Royal Air Force for this task.

  Territorial Army (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the 5 Shropshire and Herefordshire Light Infantry and the Royal Mercian & Lancastrian Yeomanry Territorial Army battalions. [47681]

  Dr. Reid
  The future role of all arms and services within the Territorial Army will be decided as part of the Strategic Defence Review. An announcement will be made as soon as possible, but it may be some time before we can say how individual units will be affected by the outcome of the Review.

  Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take further steps to ensure that the projected multi-role armoured reconnaissance vehicle is delivered to the British Army on time. [47806]
  14
  Mr. Spellar
  We will continue to work with our French and German partners to make sure that the contract for development and initial production of the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle, which is currently under negotiation with the preferred bidder, includes the conditions necessary to ensure that deliveries are made to meet the requirements of the British Army.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many exercises to test procedures for dealing with accidents involving nuclear weapons are to be held by his Department during 1999; when and where these exercises will be held; and what are the titles of these planned exercises; [46800]

  (2) how many exercises to test procedures for dealing with accidents involving nuclear weapons are to be organised on British territory by the United States Government during 1999; when and where these exercises will be held; what are the titles of the planned exercises; and if his Department will participate in all exercises. [46801]

  Dr. Reid
  The following Grade A, B and C nuclear weapon accident exercises are planned to be held in the United Kingdom in 1999:

  Nuclear weapon accident exercises—1999

  Date

  Exercise

  Location

  June 1999

  Exercise Dimming Sun1

  Norfolk

  To be decided

  Exercise Bowling

  Coulport

  To be decided

  RAF weapon convoy Standardisation

  To be decided

  To be decided

  RAF Station NARO team Standardisation2

  To be decided

  1Exercise Dimming Sun will be a joint UK/US nuclear weapon accident response exercise, the planning for which is being led by my Department. The exercise will test the response to an accident as described in the Local Authority and Emergency Service Information on Nuclear Weapon Transport Contingency plans

  2RAF Station NARO teams provide immediate response forces for the air transportation of nuclear weapons

  Note:

  Details of minor exercises, organised at either UK or US unit level is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost

  Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department plans to publish the third edition of the Local Authority and Emergency Service Information on Nuclear Weapon Transport Contingency Plans. [46814]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 33.

  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 the(a) Defence Analytical Services Agency, (b) Defence Postal and Courier Agency and (c) Naval Manning Agency; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each was first produced. [46799]
  15
  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 Brigadier Tweedie McG. Brown to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 29 June 1998:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Agency newsletters as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency (DPCSA).
  DPCSA produces a monthly internal newsletter for its staff in the Agency and Postal and Courier personnel world-wide entitles "Post Notes". It was first published in April 1995 and it is currently classified Restricted.
  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Letter from Fabian Malbon to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 29 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about newsletters produced for the staff of the Naval Manning Agency as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency.
  No regular Newsletter is produced for the staff of my Agency. A Newsletter dealing with the introduction of Investors in People (IIP) was produced in September of last year and it is likely that a further Newsletter on the same subject will be produced in September of this year. The security classification was, and will be, Unclassified.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 29 June 1998:
  I am replying to that part of your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence on staff newsletters which refers to the Defence Analytical Services Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of DASA.
  The DASA weekly newsletter 'Grapevine' produced by the staff themselves on a rota basis, is unclassified.
  The first edition appeared in 1994 and has been issued at approximately weekly intervals since. I have pleasure in enclosing a copy of a typical issue. I hope you find this information useful.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) number and (b) names of individual members of the armed forces killed while serving in Northern Ireland since 1982. [38405]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 April 1998, c. 462–65]: I should make it clear that the information given related only to those members of the armed forces killed by terrorist action while serving in Northern Ireland.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Adjournment Debates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list each hon. Member who has had more than(a) one, (b) two and (c) three adjournment debates in the current Parliament. [46467]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The following statistics include ½ hour end of day, 90 minute and ½ hour Wednesday morning adjournment debates as at 19 June 1998.
  16

  Number

  Members who have had two debates

  Miss Diane Abbott

  2

  Ms Candy Atherton

  2

  Mr. Tony Baldry

  2

  Mrs. Jackie Ballard

  2

  Mr. Hugh Bayley

  2

  Mr. Bob Blizzard

  2

  Dr. Peter Brand

  2

  Mr. Julian Brazier

  2

  Mrs. Angela Browning

  2

  Ms Karen Buck

  2

  Mr. Simon Burns

  2

  Mr. Paul Burstow

  2

  Mr. David Chaytor

  2

  Mr. Michael Clapham

  2

  Mr. John Cryer

  2

  Mr. David Davis

  2

  Mr. Nigel Evans

  2

  Mr. Christopher Fraser

  2

  Mr. Roger Gale

  2

  Mr. Barry Gardiner

  2

  Mr. Christopher Gill

  2

  Dr. Evan Harris

  2

  Mr. Oliver Heald

  2

  Mr. John Healey

  2

  Mr. David Hinchliffe

  2

  Mr. Alan Hurst

  2

  Mr. Alan Johnson

  2

  Ms Tess Kingham

  2

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood

  2

  Dr. Ashok Kumar

  2

  Mr. Oliver Letwin

  2

  Mr. David Lidington

  2

  Miss Anne McIntosh

  2

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan

  2

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls

  2

  Mr. Eddie O'Hara

  2

  Mr. David Prior

  2

  Mr. Bill Rammell

  2

  Mr. Alex Salmond

  2

  Mr. Adrian Sanders

  2

  Mr. Brian Sedgemore

  2

  Mr. Keith Simpson

  2

  Mr. Richard Spring

  2

  Dr. Phyllis Starkey

  2

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  2

  Mr. Peter Viggers

  2

  Mr. Nigel Waterson

  2

  Dr. Alan Whitehead

  2

  Mr. Dafydd Wigley

  2

  Mr. John Wilkinson

  2

  Mr. Michael Wills

  2

  Mr. Derek Wyatt

  2

  Mr. Tim Yeo

  2

  Three debates

  Mr. David Amess

  3

  Mr. Norman Baker

  3

  Mr. Harry Cohen

  3

  Mr. Tony Colman

  3

  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas

  3

  Mr. Edward Davey

  3

  Mr. David Drew

  3

  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick

  3

  Mr. George Galloway

  3

  Dr. Ian Gibson

  3

  Mr. Simon Hughes

  3

  Mr. Archie Norman

  3

  Sir Michael Spicer

  3

  Dr. George Turner

  3

  Mr. Charles Wardle

  3

  Miss Ann Widdecombe

  3

  17

  Number

  More than three debates

  Mr. Martin Bell

  4

  Dr. Vincent Cable

  4

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham

  4

  Mr. Matthew Taylor

  4

  Mr. Llew Smith

  5

  Mr. Tam Dalyell

  7

  Mr. Austin Mitchell

  7

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Traffic Policing
  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to set a police key performance indicator to reduce the rate of death and injury on the road. [46922]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government recognise the important contribution which traffic policing can make towards promoting community safety. We regard traffic policing as a central part of the police's responsibility for maintaining law and order, preventing and detecting crime, and reducing death and injury on the roads.

  Traffic policing, however, is only one of the several types of policing which are crucial in tackling crime and disorder. The Home Secretary's national key objectives and key performance indicators are intended to reflect the Government's major initiatives and key priorities, and their number needs to be limited if priorities are to remain clear. Traffic policing should, though, be included in local objectives where police authorities consider that to be appropriate. Performance indicators for the police published by the Audit Commission include the number of road traffic accidents involving death or personal injury.

  In 1987, the Department of Transport introduced a target to reduce casualties by one third by the year 2000 compared with the average for 1981–85. As at 1997, fatalities were down 36 per cent. and serious casualties were down 42 per cent. despite an increase in motor traffic of 52 per cent. The Government will be setting a new road traffic target for Great Britain for reducing casualties by the year 2010. It will be incorporated into a coherent road safety strategy, reflecting the Government's work on an integrated transport policy. The objective is to have a new road safety headline target and sub-targets agreed and set during 1998.

  The Government are committed to reducing the number of fatalities and injuries which occur on our roads, and we are carefully considering a range of further measures to improve the safety of all road users against the background of our integrated transport policy.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in the funding of the Probation Accommodation Grants Scheme operated by the Inner London Probation Service since 1 May 1997. [47065]
  18
  Ms Quin
  Excluding grants for accommodation training, the Inner London Probation Service received £1,344,218 in 1997–98 and £1,308,742 in 1998–99 in Probation Accommodation Grants Scheme funding, which represents an improvement of £35,476 on what was originally envisaged in the previous Government's spending plans.

  Since 1 April 1995, local probation services, not the Home Office, have been responsible for the administration of grants to the independent sector for offender accommodation (the "Probation Accommodation Grants Scheme"—PAGS). Prior to that date, the Home Office paid providers directly, regardless of their area of location.

  When the grants were devolved, this was on the basis that payments to each probation service would be tapered over about five years until the proportion of the total accommodation grant paid to each service was in proportion to the total revenue grant paid to each service under the national cash limits formula. This has meant that some services have received stepped increases in their accommodation grants whilst others, including the Inner London Probation Service, have received decreased grants.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of support for, and information to, the victims of mentally disordered offenders who by reason of their disorder are committed for medical treatment. [47010]

  Ms Quin
  Both the Home Office and the Department of Health are committed to improving the level of support and information provided to the victims of crimes committed by people with mental disorders. Due consideration needs to be given to confidentiality of personal information, but I hope the first results of the work we are undertaking will be seen in the next few months, in the form of a Department of Health leaflet for victims about the care and discharge arrangements for mentally disordered offenders.

  Action Zones
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the initiatives undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 which have involved the establishment of(a) action zones and (b) pilot schemes limited to particular geographical areas, indicating the name of the programme and the action zone or pilot scheme areas covered in each instance. [47055]

  Mr. Straw
  No action zones have been established by my Department since 1 May 1997. The details of the pilot schemes we have set up in that period are:

  1. Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]:

  (i) Youth justice measures (youth offending teams and youth justice services):

  London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, City of Westminster (jointly); Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Southampton and Portsmouth (jointly): Sheffield, Sunderland; London Borough of Lewisham, Luton and Bedfordshire (jointly): Wolverhampton; St. Helens; and Devon.

  19

  (ii) Reducing delay in the criminal justice system:

  Blackburn and Burnley; Croydon:

  Northamptonshire; North Staffordshire; North Wales; and Tyneside.

  (iii) Live television links for preliminary hearings between courts and prisons:

  Bristol and Manchester Magistrates' Courts.

  (iv) Drug Treatment and Testing Order:

  Liverpool; London Borough of Croydon; and Gloucestershire.

  2. Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (sections 35, 37, 39, 40 and 43):

  Greater Manchester and Norfolk

  Trials of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail and an alternative to remand in custody are included in the pilots and are taking place in Norwich Magistrates' Court, Norwich Crown Court, City of Manchester Magistrates' Court and Manchester Crown Court.

  3. Ministerial/National Initiatives:

  (i) Smart Telephone Technology:

  Her Majesty's Prisons Belmarsh, Manchester and Bedford

  (ii) Welfare to Work

  Her Majesty's Prisons Cardiff, Deerbolt, Glen Parva, Highdown, Huntercombe, Lancaster Farms, Moorland, New Hall, Onley, Portland and Stoke Heath.

  4. Private Finance Initiative:

  (i) Police forces:

  Force Headquarters/Training Centre: Cheshire

  Joint Firearms Training: Cleveland/Durham

  Workington Divisional Police Station: Cumbria

  Derby Divisional Headquarters: Derbyshire

  Ilkeston Police Station (contract awarded): Derbyshire

  Divisional Headquarters and Police Station: Dorset

  Forcewide Property Review: Greater Manchester

  Ystrad Mynach Police Station: Gwent

  Communications System: Hertfordshire

  Force Headquarters: Norfolk

  Mounted Section Facility (contract awarded): Northumbria

  Area Traffic Wing: Nottinghamshire

  Area Headquarters and Sector Station: Thames Valley

  (ii) Fire authorities:

  Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire (jointly)

  Cornwall

  Lancashire

  London

  Greater Manchester

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  South Wales

  Incapacitant Sprays
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received that police officers in Cumbria used incapacitant spray in an inappropriate way; what assessment he has made of such reports; and if he will make a statement. [47213]
  20
  Mr. Michael
  We have not received any reports or representations on this subject. I understand from inquiries made with Cumbria Constabulary following the tabling of this question that, since the force introduced CS sprays, no complaint about use of CS has been substantiated, and that the force has seen a drop of 14.4 per cent. in assaults on officers.

  Child Safety Week
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department will take to promote Child Safety Week on 22 to 28 June. [47196]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 582.

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had over measures to combat hooliganism by UK citizens travelling to football matches abroad. [46317]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend has had correspondence and discussions with the French Minister of the Interior, and there have been extensive discussions over many months between the British and French Governments, police and football authorities. In February, the Home Secretary hosted a European Union seminar on the policing of football, which was also attended by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and myself, at which 23 countries were represented. In March, we published the Government's strategy for the World Cup, a copy of which was sent to every hon. Member. The Government's aim throughout has been to ensure that every assistance is given to the honest and well-behaved spectator in France. Minimising hooliganism and ensuring a high level of co-operation with the French authorities are crucial parts of that.

  Police operations in France during the World Cup are a matter for the authorities there, but there have been extensive discussions between British police and their counterparts in France. Police officers from England and Scotland are in France assisting the French police, and I am satisfied that arrangements for the rapid collection and dissemination of intelligence on possible offenders are in place and working.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Under-Secretary of State expects to reply to the letters of 19 March and 12 May from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed about the treatment of Mr. James by the Prison Service and the response given by the Prison Service to inquiries from his prospective employers. [47821]

  Ms Quin
  Following my consideration of the correspondence, I understand that a meeting has been arranged on Wednesday 8 July for the right hon. Member to discuss Mr. James's case with Prison Service officials.

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public registers which his Department have responsibility for. [47351]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department has direct responsibility for the following registers:Index of Exempted Dogs (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991)1
  Licensees and Certificate Holders under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 19861
  Official Roll of the Baronetage
  Register of Forensic Pathologists
  In addition, the Home Office has limited responsibility, by virtue of our supervision of the relevant local services and/or the governing legislation, for the following registers:
  Electoral Registers (Representation of the People Act 1983)
  Coroners' Registers of Deaths Reported (Coroners' Rules 1984)2
  Registers of Burials (and Records of Disinternments) (Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977)2
  Registers of Grants (Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977)2
  Register of Cremations (Cremation Regulations 1930)2
  1Not accessible to the public
  2Information available to the public subject to approval of individual authority holding register.
  The Data Protection Registrar, a Home Office Non-Departmental Public Body, is responsible for making available the Data Protection Register.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress has been made on the Code of Practice as defined in section 122 of the Police Act 1997; [47375]

  (2) what plans he had to implement the Criminal Conviction Certificate. [47376]

  Mr. Michael
  We have decided to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997 which provides for the establishment of a Criminal Records Agency. When established, the Agency will be responsible for the issue of Criminal Conviction Certificates and other forms of certificate provided for in the Act. Many of the practical issues were not addressed at the time of legislation, but consideration is now being given to the options for phasing in the provisions of the Act and the timetable for implementation. As part of this process, and in full consultation with interested groups, further consideration will be given to the Code of Practice intended to inform the use of information provided by the Agency.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many subject access requests were received by the Metropolitan Police in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998 to date; and if he will make a statement; [47373]
  22
  (2) how many subject access requests involved the retrieval of personal data stored on the Police National Computer in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998 to date; and if he will make a statement. [47374]

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

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998 to date

  Total number of applications

  35,100

  54,530

  71,963

  13,754

  Number of subject access requests received by the Metropolitan Police Service

  9,461

  15,036

  19,962

  3,923

  The number of applications received which involve retrieval of personal data on the Police National Computer is not recorded.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the Interpretation of the Second Principle of the Data Protection Bill 1998 creates a link to the notification requirements of that Bill. [47364]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Notification to the Data Protection Commissioner is one way in which the purposes for which personal data are obtained may be specified in accordance with the second data protection principle.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the provision with respect to medical purposes in Schedule 3, paragraph 8 of the Data Protection Bill 1998 differs from the corresponding provision in Article 8(3) of the Directive 95/46/EC. [47363]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Data Protection Bill[Lords] is intended to make clear how the general provisions in the Directive should operate in the United Kingdom. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 sets out the circumstances in which sensitive data may be processed for medical purposes. It is fully consistent with Articles 8.3 and 8.4 of the Directive.

  Offshore Financial Regulatory System
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those who have(a) been asked to contribute to his review of the financial regulatory system in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man and (b) offered contributions; and if this review will hold public evidence sessions. [47726]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The detailed conduct of the Review is the responsibility of Mr. Andrew Edwards, in consultation with Home Office officials and the authorities in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.
  23
  Mr. Edwards has had extensive consultations with the Island authorities, with private sector practitioners and with others in the Islands. In addition, he has consulted widely within the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

  I understand that he has no plans to hold sessions open to the general public; but in the early stages of this Review Mr. Edwards issued statements to the media in the Islands inviting anyone who felt they had something to contribute to the Review to write to him at the Home Office. I understand that firms and individuals in the Islands have responded positively to this invitation.

  Although this is an internal Review, the Home Secretary announced to the House on 20 January 1998, Official Report, columns 506–08, that a summary of its main conclusions would be published.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in prison in Wales are classified as mentally ill. [47845]

  Ms Quin
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, applying the percentage from the two studies of the prevalence of mental disorder in prisoners undertaken for the Prison Service by the Institute of Psychiatry to the population of the four prisons in Wales would suggest that some 900 people in prisons in Wales could be diagnosed as suffering from some form of mental disorder, including substance dependency or abuse.

  Key Cutting
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 322–23, concerning key cutting, what the terms of reference are for the review process; and on what date the review will take place. [47297]

  Mr. Michael
  It is anticipated that a review of the Vehicle Key Cutting Code of Practice will take place in September 1998, six months after its launch, involving representatives of the police service and the key cutting industry bodies. This review would consider whether the existing monitoring procedures adopted by local beat

  Proposed structure

  Type of area

  Number of areas

  Level

  England

  Scotland1 and Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1

  Government Office Regions

  Countries

  Country

  12

  2

  Counties (some grouped)

  Groups of unitary authorities

  Country

  37

  3

  Upper tier authorities (counties)

  Groups of unitary authorities

  Groups of unitary authorities

  Groups of districts

  133

  4

  Lower tier authorities (districts)

  Individual unitary authorities

  Individual unitary authorities

  Individual districts

  443

  5

  Wards

  Wards

  Wards

  About 11,000

  1In Scotland, Levels 2, 3 and 4 areas are combinations of unitary authorities, LECs or part thereof

  24
  officers and the industry bodies were working satisfactorily. Depending on the outcome, consideration could be given to extend the Code to other key types.

  Recidivism
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to commission research comparing recidivism rates of prisoners leaving privately and publicly managed prisons. [46241]

  Ms Quin
  The Home Office Offenders and Corrections Unit monitors reconviction rates for each prison. The latest survey covered prisoners discharged in 1994, and included the privately managed prisons in operation at that time.

  The present data are based solely on the prison from which a prisoner is discharged, irrespective of the time they have spent there. In many cases, the bulk of the total sentence will have been spent in establishments other than that from which a prisoner is discharged.

  The Prison Service is currently examining ways of constructing more effective forms of measurement to improve our monitoring of recidivism.

TREASURY

  UK Areas
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress being made in agreeing a new classification of United Kingdom areas for European statistical purposes. [48267]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Following extensive discussions, the Government Statistical Service has reached agreement with Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Union, on a revised classification. The Nomenclature of Units of Territorial Statistics (NUTS) provides a breakdown of the European Union's territory for producing regional statistics which are comparable across the Union. It has five hierarchical levels, and is built up from administrative units such as local government areas in the member states. A summary of the newly agreed UK structure is give in the table.
  25
  At NUTS level 1, the classification now recognises the areas which will also form the boundaries of the Regional Development Agencies.

  At NUTS level 2, the major changes agreed, compared with the current structure, are:
  The separation of Cornwall and Devon into two separate areas, recognising the very different economic condition of the two counties, Cornwall's sparsity of population, geographical peripherality and distinct cultural and historic factors.
  The Separation of London into Inner and Outer London, recognising the differences between the inner city and the outer fringe, as well as the fact that London was one of the largest level 2 areas in the European Union.
  The two-way split of Wales to be on an east/west basis, rather than the current north/south structure. This reflects the evolving differences between the east and the less accessible western and Valleys areas.
  Changes to boundaries in Scotland to recognise the area represented by Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE). This enables the structure to more closely reflect the uses to which NUTS-based statistics are put. The HIE area is defined by Act of Parliament and is currently recognised for economic development by the EU and the UK.
  At NUTS level 3, as substantial increase in the number of areas has been agreed, for the existing 65 to 133, to reflect the changes in local government structures throughout the UK. Further details are set out in the Government Statistical Service press notice issued today, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of Private Finance Initiative contracts signed since 1 May 1997; and if he will place a list of those contracts in the Library. [48268]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Contracts with a total value of £2.085 billion have been signed since May 1997. A list of those contracts, with their respective capital values, is shown in the table which has been placed in the House Library today.

  Projects signed as of June 1998

  Capital value

  Defence

  Army Personnel IT System

  £150 million

  Defence Fixed Telecoms

  £70 million

  Helicopter Simulator

  £100 million

  Hawk Simulator

  £10 million

  Tidworth Water

  £6 million

  Joint Service College

  £68 million

  Department for Education and Employment (PFI/PPPs)

  Clarendon College

  £16 million

  Colfox School

  £15 million

  Falmouth College

  £3 million

  UCL

  £14 million

  Kings/UMDS

  £142 million

  Employment Service IT System

  £150 million

  Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions

  Harrow (IT) (LA)

  £1 million

  Isle of Wight waste management (LA)

  £13 million

  Surrey CC residential homes

  £29 million

  Kirklees Waste Management

  £33 million

  LB Westminster

  £5 million

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2 small vehicle service contracts

  £3 million

  26

  Projects signed as of June 1998

  Capital value

  Northern Ireland

  Medical equipment

  £3 million

  Belfast Hospital Renal Unit

  £3 million

  Planning Services IT

  £3 million

  Health

  Carlisle Hospital

  £63 million

  Dartford and Gravesham Hospital

  £115 million

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital

  £214 million

  South Bucks Hospital

  £39 million

  North Durham Hospital

  £96 million

  Home Office

  2 Passport Agency contracts worth

  £15 million each

  Derbyshire (IIkeston) Police Station

  £2 million

  Inland Revenue

  Edinburgh accommodation

  £9 million

  Glasgow accommodation

  £9 million

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  ARAMIS IT System

  £30 million

  Scotland

  Baldovie Waste to energy plant

  £43 million

  Bowhouse Prison

  £32 million

  Stirling FE Centre

  £4 million

  Highlands and Islands Inverness Airport

  £10 million

  Hairmyres Hospital

  £70 million

  Department of Social Security

  Longbenton estate

  £120 million

  Prime DSS estate

  £350 million

  Serious Fraud Office

  Document management IT System

  £4 million

  Wales

  Chepstow Community Hospital

  £8 million

  Total

  £2.085 billion

  Unemployment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on unemployment of a one per cent. increase in average earnings. [47542]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: The impact on unemployment would depend on why wages increased, and how employers, employees and others in the labour force responded to the increase in wages. For example, an increase in wages reflecting higher productivity need not have any effect on unemployment.

  Public Sector Investment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for each year from 1978–79 to 2001–02 the expenditure by the Government on public sector net investment(a) in real terms in 1997–98 prices and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product. [46387]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: Figures for public sector net investment can be found in Table 4A.1 or Table 4.5 (for years beyond 1998–99) of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (EFSR). Projections

  27
  for the GDP deflator and money GDP can be found in Table 4.1 of the EFSR. Historical figures for GDP can be found in Table 2.1 of Economic Trends. These publications can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Economic and Fiscal Strategy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update Table 318, page 128, of the Financial Statement and Budget Report March 1998, to include information published in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report (June 1998); and if he will make a statement. [46380]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: There has been no change to the outturn information for 1996–97 since the Financial Statement and Budget Report March 1998. Provisional outturn information by department for 1997–98 was published in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 3988) on 19 June. There have been no changes to the 1998–99 Control Total, with the exception of those noted in Table 3A.1 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 (Cm 3978).

  Public Spending
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Bank of England was first notified of the new plans for public spending and borrowing, as set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report (June 1998); and if he will make a statement. [46384]

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England was informed of the Chancellor's statement on public spending prior to reaching its decision to raise interest rates on 4 June; [46533]

  (2) if the Governor of the Bank of England was informed of the Chancellor's statement on public spending prior to the Monetary Policy Committee reaching its decision to raise interest rates on 4 June. [46534]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Treasury representative present at the Monetary Policy Committee's meeting on 3 and 4 June was informed of the plans set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report; [46853]

  (2) if his Department informed the Monetary Policy Committee of the plans set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report at or before its meeting on 4 June. [46852]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answers 18, 19 and 22 June 1998]: I refer to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in response to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) at Treasury Oral Questions on 25 June 1998, Official Report, column 1153.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual real terms growth of(a) total Government expenditure, (b) control total expenditure, (c) current expenditure and (d) capital
  28
  expenditure, for (i) 1978–79 to 1982–83, (ii) 1982–83 to 1986–87, (iii) 1986–87 to 1991–92, (iv) 1991–92 to 1996–97 and (v) 1996–97 to 2001–02. [46386]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: Figures for current expenditure and capital expenditure can be found in Table 4A.1 or Table 4.5 (for years beyond 1998–99) of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (EFSR). Total Managed Expenditure is the sum of current spending and net capital investment. Figures for the Control Total up to 1996–97 are given in the Table B24 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report (March 1998). The figure for 1997–98 was published in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (19 June) and the 1998–99 figure was given in the FSBR, with the revisions noted in Table 3A of the EFSR. Figures for the Control Total are available on a consistent basis only from 1984–85. This concept is not applicable beyond 1998–99, as from 1999–2000 a reformed control regime will be introduced. Projections for the GDP deflator and money GDP can be found in Table 4.1 of the EFSR. Historical figures for GDP can be found in Table 2.1 of Economic Trends. These publications can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which departmental areas, and for what reasons, there was underspend in 1997–98, compared with the spending plans as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, March 1998; what was the size of the underspend; and if he will make a statement. [46403]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: Reasons for individual departmental underspends are matters for the departments concerned. Provisional control total outturn by department is shown in Table 1 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (PEOWP) (Cm 3988) published on 19 June.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what the financial markets would have charged for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link guarantee. [46969]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: The Government believe that the amount of finance required for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is such that the financial markets would have been unable to provide the credit support which Government are to give.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the basis of the valuation of the Government's participation in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; what is that value; and who prepared the calculations on behalf of the Government. [46858]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: The information requested was set out in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 3 June 1998, Official Report, columns 367–70. The Government's participation in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was assessed using a model of London and Continental Railways' future finances prepared by the company and independently reviewed by external consultants.

  Hospital Repairs
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to classify expenditure on hospital repairs as current or capital spending. [46849]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: Expenditure on hospital repairs will follow the classification rules for the national accounts.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form the results of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be published; and if he will make a statement. [47862]

  Mr. Darling
  A White Paper setting out the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be published before the summer Recess.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in relation to consultation on departmental spending plans for the period 1999–2000 to 2001–2002; and if he will make a statement. [47863]

  Mr. Darling
  When setting up the Comprehensive Spending Review, Departments were encouraged to consult outside bodies where that would assist the conduct of the Review. Many representations have been made.

  VAT (Art Market)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the consequences of VAT harmonisation on London's art market. [46320]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received representations from the British Art Market Federation and from members of the art trade, and am aware of concerns about the effects of harmonisation of VAT on imports of works on the UK art market.

  Goods imported into the UK normally bear VAT at the standard rate (17.5 per cent.). Under the terms of EC law introduced in 1995, certain works of art, antiques and collectors' pieces imported into the UK are eligible until 30 June 1999 for an effective rate of VAT at importation of 2.5 per cent. After that date, the UK is obliged to increase the VAT rate to at least the normal minimum effective reduced rate of 5 per cent. No import VAT is due in the UK on works of art that are temporarily imported for auction and are re-exported.

  This year, the European Commission will review the effects of the relevant EC legislation on the competitiveness of the Community art markets compared to third countries' art markets. The relevant Government departments are working with the British Art Market Federation to evaluate those effects, and will be closely involved in the Commission's review to ensure that the position of the UK's fine art market is properly represented.

  Economic Forecasts
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will re-calculate tables(a) B24, (b) B21, (c) B17, (d) B14, (e) B13, (f) B11, (g) B9 and (h) B8
  30
  from the Financial Statement and Budget report of March 1998, on the basis of the information in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report of June 1998. [46361]

  Mr. Darling
  The Treasury normally publishes two forecasts a year, as required by the Industry Act 1975. The first of these forecasts for 1998 was published in the March Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR), and the second Industry Act forecast will be published later in the year. The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (ESFR) included a summary update of the March 1998 FSBR, based on new spending plans and updated projections of aggregate receipts to reflect outturns available since the Budget. Information on the updated fiscal projections can be found throughout chapters 3 and 4 of the EFSR.

  Third World Debt (Donations)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1998,Official Report, columns 124–25, to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), what has been the administrative cost to his Department of accounting for postcards with money attached; what has been the average amount donated per donor; and how many responses have been sent to (i) members of the public and (ii) hon. Members and at what estimated cost. [45712]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The cost of processing postcards with money attached as a donation towards debt relief was estimated in March to be around £28,000. A rough calculation suggests that each donor has contributed, on average, around 50p.

  Since January 1997, in response to postcards with money attached, around 4,500 responses have been sent to members of the public and over 1,600 responses have been sent to hon. Members.

  Public Finance
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his cyclically adjusted estimates for(a) total managed expenditure, (b) general Government receipts, (c) public sector net borrowing, (d) public sector net cash requirement and (e) net public sector debt (i) in cash terms, and (ii) as a percentage of gross domestic product, for (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000, (3) 2000–01, (4) 2001–02, (5) 2002–03 and (6) 2003–04, assuming trend output is 1.5 per cent. above trend in the first half of 1997. [47135]

  Mr. Darling
  Table 4.1 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report set out the economic assumptions underlying the public finance projections. If output were 1½ per cent. above trend in the first half of 1997, then the assumptions in the EFSR imply that it would be approximately 2 per cent. above trend in 1997–98 as a whole. Cyclically adjusted estimates of the public finances can be calculated using the Treasury's estimates of the effects of the economic cycle on the public finances set out in Treasury Occasional Paper No 4 "Public Finances and the Cycle", published in September 1995. The effects of the economic cycle should not be significantly different between total managed expenditure and general government expenditure, or between public
  31
  sector net borrowing and the public sector net cash requirement. The Treasury does not calculate cyclically-adjusted measures of public sector debt.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to allowing any unused AME margin to be allocated to departmental expenditure limits. [47121]

  Mr. Darling
  The Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) Margin is designed to meet increases above forecast in elements of AME.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many(a) men and (b) women working (i) part-time and (ii) full-time in Kilmarnock and Loudoun earn less than (1) £3 per hour, (2) £3.60 per hour and (3) £2.50 per hour; and in each case if he will give the percentage of the total number employed. [47078]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: 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. Desmond Browne, dated June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on earnings in Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey (NES) April 1997, is contained in the attached table. The NES is based on a one percent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff and in particular those who work part-time.
  The extent of this bias may be estimated for Scotland by using data from the NES augmented by data from the Labour Force Survey. This suggests that the estimate of the proportion of employees earning below £3.00 and £3.60 could understate the true position by as much as 3 percentage points. However, it is unlikely that the occurrence of lower paid jobs is uniform across the country, and so it would be wise to treat these figures as broadly indicative rather than as precise estimates.

  Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence—New Earnings Survey—April 1997

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  £2.50

  £3.00

  £3.60

  Full-time men

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Part-time men

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Full-time women

  1.7

  1.7

  13.6

  Part-time women

  2.4

  9.5

  28.6

  All employees

  1.1

  2.8

  11.0

  1Denotes an estimate which is unavailable because the sample size is too small

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many people in the constituency of Lincoln earn less than the proposed national minimum wage, broken down by(a) gender, (b) age and (c) full- or part-time employment. [47092]
  32
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 June 1998]: 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 Gillian Merron, dated June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on earnings in Lincoln.
  The national minimum wage will become effective in April 1999 and has been set at £3.60 for employees aged over 21 and £3.00 for those aged 18 to 21, although there are a number of qualifications to this general observation.
  The Low Pay Commission, in arriving at their recommendations, had to adjust 1999 pay rates to 1997 values. Their methodology produces £2.80 and £3.40 as the 1997 values of the government's preferred rates and I have provided supplementary data for these levels.
  The attached table presents data from the 1997 New Earnings Survey (NES) for the parliamentary constituency of Lincoln. I cannot provide data for those aged 18–21 years who would earn below the proposed minimum wage since there were only 10 individuals in the NES sample for Lincoln.
  The NES is based on a one percent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff and in particular those who work part-time.
  The extent of this bias may be estimated for the East Midlands by using data from the NES augmented by data from the Labour Force Survey. This suggests that the estimate of the overall proportion of employees earning below £03.60 could understate the true position by as much as 3 percentage points. However, it is unlikely that the occurrence of lower paid jobs is uniform across the region, and so it would be wise to treat these figures as broadly indicative rather than as precise estimates.

  Employees whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence—New Earnings Survey—April 1997

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings excluding overtime and shift payments less than:

  £3.40

  £3.60

  Lincoln—Employees aged over 21 on adult rates of pay

  Full-time males

  0.7

  2.1

  Part-time males

  1—

  1—

  All males

  0.6

  1.9

  Full-time females

  4.3

  9.6

  Part-time females

  9.2

  22.4

  All females

  6.5

  15.3

  All full-time

  2.1

  5.0

  All part-time

  8.3

  20.2

  All

  3.7

  9.0

  1Denotes an estimate which is unavailable because the sample size is too small

PRIME MINISTER

  European Policy
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what meetings involving the Cabinet Office and 10 Downing Street have taken place since 11 May to discuss the Government's approach to the European Union; and which other Government Departments were involved; [47556]
  33
  (2) if he will list the strategy meetings which have taken place since 11 May to discuss policy towards the European Union involving representatives from Departments, units or agencies other than his Policy Unit or Political Office; and if he will list the Departments or agencies represented in these discussions; [47557]

  (3) if it is his practice to invite Foreign Office Ministers to attend discussions of European policy at Downing Street.[47553]

  The Prime Minister
  My staff and I have regular meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others on a wide range of subjects, and will continue to do so. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions.

  Cabinet Ministers (Security)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the security arrangements for all Cabinet Ministers.[47683]

  The Prime Minister
  The security arrangements for Cabinet Ministers are reviewed regularly.

  Public Sector Pay Review Bodies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current membership of the public sector pay review bodies.[48153]

  The Prime Minister
  The current membership is as listed:

  Senior salaries review body

  Sir Michael Perry CBE (Chairman)

  Hon. Michael Beloff QC

  Mr. David Clayman

  Professor Sandra Dawson

  Mrs. Rosemary Day

  Sir Terence Heiser GCB

  Sir Gordon Hourston

  Sir Sydney Lipworth QC

  Miss Patricia Mann OBE

  Mr. Mark Sheldon CBE

  Professor Sir David Williams QC, DL

  Armed forces pay review body

  Sir Gordon Hourston (Chairman)

  Mrs. Kay Coleman OBE

  Mr. John Cox CBE

  Mr. John Crosby

  Vice Admiral Sir Tody Frere KCB

  The Lord Gladwin of Clee CBE

  Professor David Greenaway

  Ms Gay Haskins

  Review body on nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine

  Professor Clive Booth (Chairman)

  Mr. Jim Bartlett

  Mrs. Sheila Gleig

  34

  Miss Anne Mackie OBE

  Mr. Michael Malone-Lee CB

  Mr. Keith Miles

  Mr. Clive Monks OBE

  Professor Gillian Raab

  Review body on doctors and dentists remuneration

  Mr. Brandon Gough (Chairman)

  Mrs. Matti Alderson

  Professor Nicholas Bourne

  Miss Carol Hui

  Mr. Roderick Jackson

  Mr. Christopher King CBE

  Professor Sheila McLean

  Mr. David Penton

  School teachers review body

  Mr. Tony Vineall (Chairman)

  Mrs. Brigita Amey

  Mr. Peter Gedling

  Mr. Michael Harding

  Mr. Vincent Harris

  Miss Janet Langdon

  Mr. Christopher Lyddon

  Mrs. Patricia Sloane

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the public registers which his Department has responsibility for. [47360]

  The Attorney-General
  There are no public registers for which my Department has responsibility.

SCOTLAND

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of Ministerial overseas travel in his Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 to date. [26645]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: The costs of Ministerial overseas travel including those for officials accompanying Ministers are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  67,042.43

  1996–97

  94,913.42

  1997–98

  95,259.68

  Children's Reporter Administration
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to permit the management of the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration to conduct pay negotiations with staff for 1998–99. [46749]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Approval of the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration's Pay Remit for 1998–99 was given on 9 June. This was in accordance with Treasury guidance to Departments on local pay bargaining arrangements for Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies. The Administration opened negotiations with its staff side on 15 June.

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public registers which his Department has responsibility for. [47348]

  Mr. Dewar
  The following registers are held by my Department or Agencies for which it is responsible:

  Scottish Office

  Grant Eligible Pre-school Education Centres

  Statutory list of roads

  Water Supply Zones (including results of analysis of water quality)

  Trade Effluent Discharges

  Release of Genetically Modified Organisms

  Register of Independent Schools

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  Register of Educational Endowments

  Fisheries Research Service

  Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985, Pt2, Deposits in the Sea

  Historic Scotland

  Building Conservation Register for Scotland

  Conservation Register (held jointly with the Museums and Galleries Commission)

  Rent Registration Service

  Register of Rents

  Year

  Age under 21

  Age 21 to 24

  Age >25

  Applicants2 through UCAS

  1994

  22,209

  2,715

  3,777

  1995

  23,798

  3,105

  4,772

  1996

  24,261

  3,104

  4,855

  19971

  (23,549)

  (2,299)

  (3,637)

  19981

  (23,068)

  (2,058)

  (3,298)

  Scottish Population

  1994

  1,291,973

  306,312

  3,455,928

  1995

  1,288,539

  292,323

  3,473,901

  1996

  1,282,497

  277,482

  3,488,335

  1997

  1,277,322

  266,350

  3,499,706

  1998

  1,276,902

  255,750

  3,507,728

  Proportion of cohort applying

  1994

  1.7

  0.9

  0.1

  1995

  1.7

  0.9

  0.1

  1996

  1.8

  1.1

  0.1

  19971

  1.9

  1.1

  0.1

  19981

  (1.8)

  (0.9)

  (0.1)

  1Forms processed by UCAS by 16 May 1997 and 17 May 1998

  2Age at 30 September in year of entry

  36
  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Persons and Firms registered as Seed Merchants, Seed Processors, and Seed Packers

  Registers of Scotland

  General Register of Sasines

  Land Register

  Register of Deeds and Probative Writs in the Books of Council and Session

  Register of Judgments in Books of Council and Session

  Register of Service of Heirs

  Register of the Grant Seal

  Register of the Cachet Seal

  Register of the Quarter Seal

  Register of the Prince's Seal

  Register of Crown Grants

  Register of Sheriff's Commissions

  Register of Hornings

  Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications

  Register of Entails

  Higher Education
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of those aged(a) under 21, (b) 21 to 24 and (c) over 25 years and over, registered in Scotland, applied through UCAS for admission to a course of higher education for the (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996, (iv) 1997 and (v) 1998 entry cycles; what were the numbers of the population in Scotland aged (a) to (c) for (i) to (v); and what was the proportion of those applying as a percentage of the appropriate population cohort. [47267]

  Mr. Wilson
  Figures on Scottish domiciled UCAS applicants by age, and relevant Scottish population from 1994 to 1998, are given in the table. For 1997 and 1998, the most up to date figures are based upon applications processed by UCAS by 16 May 1997 and 17 May 1998. Not all applications have arrived by this date, therefore 1997 and 1998 figures are undercounts and not directly comparable with previous years.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Commission Documents
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reviews she has undertaken of the European Commission's implementation of the Code of Conduct on Public Access to Commission Documents. [47459]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 446, about the steps the Government are taking to increase access to information about EC development projects.

  It is for the Commission to review their implementation of the Code of Conduct on Public Access to Commission Documents. They collate annual statistics which are available on request. For 1997, these showed that 89.3 per cent. of the 745 admissible requests for documents requested were released. 11.9 per cent. of requests related to external affairs, including development.

  Any cases of apparent maladministration in the Commission's implementation of its Code may be referred to the European Ombudsman.

  EC Programmes (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she has received the Environmental Resources Management report, "Evaluation of the Environmental Performance of EC Programmes in Developing Countries". [47458]

  Clare Short
  Further to my reply to the hon. Member's question on this subject, of 11 May 1998,Official Report, columns 24–25, my Department received the Environmental Resources Management report several months ago and we are still awaiting the European Commission's response. This is due within the next few weeks. We will comment on this response in due course.

  Sudan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans(a) she and (b) the Under-Secretary have to visit the Sudan. [47338]

  Clare Short
  We have no plans to visit the Sudan. My Relief and Rehabilitation Field Manager has been to the crisis area twice since February and reported to me. Our Ambassador in Khartoum also visits the South and reports. A visit by me or the Under-Secretary would serve to hinder and not help the main aim at the moment, which is to get the maximum amount of food in as swiftly as possible to those who sorely need it.

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the public registers which her Department has responsibility for. [47353]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development does not have responsibility for any public registers.

  Coral Reefs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the depletion of coral reefs; and what initiatives the Government are taking to prevent the destruction of coral reefs. [47811]

  Mr. Foulkes
  This Department recognises that depletion of coral reefs is a significant cause of poverty in developing countries, where poor coastal communities often lack land and employment and the coastal ecosystems offer the only accessible source of nutrition and income.

  Degradation of coral reefs is occurring in many regions of the tropical oceans as the recently published World Resources Institute/World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WRI/WCMC) report "Reefs at Risk" makes clear. Traditional management systems in many small island communities have permitted sustainable use of reef resources for many years, but increasing population pressure and inappropriate development have contributed to the breakdown of these community-based management systems and a decline in the resource base. Modern arrangements for protection of coral reefs often aim to combine conservation with tourism and, unless carefully planned, can impose costs on the poor through loss of livelihoods. This Department is examining ways in which resources provided by coral reef biodiversity can be sustainably used to support people's livelihoods.

  The United Kingdom is a founder member of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) and this Department has recently published a Manual of Coastal Resource Management in South Asia, following up earlier financial and technical support for the ICRI South Asia Region Coral Reef Management Workshop. We are also helping our partners in South Asia to protect their coral reefs by providing funds and expertise to the International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO for the development of a South Asia region coral reef monitoring network, the first regional component of a planned global network.

  The Government support the development of new approaches to the conservation and sustainable use of coral reef resources through research projects in the Caribbean investigating the biological and social impacts of coral reef protection, and the rate at which degraded reefs can recover when protected. We have funded research to develop a new technology for accelerating the recovery of degraded reefs through research in The Maldives, where coral rock is mined for use as building material. Reefs which had been bare of living coral organisms for 20 years became recolonised within a period of 12 months. We have recently supported work to improve the accuracy of remote sensing methods used in monitoring the state of the coral reef environment.

  Our concern for the protection of coral reefs, and other tropical coastal ecosystems, is to help our partners stabilise and regenerate natural resources which are of significant importance to global efforts to eradicate poverty.

HEALTH

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to take to(a) prevent and (b) deal with overspending by primary care groups in the new NHS. [45482]

  Mr. Milburn
  Primary Care Groups will be accountable to health authorities for the way in which they discharge their functions, including financial matters. Guidance on management arrangements and risk management plans for PCG budgets will be issued in the summer.

  If a Primary Care Group overspends, the overspend will be managed within the funds made available to health authorities generally, and to the National Health Service more widely, much as health authority overspends are handled now.

  Trauma Patients
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated for trauma in each health authority area for the last five years for which figures are available. [46511]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of patients treated for post-traumatic stress disorder drawn from the Hospital Episode Statistics for 1995–96, the most recent year for which figures are available, is in the table. Information for earlier years is not available in an equivalent form. However, it is likely that the figures reported for post-traumatic stress disorder under-represent the number of people treated for the psychological after-effects of trauma since other people may be diagnosed as suffering from depression, anxiety or an adjustment disorder.

  Finished consultant episodes for 1995–96 Diagnosis 'F43.1' Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

  District health authority

  Number

  England

  347

  A11 Northumberland

  3

  A16 Sunderland

  1

  A30 North Durham

  10

  A31 South Durham

  1

  A32 Tees

  5

  A33 Gateshead and South Tyneside

  4

  A34 North Cumbria

  3

  A35 Newcastle and North Tyneside

  5

  B11 East Riding

  2

  B21 North Yorkshire

  5

  B31 Bradford

  1

  B51 West Yorkshire

  3

  B61 Leeds Health Authority

  3

  B71 Wakefield Health Care

  4

  CO1 North Derbyshire

  2

  CO9 Barnsley

  2

  C10 Doncaster

  2

  C12 Sheffield

  4

  C14 North Nottinghamshire

  5

  C15 Lincolnshire

  21

  DO5 North West Anglia

  1

  D12 Suffolk

  7

  D13 East Norfolk

  1

  EO9 Hillingdon

  4

  E18 East and North Herefordshire

  7

  E19 Brent and Harrow

  4

  40

  Finished consultant episodes for 1995–96 Diagnosis 'F43.1' Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

  District health authority

  Number

  E20 Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  4

  F31 North Essex

  4

  F32 South Essex

  3

  F33 Barking and Havering

  2

  F34 Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  1

  F35 East London and The City

  3

  F36 New River

  3

  F37 Camden and Islington

  4

  G12 Bromley

  9

  G21 East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1

  G22 East Kent

  4

  G23 West Kent

  10

  G26 South East London

  4

  H17 Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  2

  H20 West Surrey

  7

  H21 East Surrey

  9

  J10 Dorset Health Authority

  7

  J21 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  4

  J25 North and Mid Hampshire

  2

  J30 Wiltshire

  8

  J41 Isle of Wight

  1

  K24 Buckinghamshire

  9

  K33 Northamptonshire

  4

  K41 Oxfordshire

  9

  L10 Bristol and District

  8

  L21 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  4

  L35 Exeter and North Devon

  5

  L36 Plymouth and Torbay

  2

  L40 Gloucestershire

  2

  L51 Somerset

  13

  MO2 Herefordshire

  4

  MO5 Shropshire

  5

  MO7 North Staffordshire

  18

  M18 Dudley

  1

  M20 Solihull

  2

  M27 South Staffordshire

  1

  M28 Warwickshire

  6

  M29 North Birmingham

  1

  N17 North Cheshire

  4

  N18 South Cheshire

  6

  N21 Liverpool

  2

  N31 St. Helens and Knowsley

  4

  P16 Stockport Health

  2

  P21 East Lancashire

  1

  P22 South Lancashire

  1

  P24 Bury and Rochdale

  10

  P25 West Pennine

  10

  P26 Manchester Health

  7

  P27 Salford and Trafford

  3

  P28 Morecambe Bay

  1

  Mental Health
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the components of the NHS will make recommendations for the placement in mental nursing homes of people with learning difficulties or mental health problems under the new arrangements set out in the White Paper, The New NHS (Cm 3807). [46509]

  Mr. Boateng
  The White Paper The New NHS makes no change in this respect. Clinicians, working where appropriate with the relevant social work professionals, will make decisions about the appropriate placing of people with learning difficulties or mental health problems within the health and social care systems.

  Nurses (Working Holidays Visas)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when officials from his Department last met Home Office officials to discuss working holiday visas for nurses. [46502]

  Mr. Milburn
  Officials from the Department periodically meet officials from the Home Office and other Government departments to discuss a range of issues concerning the employment of overseas nurses. The last meeting which involved Home Office officials was held on 31 October 1995. In addition, Departmental officials have regular contact with officials from the Overseas Labour Service who are responsible for advising the Home Office on the acceptability of work permit applications from employers to fill shortage posts with overseas nationals. The last meeting was held on 4 February 1998.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential contribution of overseas nurses working in the United Kingdom on working holiday visas to addressing shortages in nursing provision. [46505]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is not the purpose of the working holidaymaker scheme to address skill shortages in the United Kingdom. A mechanism already exists, through the work permit scheme, for non-European Economic Area nationals to be employed in cases of skills shortages. Information on the numbers of overseas nurses registering with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting is published in the statistical analysis of the UKCC's professional register 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Testosterone
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the standards relating to the permissible levels of testosterone in(a) edible and (b) medicinal products in the UK; and what procedures apply in circumstances where products are banned. [46802]

  Ms Jowell
  The use of hormones as growth promoters in animal production has been banned in the European Union since 1988. Any confirmed residue of testosterone in food resulting from the use of a growth promoter is illegal.

  There are no standards relating to permissible levels of testosterone in medicinal products for human use in the United Kingdom. Currently, there are 14 licensed human medicinal products (capsules, injections, implants and transdermal patches) which contain testosterone, one of several testosterone esters or methyltestosterone as the active ingredient at amounts of 20–250 milligrams. Recommended doses are based on information obtained from clinical trials. The products are indicated mainly for treatment of conditions in males where testosterone supplementation is required, and are obtainable only on prescription.

  In cases where there are concerns relating to safety, quality or efficacy of any licensed medicinal product, the marketing authorisation (MA) may be withdrawn voluntarily by the MA holder. Alternatively, the licensing
  42
  authority may take steps to revoke or suspend the MA. Procedural provisions relating to the grant, renewal, variation, revocation or suspension of UK MAs are contained in the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations etc.) Regulations 1994.

  The sale, supply and importation of medicinal products, and of animal feeding stuffs incorporating such medicinal products, which are the subject of a prohibition order under Section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968 are illegal, and a criminal offence by virtue of Section 67(3) of this Act. The maximum penalty is 2 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine on indictment to the Crown Court.

  Food Safety (Cheese)
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the use by his officials of powers granted under the Food Safety Act 1990 to ban the sale of cheese without court proceedings; and if he will make a statement. [47070]

  Ms Jowell
  The powers to which the right hon. Member refers are conferred on Ministers. On 20 May 1998, I signed an emergency control order under section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990 prohibiting commercial operations in respect of cheese from a Somerset producer, because I was satisfied that such operations involved or may have involved imminent risk of injury to health. A 12 year old boy had become seriously ill after eating cheese contaminated with e-coli. The source was traced to the producer who was the subject of the order.

  One business made representations and attended a meeting at the Department. I responded to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who initiated a debate on the matter, and to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) who made representations in the course of the debate, 17 June 1998, Official Report, columns 338–46. We have also received a letter from the Specialist Cheesemakers' Association, and as at 24 June 1998, three letters from hon. Members and one from a member of the public.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will collate and publish on a regular quarterly basis information showing(a) the number of people awaiting an out-patient consultation at an NHS hospital and (b) the number of out-patient consultations that have taken place in NHS hospitals in the previous quarter. [47133]

  Mr. Milburn
  No. A considerable amount of data on outpatient appointments are already collected and published in a quarterly statistical bulletin.

  Drugs Misuse (London)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of liaison which exists between the boroughs of London in co-ordinating an effective strategy to combat drugs misuse; and if he will make a statement. [47341]
  43
  Ms Jowell
  The Greater London Association of Directors of Social Services have, since 1993, co-ordinated a subgroup—the Greater London Drug and Alcohol Purchasers Group—for all directors of social services in London to discuss substance misuse issues.

  The Greater London Drug and Alcohol Purchasers Group meets regularly with the Inner London Purchasers of Substance Misuse Services, which represents health authorities. This forum, known as the London Drug and Alcohol Purchasers Group, aims to ensure consistency in approaches to the treatment and prevention of drug misuse. The aim of the group is to standardise policies on pricing, treatment programmes and quality standards. It meets regularly with the London Drug Services Consortium, which represents the interests of voluntary and private sector providers of drug services in the London area.

  In addition, the London Drug Policy Forum encourages joint working between these groups, the police, the probation and prison services and all those working in the provision of services for drug misusers. For example, it organises regular meetings for chairs of London drug action teams, and has recently produced a guide for local authorities on their role in tackling drugs misuse "Drugs in the Community—what local authorities can do".

  All these groups are currently reviewing how they can work together more effectively to achieve the objectives of our new anti-drug strategy "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain".

  Elderly People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated on discrimination against the elderly within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [47588]

  Mr. Boateng
  Although allegations of age discrimination in the National Health Service have been made from time to time over a number of years, there is a lack of reliable evidence based research on the subject.

  At the end of last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commissioned HAS 2000 to examine the care which acute NHS hospitals provide for older people, including claims about age discrimination. HAS 2000 are due to report at the end of this month. The Department will be evaluating the report, which will be published. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those categories of people eligible to be provided with electric wheelchairs at public expense; and what plans he has to review this provision. [47590]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service provides powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs for severely disabled people, including children, who can benefit from them. Each health authority assesses local needs and determines local eligibility criteria within the broad national framework that the severely disabled person is unable to propel a manual wheelchair outdoors, is able to benefit from the chair through increased mobility leading to improved quality of life, and is able to handle the chair safely.
  44
  NHS provision of electronically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs was introduced in 1996, at the same time as a voucher scheme to enable wheelchair users to contribute towards a more expensive wheelchair of their choice. The NHS Executive will shortly begin an evaluation of the operation of both these initiatives and it aims to complete the study by the end of the 1998–99 financial year.

  Correspondence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the volume of correspondence sent to and received from hon. Members by the Secretary of State for Health in the periods(a) 1 January to 26 March 1994 and (b) 1 January to 26 March 1998. [47689]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not available in the form requested. The total volume of correspondence replied to by Ministers from this Department for the period 1 January 1994 to 31 March 1994 was 2,505. The total volume of correspondence replied to by Ministers for the period 1 January 1998 to 26 March 1998 was 3,585. From the records kept, it is not possible to distinguish between those replies addressed to hon. Members and those addressed to other individuals or organisations, although the majority of the replies would have been to hon. Members.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a code of practice with respect to the use of data-matching techniques which require access to medical or other administrative records held by health bodies in relation to anti-fraud initiatives in the NHS. [47370]

  Mr. Milburn
  General guidance on the use of person-specific information held by National Health Service bodies was issued in 1996 and the general principles were reinforced in the report of the Caldicott Committee in 1997. These principles apply equally to the use of NHS records in connection with anti-fraud work in the NHS. We will shortly be reviewing this guidance in the light of the Data Protection Bill and will clarify the circumstances in which information held by NHS bodies may be shared with non-NHS agencies.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Audit Commission to commence data-matching exercises using their powers under the Audit Commission Bill 1998; and if such matching will involve records held by local authorities. [47371]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Audit Commission Act 1998 consolidates existing legislation and does not introduce new powers. Auditors appointed by the Audit Commission have used data-matching techniques in local authorities for four to five years. They have recently extended this to a number of National Health Service pilot sites. The Audit Commission has no current plans to extend this to cross matching local authority and NHS records.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS money is spent on parallel trading in drugs. [47809]
  45
  Mr. Milburn
  Full information on expenditure on parallel traded medicines by the National Health Service is not available. However, within the Family Health Services sector in England and Wales, the Pharmacists' Discount Inquiry estimates that, in 1997–98, 4.63 per cent. of the net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacies was in relation to parallel imported products. Over each of the six years 1992–1997, the corresponding figures were between 4.09 per cent. and 4.80 per cent. For 1997–98, this equates with a figure of some £197 million expenditure on such products, providing an estimated saving to the NHS of around £19 million.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of drugs for use in the NHS are imported from overseas. [47810]

  Mr. Milburn
  Records are not kept of the origin of drugs in the National Health Service. However, in 1997, pharmaceutical products worth £3,192 million were imported into the United Kingdom, with exports of £5,484 million. This includes pharmaceuticals used outside the NHS. The latest available figures (financial year 1996–97) indicate an expenditure of £4,735 million on the drugs bill in England. This figure includes community prescribed and hospital medicines.

  Microbiological Research Authority
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers of 21 July 1997,Official Report, columns 409–10, and 25 March 1998, Official Report, column 180, if he will now send to the hon. Member for Salisbury a copy of the final submission made to him under the quinquennial review from the Microbiological Research Authority Board; and if he will make a statement about that quinquennial review. [47843]

  Ms Jowell
  I understand that a copy of the final submission from the Microbiological Research Authority to the team undertaking the quinquennial review of the Microbiological Research Authority was sent to the hon. Member on 5 November 1997 and that he acknowledged receipt on 11 November.

  The findings of the first stage of the review are still the subject of discussions by Ministers. We will make a statement when these are completed.

  Tattoo Removal
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the National Health Service of tattoo removal for each of the last four years. [47592]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information relating to this specific procedure is not collected centrally on a routine basis. Within the current standard coding classifications used by the National Health Service there is no unique code or combination of codes for treatments specifically related to tattoo removal. This procedure is classified along with other procedures to remove skin lesions e.g. iron pigmentation.

  Maternity Services (North Essex)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reach a decision on the future of maternity services in North Essex. [47890]
  46
  Mr. Milburn
  A decision will be made on the future of maternity services in North Essex when we have considered carefully all the evidence following the objection by the local community health councils to North Essex Health Authority's consultation document 'Taking the Initiative'.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide hon. Members with an information pack on the millennium compliance of computer systems similar to that supplied to hon. Members on the euro on 15 July by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. [47011]

  Mrs. Roche
  I will send a suitable information pack to each hon. Member in a few weeks' time.

  Mr. White
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons the original year 2000 Millennium conformance standard set by BSI was deficient in respect of real time requirements. [46500]

  Mrs. Roche
  The so-called Millennium Conformance Standard is not a standard in the strict sense, but a Published Document prepared by the British Standards Institution setting out Year 2000 conformity requirements. I understand that, following representations from the telecommunications industry about its interpretation, this document is being reviewed within BSI.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy objectives for small businesses. [47428]

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the current(a) objectives and (b) targets of the Government's small firm policies. [47144]

  Mrs. Roche
  The overall aim which underpins the Government's small firms policy is to enhance the competitiveness of small businesses by maintaining a supportive economic and business environment, and delivering high quality business support services.

  More detailed policy objectives are currently being refined through a process of consultation, which includes listening to the views of representatives of small business. Our work is also being informed by the recent report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee on Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, and the small firms debate which was held in the House of Commons on 19 June 1998, Official Report, columns 606–76.

  The Government's policies for small businesses will be set out in the Competitiveness White Paper to be published in the Autumn.

  Newspaper Pricing
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legal advice she has taken concerning the
  47
  relevance of the special circumstances found to have held in the European Court Case C-333/94 P Tetra Pak v. Commission to pricing strategies in the UK's daily broadsheet market. [42612]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: The Competition Bill sets the framework which prohibits anti-competitive behaviour and the abuse of dominance. Decisions in specific cases are matters for the independent regulator. It is not, therefore, for me to comment on how the principles of EC jurisprudence would apply in individual circumstances.

  Insolvency Proceedings
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she intends to take to revive the European Union convention on insolvency proceedings; and if she will make a statement. [47113]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The European Convention on Insolvency Proceedings was opened for signature between 23 November 1995 and 23 May 1996. The United Kingdom did not sign the Convention during that time. There are no proposals currently for the Convention to be revived.

  Eastern Natural Gas
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received about the methods used by Eastern Natural Gas in acquiring new customers. [46587]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: My Department has received a number of representations regarding marketing methods used by gas suppliers, including some relating to Eastern Natural Gas. The Government believe that consumers who are sold gas contracts on the doorstep should have proper protection. I raised my concerns with the Director General of Gas Supply last year, and this led to Ofgas introducing, on 26 January, a new suppliers' licence condition to bring such activities under tighter control.

  Among other things, the new condition includes rules on the proper selection and training of sales staff who are in direct contact with domestic customers, auditing of sales activities, schemes for paying compensation, and a ban on gas suppliers using agents who ask for payment in advance of arranging a supply of gas.

  This initiative should help to further enhance consumer protection with regard to doorstep selling. I am, however, keeping the situation, including the need for further action, under review.

  Employment Rights Act
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the(a) total and (b) average amount of ex gratia payments her Department made in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997 under the Employment Rights Act 1996. [47072]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In the period between 22 August 1996, when the Employments Rights Act 1996 became effective, and the end of the 1996/97 financial year(a) the total paid under ex gratia arrangements in relation
  48
  to claims under the Employments Rights Act 1996 was £13,160; (b) the average in that period was £1,880 per case (£1,196 per single payment).

  In the 1997/98 financial year (a) the total paid under ex gratia arrangements in relation to claims under the Employments Rights Act 1996 was £24,666; (b) the average in that period was £2,242 per case (£1,542 per single payment).

  Mr. Wills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the largest single ex gratia payment her Department made in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 under the Employment Rights Act 1996. [47073]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The largest single ex gratia payment made in relation to claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 in(a) 1996 was £3,210, and in (b) 1997 was £6,777.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to assist manufacturers to increase the volume of British goods exported to foreign countries. [46600]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: The full range of Overseas Trade Services is available to help UK companies sell goods and services overseas.

  Following the Export Forum's report last November, these are being improved and extended. A National Exporters Database will be introduced on 1 July and a new Export Sales Leads Service on 1 September. A new simpler system of Support for Exhibitions and Seminars abroad will apply to events opening after 1 April 1999.

  New programmes of activity in some of the target markets identified by the Export Forum have already been announced, including the Export Explorer for Western Europe. New programmes in the remaining target markets will be launched throughout the year.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to promote private investment in British manufacturing industry. [46599]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: The Government are striving to promote high levels of investment in British industry, including manufacturing, through achieving economic stability, and creating a tax system that rewards enterprise. The Chancellor also recently announced three new venture capital funds totalling £240 million to support small and medium businesses, and this Department is working in partnership with business to raise the competitiveness of our firms, including looking at what else can be done to promote investment.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations she held with(a) environment pressure groups, (b) local authority interest groups, (c) academic experts and (d) the Socialist Environment and Resources Association prior to her decision on the phased closure of Dounreay. [45774]
  49
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]: My Department regularly receives and welcomes views from interested groups and individuals on a range of issues. In addition, I recently addressed the Socialist Environment and Resources Association. Nothing is more important than safety in all operations on nuclear licensed sites. Within this overriding requirement, the particular decision to accept no new commercial reprocessing at Dounreay was taken on economic grounds after considering the recommendation from the UKAEA.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the Irish Development Agency on the number of pharmaceutical companies leaving the United Kingdom to locate in the Republic of Ireland. [47817]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The factors which cause a company to leave a particular market are often complex and go beyond simply the efforts or effect of an investment body in another market.

  I am unaware of any significant number of pharmaceutical companies leaving the UK to locate in the Republic of Ireland, although there have been instances of companies locating new investment projects or switching certain production there. This is a matter for their commercial judgment. However, the UK remains at the forefront of the pharmaceutical industry having the world's fifth largest industry by sales. But we are not complacent: both my Department and the Department of Health are working with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry to ensure that we retain our prominent position.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance her Department has given to the expansion of biotech companies in the last year. [47816]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is committed to getting the climate right for the development of the UK's biotechnology sector. We support technology transfer through, for example, LINK, EUREKA, and SMART, and specific Biotechnology Challenges, to encourage the start-up and growth of new companies.

  This assistance is complemented by support for the sector by other Government Departments and by the Research Councils.

  Car Prices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the latest figures for average retail prices for new cars sold in the(a) UK and (b) other European Union countries. [47411]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The European Commission produces a six-monthly report on car prices across the European Union, comparing the prices in each Member State of the best-selling models. I have placed a copy of the latest report in the Library of the House. The Commission's figures can also be found on the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg04/aid/en/car.htm.

  Lord Archer
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies were made of the DTI inspectors' report into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in respect of share dealing; and if she will list the holders and locations of these copies. [47603]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The inspectors appointed to investigate dealings in the shares of Anglia Television Group Plc delivered 20 copies of the report to the Secretary of State in July 1994. No further copies have been made in the Department. All 20 copies are still held within the Department, other than copies disclosed to the Stock Exchange and the Securities and Futures Authority.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many persons were interviewed by her Department's inspectors in connection with the investigation into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare in respect of share dealing. [47703]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The inspectors conducted formal interviews with 22 witnesses in the course of their investigation in 1994 into dealings in the shares of Anglia Television Group Plc. Not all these interviews related to Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the DTI inspectors' report into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in respect of share dealing. [47602]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Reports of insider dealing inspections are not published. There are strict legal restraints on disclosure of information obtained in such inspections.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many hours were spent by her inspectors in the investigation into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare in respect of share dealing. [47867]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The information is not held in this form. As mentioned in an earlier answer, 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. Their fees and disbursements amounted to about £215,000 (including VAT).

  The investigation dealt with a wider range of matters than Lord Archer's dealing and accordingly the amount related thereto is not separately calculable.

  European Working Hours Directive
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the European Working Hours Directive on retirement home managers who are required to be on call for 24 hours per day. [47453]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The consultation document on proposals to implement the EC Working Time Directive, issued in April 1998, contained an appraisal of the costs and benefits of these measures for workers and employers. A copy of this document is available in the Library of the House. No appraisal has been undertaken by my Department of the specific impact on retirement home managers.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for 1997. [45365]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The 24th Annual Report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997. Copies of the Report have been laid before Parliament.

  Post Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action(a) the Government and (b) the Post Office will have to take to comply with the proposed EU Postal Directive. [47548]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The Government must transpose the Directive into UK law by February 1999. We shall need to modify the monopoly and introduce some other amendments. We expect to do this through secondary legislation, using the European Communities Act 1972. The final proposals will be announced later this year.

  The Post Office is fully committed to complying with the Directive and is discussing with officials at the Department the precise arrangements which will be necessary.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many proposals for foreign acquisition and joint ventures by the Post Office since May 1997(a) have been turned down and (b) are awaiting an answer from her Department. [47518]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: None.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to include accommodation and meals in calculation of employees' earnings for the purpose of the minimum wage. [47526]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: We have accepted the Low Pay Commission's recommendation that, with the exception of accommodation, benefits should be excluded from the calculation of employees' earnings for the purpose of the national minimum wage.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the impact on employment of the proposed minimum wage, assuming(a) half restoration of differentials, (b) three-quarters restoration of differentials and (c) full restoration of differentials. [47562]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The Government share the Low Pay Commission's view that a national minimum wage set at the level proposed should not lead to a significant impact on employment, and any pressure to restore pay differentials will be limited and localised.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the definition of a trainee for the purposes of exemption from the minimum wage. [47521]
  52
  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: All those on formal apprenticeships will be exempt from the national minimum wage. The criteria for defining who is affected will be set out in the Regulations implementing the National Minimum Wage Bill.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the change in employment in coal mining which would result from licensing an additional 1,000 MW of gas-fired electricity generating capacity. [47525]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: An additional 1,000 MW of gas-fired electricity generating capacity could displace approximately 2.5 million tonnes of coal a year. The precise impact would depend on the extent to which both the new gas station and existing coal stations operated which, in turn, would be affected by the relative prices of coal and gas. The impact on employment in coal mining in the UK would depend on where generators whose electricity was displaced would have bought their coal.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what systems are in use to evaluate the quality of research material produced using funding from the research councils. [46838]

  Mr. Battle
  The Research Councils operate a range of systems to evaluate the quality of research that they fund, commensurate with the aims of the research and level of funding.

  At the individual project grant level, the Research Councils operate a system of peer review and grading of final scientific reports. In addition, project grants which result in publication in a scientific journal are automatically peer reviewed by the wider scientific community.

  At the programme level (groups of projects in a related area), projects are additionally reviewed together and the added value of the combined research assessed by peer review.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences were granted to British exporters in the twelve month periods(a) before 2 May 1997 and (b) after 2 May 1997. [47567]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: Statistics on decisions on export licences issued and refused for the second half of 1996 were placed in the Library of the House on 25 March 1998. Such statistics for the period 1 January to 1 May 1997 will be placed in the Library of the House soon. The Government are committed to report annually on the state of strategic export controls and their application since 2 May 1997, and I refer to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 12 May 1998, Official Report, column 110.
  53
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the effect of the EU Code on Arms Exports on her Department's issue of export licences to British companies. [47568]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: Licences to export arms and other goods where export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the President of the Board of Trade, and the Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade & Industry is the licensing authority. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest, as determined by them in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, and the Department for International Development. The EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports was formally adopted by the General Affairs Council on 8 June. Its provisions will be taken into account in export licensing decisions, as well as the export licence assessment criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29. Under the Code, each Member State will circulate in confidence an annual report on its defence exports and on its implementation of the Code. Member States will discuss these reports and review the Code's operation.

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the potential impact on United Kingdom public funds of British Nuclear Fuels' proposed joint purchase with the Morris Knudsen Engineering Company of the nuclear operations of Westinghouse Inc. [47881]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government and British Nuclear Fuels Plc. are agreed that the costs of the acquisition of Westinghouse will be met within BNFL's External Financing Limit and without affecting the Government's public expenditure targets.

  De Ia Rue, Gateshead
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of grants of selective assistance and other regional incentives awarded to De la Rue Gateshead in the last four years; and if the terms of the grants for machinery allow for the transfer of equipment outside the United Kingdom. [47734]

  Mrs. Roche
  The company received an offer of Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) of £900,000 in May 1996 towards capital investment at its Gateshead premises. The Department has made no other offers of assistance for this site in the past four years.

  The RSA offer provides for the recovery of grant should the company cease to use any of the assisted machinery at Gateshead.

  Midland Bluebird Bus Company
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when a decision will be announced on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's ruling on First Choice having to sell Midland Bluebird bus company. [47549]
  54
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the acquisition by FirstBus Plc. of SB Holdings Ltd. was published on 21 January 1997. In line with the MMC's recommendations and the Director General of Fair Trading's advice, the then Minister for Corporate and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), announced that FirstBus should be required to divest its subsidiary Midland Bluebird plus part of the Glasgow operations of SB Holdings.

  FirstBus subsequently requested a review of the decision on the grounds that there had been important new developments in the Glasgow bus market since the MMC's report was published. I asked the DGFT for his advice, which he has given.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will announce her decision on FirstBus's request as quickly as is practicable.

  Volvo Bus, Irvine
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what grants were given to Volvo Bus Corporation at the time of its relocation to Irvine; what assistance was received from the New Towns Commission; and if she will make a statement on its proposed relocation to Poland. [47737]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Volvo's operations at Irvine commenced in 1974 when the company acquired the facility from Ailsa Trucks Limited. No records are available on the financial assistance, if any, offered to Volvo at that time.

  We are obviously disappointed that the company's restructuring of its European industrial operations is likely to lead to job losses at Irvine in the medium term. However, inward investors are subject to exactly the same pressures as indigenous companies in today's global economy and occasional setbacks are unfortunately inevitable as competition intensifies and markets evolve.

  It is important to stress that Volvo will remain an important contributor to the Ayrshire economy and my officials are in close contact with the company to discuss how the impact of the restructuring plans on the Irvine plant can be minimised.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Housing Association Audits
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what discussions he has had with the Comptroller and Auditor General concerning the audit of housing associations. [46355]

  Mr. Sheldon
  I meet regularly with the Comptroller and Auditor General to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the work of the National Audit Office. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not have the power to provide systematic assurance to Parliament that some £1.2 billion of public money spent annually by the social housing sector has been spent with due regard for issues of regularity, propriety, and value for money.
  55
  The fact that the National Audit Office has no rights of access to the records of housing associations represents a serious gap in accountability for public funds. One straightforward solution would be to require the Comptroller and Auditor General's access to be a condition of all grants to voluntary housing bodies.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the public registers which the Commissioners have responsibility for. [47361]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  None.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  2006 World Cup
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the prospects for England hosting the 2006 world cup finals. [46324]

  Mr. Banks
  I believe that the FA's bid to stage the 2006 World Cup is an excellent one and stands a very good chance of success.

  National Lottery (Community Projects)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to meet community groups to discuss national lottery funding for local community projects; and if he will make a statement. [46325]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I and my fellow Ministers have regular contact with community groups. The National Lottery Bill, which will soon be an Act, will help to ensure that more Lottery money goes to small scale projects in local communities.

  English Tourist Board
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will change the level of Government funding for the English tourist board to bring it in line with the average per capita allocations provided to(a) Scottish, (b) Welsh and (c) Northern Ireland tourist boards. [46326]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Comprehensive Spending Review means that we are looking critically at how to make the best possible use of public money, by the Department and by its sponsored bodies. No final decisions about future funding have yet been made.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on promoting film production at a European level. [46328]
  56
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  During the UK Presidency of the European Union, the Government successfully hosted a major European Audiovisual Conference whose recommendations for promoting the European film industry are now being taken forward by the Commission and the Council. My department also promotes European film production through co-production agreements and through the £2 million European Co-production Fund.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to promote the British film industry. [46327]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to "A Bigger Picture", the report of the Film Policy Review Committee issued on 25 March, which sets out a comprehensive action plan for an industry-Government partnership to promote the British film industry.

  Tourism
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the tourism and hospitality industry on the Government's policies towards the industry. [46329]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I receive a wide range of representations from the tourism industry. Many of them come from members of the Tourism Forum and its working groups, with whom we are developing a strategy to maximise the benefits to the nation which tourism can bring.

  NESTA
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the ways in which National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts will help young inventors. [46330]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The means by which NESTA is to achieve its objects are set out in the National Lottery Bill currently before Parliament. NESTA will help talented people in the fields of science, technology and the arts achieve their full potential; it will help people turn inventions and ideas into products or services which can be exploited in the market place, and NESTA will contribute to public knowledge of science, technology and the arts. Programmes under all these headings could help young inventors but it will be for NESTA's Chair and Trustees to decide which particular programmes to run.

  Creative Arts (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to support the creative arts in Liverpool. [46331]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Central Government funding for the arts is channelled through the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Boards. Liverpool received 27 per cent. of North West Arts funds for 1997/98, some £2.5 million. Organisations based in Liverpool also received around £1.5 million directly from the Arts Council for this period. The city has received £16.2 million in Lottery awards to the arts to date.

  EU Audiovisual Conference
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent EU audiovisual conference in Birmingham. [46332]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This conference was my Department's major EU Presidency initiative. It has been widely welcomed by the various sectors of the European audiovisual industry. A number of constructive and innovative ideas were identified in areas ranging from future employment, copyright and regulatory regimes, to European support for the audiovisual industries. These should help position the industry to take advantage of the opportunities opening up with the development of digital technology, and inform future thinking in Member States and the European Commission. Copies of the final conference report, when available, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the board of the New Opportunities Fund will begin work. [46333]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce some appointments, including Chair, to the Board of the New Opportunities Fund when the National Lottery Bill receives Royal Assent on 2 July. I expect the Board to start work soon after.

  National Lottery (Unclaimed Prizes)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total sum of unclaimed prizes in the national lottery; and what is the largest individual sum. [46334]

  Mr. Banks
  To date, just over £223 million in prize money has been unclaimed. The largest single unclaimed prize was just over £2 million. After 180 days prizes still unclaimed are paid to the good causes.

  Independent Television Franchises
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to change the basis for determining the amounts paid for independent television franchises. [46335]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government have no plans to change the current arrangements for Exchequer payments made by Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees under the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning Channel 4; and if he will make a statement. [46336]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received no such representations. Channel Four is a central element in the Government's vision for the broadcasting industry in the digital future. We expect it to continue to play a vital role in providing distinctive and innovative public service programming of high quality.

  Museum Admission Charges
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on admission charges to national museums. [46337]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The March Budget settlement included £2 million to maintain free admission at the currently non-charging national museums and galleries. At the same time, the Heritage Lottery Fund announced a £7 million Access Fund, available to all museums and galleries for new access initiatives. I will make a further announcement next month.

  Creative Industries
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the conclusions of the mapping exercise on the creative industries. [46338]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  We are currently finalising the mapping exercise and will publish it as soon as possible.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the introduction of digital terrestrial television. [46339]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I look forward to the successful launch of digital terrestrial services alongside digital services on cable and satellite later this year. Digital television will increase consumer choice and deliver the benefits of the information age to our living rooms.

  Football Merchandise
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations the football task force has received on the prices of football merchandise. [46340]

  Mr. Banks
  The Football Task Force has received a number of representations on the cost of football merchandise. The remit of the Task Force specifically includes the investigation of marketing policies in football. The Task Force will be taking further representations from interested parties and is due to publish its report on all the commercial aspects of the game by the end of the year.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his proposals for the reduction of television licence fees for pensioners. [47560]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The Government's current Agreement with the BBC provides for a review of the arrangements for funding the Corporation after March 2002. We shall conduct that review in good time to allow decisions to be taken before then. The review will include a detailed consideration of the question of concessions, both for pensioners and others.

  Ancient Monuments Laboratory
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many representations English Heritage has received(a) in favour of and (b) against its proposal to move its Ancient Monuments Laboratory to Fort Cumberland, Portsmouth; [47396]

  (2) what estimate has been made by English Heritage of the cost of providing Library and other facilities in order to establish a centre of excellence if it relocates its Ancient Monuments Laboratory to Fort Cumberland, Portsmouth; [47400]

  (3) how many people visited English Heritage's (a) Ancient Monuments Laboratory in London and (b) Central Archaeological Service in Portsmouth in the most recent year for which figures are available; [47398]

  (4) what effect the proposed relocation of English Heritage's Ancient Monuments Laboratory will have on the amount of money in English Heritage's archaeology grants budget available for distribution in 1998–99 and 1999–2000; [47397]

  (5) what information has been collected by English Heritage about the proportion of the professional staff in its Ancient Monuments Laboratory who would (a) be happy to relocate and (b) seek alternative employment in the event that the laboratory is relocated to each of the alternative locations considered in recent months; [47401]

  (6) if English Heritage intends to consult the people and organisations which use the services of its Ancient Monuments Laboratory about its proposal to move the laboratory to Fort Cumberland, Portsmouth; [47395]

  (7) which places were considered by English Heritage as possible future locations for its Ancient Monuments Laboratory; and in respect of each of these places what is the estimated (a) capital value plus conversion cost of the premises,(b) cost of relocating staff, (c) cost of capital equipment for the new laboratory, (d) annual running cost of the new laboratory and (e) annual cost of and time used for official travel by the laboratory's staff. [47399]

  Mr. Banks
  These detailed questions about the relocation of English Heritage's Ancient Monuments Laboratory relate to internal management proposals under consideration by English Heritage's Commissioners about the most efficient and effective deployment of resources to fulfil its archaeological responsibilities. These questions are therefore more appropriately answered by English Heritage itself, and I have asked its Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend. I will ensure that copies are placed in the Libraries of the House. Should English Heritage wish to pursue relocation, my Department would of course consider its business plan.

  HMS Cavalier
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Heritage Lottery Fund regarding the future of HMS Cavalier. [47112]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts and I have not had any discussions with the Heritage Lottery Fund about the future of HMS Cavalier. However, we are aware of her status as the last surviving Second World War 60
  destroyer and of the case for her preservation. These issues were considered in detail during the recent Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into the future of the ship. In this regard, we were pleased to hear of the National Heritage Memorial Fund award to Medway Council, in association with Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust, of £37,575 for a feasibility study of the case for preservation and relocation.

  National Swim Week
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives the Government took to promote National Swim Week on 17 to 31 May. [47218]

  Mr. Banks
  Swimming has my full support, as it is one our healthiest recreational pursuits. I was therefore pleased to see the National Swim Week introduced throughout the country, as it gave youngsters an excellent opportunity to participate in the sport and helped to raise important funds for Cancer Relief.

  Rugby League World Cup
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to host the Rugby League World Cup in the United Kingdom. [47605]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are committed to work to bring major international sporting events to Britain and, through the English and UK Sports Councils, we fully support the efforts being taken by the Rugby Football League to stage the Rugby League World Cup at the earliest possible date. I understand that the RFL is due to present a draft eight-year programme of international competition, which includes a proposed four-year World Cup cycle, to the next meeting of the Rugby Football League's International Board later this year.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress in the upgrading of Wembley Stadium; and if he will name the alternative national stadium to be used during upgrading work at Wembley. [47606]

  Mr. Banks
  It is still early days, but I am very pleased with the progress to date, and in particular the way the English Sports Council, the Football Association and the English National Stadium Trust are working productively together in developing a new stadium of which the nation can be proud. The aim is for the current stadium to be demolished after the 1999 FA Cup Final, and for the new stadium to be completed by 2002. Decisions on alternative venues for events during construction of the new stadium are entirely matters for the governing bodies concerned.

  National Lottery (Wales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of projects allocated Heritage Lottery funding within Wales to date were unable to raise matching funding; and what is the total amount of resulting unclaimed funds. [47393]
  61
  Mr. Banks
  The Heritage Lottery Fund is not aware of any projects in Wales which have been awarded grants but for which the required partnership funding has not been raised. There are therefore no resulting unclaimed funds.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the Lottery funds allocated for Heritage projects has been spent in(a) Wales and (b) North Wales. [47392]

  Mr. Banks
  To date, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded £1.01 billion to 1,862 projects. Of this, Wales has received £23.27 million (2.3 per cent.) and North Wales has received £8.74 million (0.1 per cent.). Information on National Lottery awards is now available on the Departments website. www.lottery, culture.gov.uk.

WALES

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [46053]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The following are amongst the larger pilot schemes for which the Welsh Office is responsible.

  Best Value

  On 4 December 1997, I announced that 21 authorities, one police authority, and one combined authority had been chosen to test the best value framework in Wales in advance of the introduction of the Government's best value policy. No additional funding is being provided. These authorities were:

  Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

  Bridgend County Borough Council

  Caerphilly County Borough Council

  City and County of Cardiff

  Carmarthenshire County Council

  Ceredigion County Council

  Conwy County Borough Council

  Denbighshire County Council

  Flintshire County Council

  Gwynedd Council

  Twins

  Triplets

  Quadruplets

  Quintuplets

  Sextuplets

  All maternities

  1990

  397

  11

  1

  0

  0

  38,264

  1991

  416

  6

  0

  1

  0

  37,824

  1992

  423

  8

  0

  0

  0

  37,237

  1993

  399

  8

  1

  0

  0

  36,375

  1994

  431

  11

  0

  0

  0

  35,122

  1995

  417

  14

  1

  0

  0

  34,204

  1996

  436

  12

  1

  0

  0

  34,603

  1997

  484

  14

  3

  0

  0

  34,159

  62

  Isle of Anglesey County Council

  Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

  Monmouthshire County Council

  Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

  Newport County Borough Council

  Pembrokeshire County Council

  Powys County Council

  City and County of Swansea

  Torfaen County Borough Council

  The Vale of Glamorgan Council

  Wrexham County Borough Council

  Mid and West Wales Fire Authority

  South Wales Police Authority

  Social Exclusion

  I announced on 1 May this year a Social Exclusion Programme for Wales which will feature up to 10 pilot projects consisting of small communities within different local authority areas. The participating authorities have not yet been chosen. £750,000 is available in 1998–99 for a mix of revenue and capital expenditure.

  PFI Pathfinders

  In June 1997, we announced support for 6 "pathfinder" PFI projects proposed by local authorities in Wales. The authorities were:

  Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

  Ceredigion County Council

  Denbighshire County Council

  Newport County Borough Council

  Pembrokeshire County Council

  Wrexham County Borough Council

  The project at Blaenau Gwent was subsequently withdrawn. Each authority has been offered assistance of up to £75,000 during 1997–98 and 1998–99 to help meet the costs of engaging professional advice to help bring these projects forward.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Wales 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. [46928]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The available information on multiple maternities to Welsh residents recorded by the Office for National Statistics is as follows:
  63
  The only information on assisted conceptions leading to multiple births available from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority relates to those treated at licensed clinics in Wales rather than Welsh residents treated. The latest verified data, covering treatments in the period from 1 August 1991 (the start of the HFEA register) to 31 March 1996, record 42 multiple births.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [47014]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Welsh Office supports the mainstreaming initiative recently launched by the Ministers for Women, which will address the gender perspective in policy making. The Government of Wales Bill gives the National Assembly for Wales a duty to take the principle of equality of opportunity for all into account in exercising its functions and to report annually on how it has done so.

  Action Zones
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the initiatives undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 which have involved the establishment of(a) action zones and (b) pilot schemes limited to particular geographical areas, indicating the name of the programme and the action zone or pilot scheme areas covered in each instance. [47058]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  On 1 May this year, I announced a Social Exclusion Programme for Wales which will feature at least six, and up to ten, "demonstration projects" across Wales consisting of small communities within different local authority areas. The actual communities have not yet been selected. The total funding available for 1998–99 for this Programme is £750,000, which can be used for revenue or capital expenditure.

  On 7 November 1997, I announced the creation of three NHS locality commissioning pilot schemes in the Blaenau Gwent, Taff Ely and Teifi Valley areas. The purpose of the initiative is to explore and evaluate alternative models of locality commissioning of health services; to identify robust and viable mechanisms for a primary-care-focused commissioning function; and to increase the degree to which groups of GPs and other primary care professionals, working with local government and others, are involved in commissioning health services for their patients. The lessons may inform the process of implementing the NHS Wales White Paper "Putting Patients First".

  In July 1997, an additional £250,000 was provided for the continuation of the Welsh Office £3 million dental initiative, first launched in 1995, which has enabled Health Authorities to offer unprecedented levels of grant
  64
  (up to £50,000 in some areas) to attract new dentists into those parts of Wales where they are most needed and for the expansion of the Community Dental Service.

  Optec DD Factory
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for finding a new tenant for the previous Optec DD factory in Drury, near Buckley, Flintshire. [47417]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to him on 25 March 1998,Official Report, column 172, and 20 May 1998, Official Report, column 417.

  I understand that the owner of the premises has instructed agents to market the property with a view to finding a new occupier. The property has also been entered onto the Welsh Development Agency's North Wales property database and, if appropriate, is being put forward for any projects by potential inward investors or indigenous companies.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those(a) individuals and (b) organisations who have made representations to him on child care; and if he will make a statement; [47421]

  (2) when he proposes to announce his new proposals for child care; and if he will make a statement. [47420]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I launched our Green Paper, "The National Childcare Strategy for Wales", on Monday 22 June.

  Since I announced the Strategy last November, we have received representations on child care, either directly or through hon. Members from: (a) several individuals; (b) the following organisations: Chwarae Teg; Confederation of British Industry; Clybiau Plant Cymru; Kids' Clubs Network; Equal Opportunities Commission; Daycare Trust; Wales Pre-school Playgroups Association; Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin; Professional Association of Nursery Nurses; Vale of Clwyd Labour Party; Highway Methodist Playgroup; The Nursery, Nelson; and from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan).

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the funding allocated to Wales for the Welsh child care strategy will be divided up; and who will be responsible for allocating the money to the different sectors. [47844]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The consultation document on the National Childcare Strategy for Wales (Cmnd 3974), which I launched on 22 June, set out in full our proposals, which include funding of over £2.5 million in 1998–99. This will support a range of immediate priorities and will assist in the establishment of child care partnerships in each local authority in Wales. Work is now under way by
  65
  the Welsh Office to determine the specific allocations for local authorities and other agencies within the broad framework set out in the Strategy, and I hope to make a further announcement as soon as possible.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's role in(a) the setting of the level of the minimum wage and (b) its administration; and if he will make a statement. [47418]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government have accepted the Low Pay Commission's recommendations on the national minimum wage and the minimum wage will be implemented in April 1999. The Department will continue to play a full part in the decisions surrounding the national minimum wage and its administration.

  Putting in place the national minimum wage is a key manifesto commitment, which, along with other measures such as the Working Families Tax Credit, and the tax benefits reform, forms part of the Government's strategy to promote work incentives and to "make work pay". It will remove the worst cases of exploitation in the workplace, which have no place in modern Britain/Wales.

  River Dee Bridge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the impact of the opening of the new River Dee bridge upon the Garden City, Queensferry, Shotton and Connah's Quay communities with specific reference to(a) the percentage decrease in traffic, (b) pedestrian safety and (c) levels of pollution; and if he will make a statement. [47423]

  Mr. Hain
  These are matters for Flintshire County Council who are responsible for this scheme.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for the restoration of full development area status to North East Wales; and if he will make a statement. [47906]

  Mr. Hain
  The European Commission has recently published new guidelines affecting the designation of Assisted Areas. The Commission has asked all Member States to submit, for their approval, new maps of Assisted Areas to take effect by 1 January 2000. A Review of the current Assisted Areas map will be announced shortly. The public will be consulted.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of those aged(a) under 21, (b) 21 to 24 and (c) over 25 years and over, registered in Wales, applied through UCAS for admission to a course of higher education for the (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996, (iv) 1997 and (v) 1998 entry cycles; what were the numbers of the population in Wales aged (a) to (c) for (i) to (v); and what was the proportion of those applying as a percentage of the appropriate population cohort. [47265]
  66
  Mr. Hain
  The information is given in the following tables.

  Welsh domiciled students applying through UCAS for higher education courses

  Year

  Under 212

  21 to 24

  Age1 25 and over

  1994

  13,458

  1,904

  2,413

  1995

  13,010

  1,845

  2,474

  1996

  13,324

  1,664

  2,548

  1997

  14,532

  1,823

  2,558

  19983

  13,860

  1,157

  1,574

  1 At 30 September in year of entry

  2 Records relate to only those aged 17 to 20 (inclusive)

  3 Data incomplete. Only forms processed by UCAS up until 16 May 1998 are included

  Population in Wales, by age group1

  Year

  Under 213

  21 to 24

  Age2 25 and over

  1994

  105,700

  158,800

  1,976,500

  1995

  101,300

  153,400

  1,987,600

  1996

  98,300

  145,700

  2,000,200

  1997

  102,800

  138,400

  2,009,800

  1998

  110,700

  132,600

  2,016,100

  1Figures for 1994 to 1996 are the Office for National Statistics' mid year estimates

  2At 30 June each year

  3Population ages 18 to 20 (inclusive)

  Estimated proportions of population applying through UCAS for higher education courses

  Year

  Under 212

  21 to 24

  Age1 25 and over

  1994

  12.7

  1.2

  0.1

  1995

  12.8

  1.2

  0.1

  1996

  13.6

  1.1

  0.1

  1997

  14.1

  1.3

  0.1

  1998

  12.5

  0.9

  0.1

  1Estimates do not account for the fact that the age of UCAS applicants relates to 30 September and the ages for the population relate to 30 June

  2Calculated using population aged 18 to 20

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Exhibitions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to transport the millennium exhibitions throughout the United Kingdom. [46343]

  Mr. Mandelson
  It is too early for final decisions to be made about the future of individual exhibits beyond the year 2000, but there will be a substantial and diverse legacy from the Millennium Experience, and we hope that it might be possible for elements of the exhibits to be displayed elsewhere after 2000.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the millennium dome. [46347]
  67
  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has worked to ensure that environmental concerns properly inform the decision making process for both the construction and the operation of the Millennium Experience at Greenwich, while recognising the time and financial constraints under which the project operates. Amongst other things, the Company's environmental plan, which is being developed in consultation with the London Borough of Greenwich, is issued to all tenderers and trade contractors.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many jobs he estimates will be created in the course of constructing the Dome at Greenwich. [46341]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Dome is expected to create over 2,000 jobs during construction, on and off the site. A further 5,000 people will be employed in running the Millennium Experience during the Year 2000.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much public money he estimates will be spent on the millennium experience between now and the staging of the event. [46349]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Millennium Experience is not being funded through taxation. The cost is being met roughly half by a National Lottery grant of £399m from the Millennium Commission, and the other half by private sector sponsorship and other commercial income including visitor revenue. To date, £104.5m of the £399m grant has been spent.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the millennium experience on the local economy. [46350]

  Mr. Mandelson
  An economic impact assessment was carried out as part of the planning application process for the Dome in October 1996. This study estimated that 10,000 jobs would be created as a result of the Millennium Experience, 2,000 on construction, 5,000 during the operation and a further 3,000 as a result of the effects on supplier companies and the effects of spending by an increased level of visitors in the area.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Funds
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) organisations and (b) projects which received funding under budget lines A-3024 and A-3104 for 1997. [46071]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  EU budget lines A-3024 and A-3104 did not exist in 1997—the activities funded under these lines in 1998 came under budget line A-3030 last year. Details of individual grants made under A-3030 are contained in the Commission's "Report on Beneficiaries of Community Grants 1997", a copy of which I will place in the Libraries of the House.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government on the imprisonment of members of the Turkish National Assembly. [46516]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Our Embassy in Ankara has on several occasions raised the issue of the imprisonment of former Democracy Party members of the Grant National Assembly in its contacts with the Turkish government, and will continue to do so.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the(a) number, (b) grades, (c) originating department and (d) current roles of all civil servants assisting the Legg Inquiry. [47229]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Secretariat comprises six staff: a grade 6 officer from the Home Office (the Secretary); a grade 7 officer from the Lord Chancellor's Department (the Deputy Secretary); an executive officer; an administrative officer; and two personal secretaries, all from the Home Office.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the recent resolution from the Organisation of African Unity relating to Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement. [47574]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The authority of United Nations Security Council resolutions must be upheld. With the Governments of France and the United States, we have expressed concern to member states of the OAU at the recent resolution, and have called on them to fulfil their obligations under the United Nations Charter.

  European Policy
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the strategy meetings which have taken place at Downing Street since 11 May to discuss policy towards the European Union to which he or Ministers in his Department were invited; [47555]

  (2) if it is the practice for him to attend discussions of European policy at Downing Street. [47554]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Ministerial directions he has issued relating to the issue of export licences for the sale of British manufactured goods to Argentina since 2 May 1997. [47569]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: There have been no such ministerial directions since 2 May 1997. We continue to consider export licence applications for Argentina in line with the criteria

  69
  announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29, and the Government's announcement of 3 April 1982, Official Report, column 638, which was reported by Mr. John Biffen, the then Secretary of State for Trade, on 5 April 1982, Official Report, columns 688–90.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) additions and (b) withdrawals since 2 May 1997 to the list of countries to which his Department will not grant an export licence for the sale of British defence equipment. [47828]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A summary of Government commitments regarding the application of strategic export controls, which includes all arms embargoes observed by the UK, has been laid in the Library. As noted in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) on 28 January 1998,Official Report, columns 273–74, an updated version of the summary will be laid in the Library annually (or more frequently if policy changes require a revision).

  Licence applications for the export of conventional arms to all countries are considered on a case by case basis against the arms export criteria announced by right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29, and the European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports adopted by the General Affairs Council on 8 June 1998.

  Ramsgate-Ostend Ferries
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to seek to enforce EU Treaty obligations under Articles 90 and 86 and to secure the right for ferry passengers from Ramsgate to land freely in Ostend; and if he will make a statement. [47717]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The British Embassy in Belgium are pressing the Belgian authorities to take action to enable the Sally Direct passenger ferry service from Ramsgate to Ostend to commence as soon as possible. Whether the company has any remedies under the competition or other provisions of Community law is a matter for it and its advisers.

  Drugs Trade
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to combat the drugs trade in Central Asia. [47326]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK EU Presidency has co-ordinated Commission and Member State activity under the EU Central Asia Drugs Initiative, established in response to an Anglo-French proposal. We have participated in, and given practical support to, EU project design missions.

  Since 1995, the UK has provided £1.14 million for the UNDCP Central Asia programme. There will also be over £150,000 of drugs-related bilateral assistance to the region in 1998.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [47330]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We continue to have concerns over the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As head of an EU Ministerial Troika, I met President Kabila on 4 June. I welcomed President Kabila's assurances that his Government wish to promote and protect human rights, but made clear the extent of concern within the EU over a number of specific human rights issues.

  South China Sea
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conflicting territorial claims in the South China Sea. [47383]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei claim specific parts of the South China Sea, while China, Taiwan and Vietnam claim all of its islands, islets and reefs.

  The South China Sea is regularly discussed at meetings under the auspices of the ASEAN Regional Forum and in a series of Indonesian-initiated regional workshops.

  The UK takes no position on respective claims, but hopes disputes can be resolved peacefully.

  Cuba
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Cuba to respect human rights and the conduct of elections. [47386]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  When my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State meets visiting Cuban Government Ministers and the Cuban Ambassador, she raises political reform and human rights among other issues, in line with the EU Common Position on Cuba. She will do so again when she meets the Cuban Vice Foreign Minister, Isabel Allende, in London on 29 June. Our Embassy in Havana regularly raise these issues with the Cuban Government.

  Pakistan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of disclosure by Loral Space and Communications of information relating to the performance of Long March Rocheli on Pakistan's capability to deliver nuclear warheads. [47790]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The issues surrounding the disclosure by Loral Space, and others, of a report on Space Launch Vehicles to the Chinese is currently the subject of an investigation by the US Justice Department. It would not, therefore, be proper for us to comment on this investigation. We consider, however, that any information on Space Launch Vehicles which may have been passed to the Chinese would not immediately enhance Pakistan's current capability to deliver nuclear weapons.

  Togo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conduct of the election in Togo. [47328]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are deeply concerned about the conduct of the Presidential elections in Togo. In particular, we deplore the many irregularities with the electoral process: unequal access to the media, problems with the voter list and polling cards, the suspension of the count, the confiscation of ballot boxes by the military, the resignation of the head of the national electoral commission, and the harassment of election monitors.

  The UK as Presidency of the European Union issued a declaration on 26 June expressing these concerns and urging all parties involved to refrain from violence.

  Africa (Embassy Services)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is provided by British embassies to businesses wishing to work in Francophone Africa. [47332]

  Mr. Fatchett
  British Embassies assist businesses wishing to work in Francophone Africa by providing information on overseas markets and finding local business contacts. They also help to promote products and services, give political and economic briefings, and assist British companies that wish to participate in trade fairs and missions. For instance, the British Embassy in Cote d'Ivoire and the DTI organised a trade fair and financial conference on 2–7 March this year. This was the largest UK trade promotion event in tropical Francophone Africa in the last ten years.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is provided by British high commissions to businesses wishing to work in Anglophone Africa. [47331]

  Mr. Fatchett
  British High Commissions assist businesses wishing to work in Anglophone Africa by providing information on overseas markets and finding local business contacts. They also help to promote products and services, give political and economic briefings, and assist British companies who wish to participate in trade fairs and missions.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is provided by the High Commission in South Africa to British exporters and investors. [47334]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British High Commission in South Africa provides a full range of overseas trade services to British exporters and investors. In addition, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, together with the South African Minister for Trade and Industry, launched on 27 May, a new three-year campaign—"Britain and South Africa—partners in opportunity". This will include developing a gateway website about South Africa for potential exporters, and a new search and matching process "Active Partners", to match small and medium-sized firms in the UK and South Africa. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will also lead a trade and investment mission to South Africa from 27 to 29 July, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will co-host with the 72
  South African Minister for Trade and Industry a "Partnership Week" in Johannesburg from 14 to 17 September 1998.

  Guinea Bissau
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the safety of British citizens in Guinea Bissau. [47325]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We broadcast several emergency messages via the BBC World Service urging Britons to leave Guinea Bissau and giving them advice about how best to do this. We believe that all British nationals who wished to leave Guinea Bissau have now done so.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment of opposition parties by the Government in Guinea Bissau. [47327]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Guinea Bissau is a functioning multiparty democracy.

  Multiparty legislative elections were held for the first time in 1994. They were judged to be free and fair by international observers. There are 11 political parties registered in Guinea Bissau, including the ruling African Party for the Independence of Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde (PAIGC), of which 6 have seats in parliament. An Electoral Commission in which all parties are represented was set up in march this year, in preparation for the next legislative elections due in November 1998.

  North Korea
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of North Korea to respect human rights and the conduct of elections. [47385]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The UK does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea and no ministerial talks have been held. The question of human rights violations in North Korea was raised at official-level talks held in November 1997. Earlier rounds had covered our concerns at the consequences of personality cults and a description of the British electoral system.

  The UK, as Presidency, also co-ordinated the EU's response to the DPRK's purported denunciation, which we cannot accept, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  The DPRK has recently expressed an interest in political dialogue with the EU. We have replied that any talks would need to include the subject of human rights.

  Eritrea (British Embassy)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will remove responsibility for Eritrean affairs from the British Embassy in Addis Ababa. [47382]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The responsibility for Britain's foreign policy towards Eritrea remains with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There are no plans to replace the British Embassy in Addis Ababa as the superintending mission for the British Consulate in Asmara.

  Iraq
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received relating to adverse health effects suffered by Iraqi people as a result of the use of depleted uranium shells to attack Iraq. [45759]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are aware of a number of recent media reports which have suggested that there has been an increase in the incidence of ill-health, particularly cancers and birth defects, amongst the population in southern Iraq which some have attributed to the use of depleted uranium (DU) based ammunition by Coalition forces during the Gulf conflict. These suggestions were also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) during an adjournment debate on the Middle East on 27 March 1998, Official Report, columns 872–76. A copy of the Government's response to my hon. Friend, setting out the Government's position on this matter, has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  More recently, on 24 May, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, wrote to the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, claiming the right to compensation from the UK for damage allegedly caused by the use of DU-based ammunition by UK forces during the Gulf War. In this letter, Mr. Al-Sahaf attributed a reported increase in ill-health in Iraq to the use of DU-based ammunition.

  However, the letter contained no statistical information of any kind to substantiate these assertions. Since the Government have seen no epidemiological research data on the Iraqi population we therefore cannot comment on whether there may be an unusually high incidence of ill-health in southern Iraq. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the illnesses of the types listed in Mr. Al-Sahaf's letter—foetal malformations, bone deformities, hair loss, skin disease and child leukaemia—are uniquely associated with exposure to DU. We would of course consider carefully any medical or scientific data which was presented on this subject.

  The UK Government responded to Mr. Al-Sahaf's letter on 16 June, rebutting Iraq's claims, in a letter from the UK's Permanent Representative at the UN, Sir John Weston, to Mr. Annan. I am placing copies of the Iraqi letter and Sir John Weston's response in the Library of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. [46828]

  Dr. David Clark
  The only committee of inquiry or review established within the last four years in the Office of Public Service and chaired by an individual outside my Department was (in the then Office of Public Service and 74
  Science) the Committee to Review the Contribution of Scientists and Engineers to the Public Understanding of Science, Engineering and Technology, established in January 1995 and chaired by Sir Arnold Wolfendale FRS.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. [47012]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women on 24 June 1998,Official Report, column 557–58.

  "Opening Up Quangos"
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has received to the consultation paper "Opening Up Quangos"; and if he will make a statement. [48002]

  Dr. David Clark
  I am pleased to report that the Government' s consultation paper "Opening up Quangos" received a good response. Over 400 replies were received from a wide range of individuals and organisations and the great majority of respondents broadly supported the thrust of our proposals for keeping the number of quangos to a minimum and for making those which remain more open, accountable and effective. I believe this shows the wide support that exists for opening up this area of government hitherto perceived as undemocratic and unaccountable. Copies of all the responses received (apart from those where confidentiality has been requested) have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The results of the consultation exercise—together with further proposals for improving the accountability and transparency of quangos—are published today in my paper "Quangos: Opening the Doors". The proposals in this paper take account of all the comments received during the consultation exercise.

  The action proposed in "Quangos: Opening the Doors" will make the business of quangos more open and the appointments system more transparent and accessible. It will enhance the accountability of quangos to their stake-holders through increased consultation, open meetings and better links with local government. Taken as a whole, I believe that the reforms in "Quangos: Opening the Doors" will require all quangos to carry out their important work in line with the basic democratic principles by which we conduct public business in this country. The proposals provide a basis for quangos to command public confidence and attract new people into this important area of public life.

  I am also pleased to announce the publication today of "Opening up Public Appointments" which provides details of the work in hand to support the Government's commitment to increasing the participation of under-represented groups in public life.
  75
  The Government have agreed, in principle, the proposal for a 50:50 ratio of women and men for public appointments and a pro rata representation of members of the ethnic minorities. A central feature of this work is a plan of action requiring all Government departments to set robust targets with the aim of reaching this overall goal. As part of this process, departments have drawn up individual plans which contain specific goals and objectives for increasing the representation of women and
  76
  members of the ethnic minorities on the boards of public bodies. These cover the period 1998–2001 and will be updated annually. Future plans will specifically address the Government's overall commitments to increase representation.

  Copies of "Quangos: Opening the Doors" and "Opening up Public Appointments" will be sent to all right hon. and hon. Members as well as being placed in the Library of the House. The papers will also be made available electronically over the Internet.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Epping-Ongar Rail Line
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make his decision on the sale of the Epping to Ongar rail line. [44889]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State has given his consent to the sale and letters informing interested parties, including the hon. Member, have been issued. I hope that all parties will now support Pilot in their efforts to provide the passenger rail service that we all want to see operating on the line.

  Weald and Downland DBFO Project
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 1998,Official Report, column 442, what compensation has been paid to the four consortiums which tendered for the Weald and Downland DBFO project. [46697]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The claims from the Tenderers for the cancelled Weald and Downland DBFO project raised a number of detailed issues which will take some time finally to resolve. In the meantime, interim payments of £1.3 million (excluding VAT) have been made.

  Newsprint Recycling
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with representatives of the paper industry concerning the recycled contents of newsprint; and if he will make a statement. [46823]

  Angela Eagle
  I met the Chief Executive and Company Secretary of Aylesford Newsprint on 12 January this year. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment met representatives of the Newspaper Publishers Association on 9 February.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 mid year review

  1998–99 initial

  Local authority

  SCA as % of bid

  SCA as % of bid

  SCA as % of bid

  bid

  allocation as % of bid

  bid

  allocation as % of bid

  Isle of wight

  100

  100

  2—

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  100

  86

  93

  1,910

  73

  720

  100

  Redcar and Cleveland

  100

  86

  100

  2,875

  45

  400

  100

  Middlesbrough

  100

  91

  66

  2,806

  53

  2,284

  100

  Stockton

  100

  100

  87

  1,952

  66

  1,661

  99

  Avon

  —

  94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  —

  87

  82

  2,590

  42

  1,268

  100

  North Somerset

  —

  100

  99

  1,388

  72

  652

  100

  Banes1

  —

  100

  100

  2,444

  69

  1,280

  100

  South Gloucestershire1

  —

  100

  100

  2,255

  53

  1,000

  100

  78
  We are committed to substantial increases in recycling, and are determined to see an increase in the amount of recycled newsprint used in newspapers.

  We shall shortly be receiving the interim report of the Newspaper Publishers Association's working group examining the factors governing the optimum recycled content of newspaper. We expect to see the industry setting themselves stringent targets, and we will work with them to achieve them. We have not however ruled out the possibility of introducing legislation ourselves, perhaps under existing powers.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the bids for re-organisation costs for(a) 1994–95, (b). 1995–96, (c) 1996–97, (d) 1997–98 and (e) 1998–99, that have been made by local authorities subject to reorganisation on 1 April 1995,1996,1997 and 1998, and the proportion of the bids which were allocated supplementary credit approval cover for (a) to (e); and if he will list the capitalisation directions granted to those authorities in those same years. [47210]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies given on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 808–14, 3 November 1997, Official Report, columns 72–73 and 17 December 1997, Official Report, columns 199–200. These replies gave bids and allocations for 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98, revised allocations for 1997–98 made after the mid-year review and initial allocations for 1998–99. Supplementary credit approvals (SCA) and capitalisation directions have not yet been issued for 1997–98 or 1998–99. The capitalisation directions for earlier years have generally equalled the SCA issued unless the authority has sought a lower amount, or a higher amount which has not exceeded the net revenue element of the final audited application for SCA.

  The table lists the bids for 1997–98 and 1998–99, and the SCAs for 1994–95 to 1996–97 and allocations for 1997–98 and 1998–99 expressed as a percentage of bid.
  79

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 mid year review

  1998–99 initial

  Local authority

  SCA as % of bid

  SCA as % of bid

  SCA as % of bid

  bid

  allocation as % of bid

  bid

  allocation as % of bid

  Humberside

  —

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Hull

  —

  80

  95

  4,205

  28

  3,073

  59

  East Riding Yorkshire1

  —

  73

  96

  2,576

  97

  4,259

  100

  North Lincolnshire1

  —

  93

  100

  2,709

  44

  3,289

  100

  North East Lincolnshire1

  —

  89

  100

  2,256

  84

  1,853

  100

  North Yorkshire

  —

  68

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ryedale

  —

  2—

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Selby

  —

  100

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  York1

  —

  91

  100

  800

  100

  0

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  0

  88

  1,046

  95

  —

  —

  Luton

  —

  0

  73

  3,874

  90

  1,973

  100

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  0

  2—

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes

  —

  0

  100

  3,614

  83

  2,250

  100

  Derbyshire

  —

  0

  99

  650

  100

  —

  —

  Derby City

  —

  0

  78

  3,025

  97

  1,602

  100

  Dorset

  —

  —

  2—

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  Bournemouth

  —

  0

  100

  2,900

  100

  500

  100

  Poole

  —

  0

  91

  3,300

  91

  1,100

  100

  Durham

  —

  —

  2—

  350

  100

  —

  —

  Darlington

  —

  0

  100

  2,794

  71

  993

  100

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  73

  2,641

  76

  —

  —

  Brighton and Hove1

  —

  0

  52

  4,721

  85

  1,207

  100

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  72

  2,884

  55

  —

  —

  Portsmouth

  —

  0

  84

  2,600

  100

  1,695

  100

  Southampton

  —

  0

  76

  4,586

  70

  2,185

  100

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  100

  1,444

  76

  —

  —

  Leicester City

  —

  0

  82

  3,490

  89

  —

  —

  Rutland

  —

  —

  100

  1,160

  100

  1,065

  100

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  38

  729

  99

  —

  —

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  0

  72

  2,725

  95

  1,348

  100

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  83

  506

  79

  —

  —

  Swindon

  —

  0

  47

  2,720

  73

  902

  100

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  0

  9,801

  42

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  0

  4,202

  50

  13

  0

  Newbury

  —

  —

  0

  2,843

  84

  2—

  —

  Reading

  —

  —

  0

  6,901

  43

  2,081

  100

  Slough

  —

  —

  0

  5,658

  46

  1,781

  100

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  0

  4,000

  55

  2—

  —

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  —

  7,431

  47

  2,262

  100

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  2,735

  84

  —

  —

  Hereford City

  —

  —

  —

  375

  67

  —

  —

  Leominster

  —

  —

  —

  679

  51

  —

  —

  Malvern Hills

  —

  —

  —

  900

  67

  —

  —

  South Herefordshire

  —

  —

  —

  275

  73

  —

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  —

  4,888

  61

  5,155

  100

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  2,527

  91

  1,150

  100

  Malvern Hills (new)

  —

  —

  —

  385

  100

  360

  100

  Devon

  —

  —

  —

  4,404

  68

  715

  100

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  6,286

  46

  10,109

  100

  Torbay

  —

  —

  —

  8,186

  41

  6,396

  100

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  6,727

  42

  2,683

  100

  Southend on Sea

  —

  —

  —

  5,155

  57

  1,690

  100

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  0

  4,737

  60

  3,067

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  3,617

  66

  3,334

  100

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  0

  5,694

  54

  3,920

  100

  80 81

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 mid year review

  1998–99 initial

  Local authority

  SCA as % of bid

  SCA as % of bid

  SCA as % of bid

  bid

  allocation as % of bid

  bid

  allocation as % of bid

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  5,605

  45

  3,345

  68

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  3,547

  70

  2,832

  100

  Warrington

  —

  —

  —

  6,205

  53

  3,013

  100

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  3,156

  66

  1,400

  71

  The Wrekin

  —

  —

  —

  6,803

  44

  4,301

  100

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  4,697

  68

  986

  76

  Medway Towns

  —

  —

  —

  8,939

  45

  5,674

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  1,863

  75

  320

  100

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  —

  5,429

  63

  2,204

  100

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  5,290

  53

  1,465

  100

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  0

  5,468

  58

  3,349

  100

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  —

  6,202

  48

  3,188

  100

  1Includes allocations to predecessor authorities

  2No bid

  Action Zones
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the initiatives undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 which have involved the establishment of(a) action zones and (b) pilot schemes limited to particular geographical areas, indicating the name of the programme and the action zone or pilot scheme areas covered in each instance. [47052]

  Angela Eagle
  There have been no initiatives announced by my Department since 1 May 1997 to establish new area based regeneration "action zones". However, in the recent Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £15 million funding for New Deal for Communities pathfinder projects for 1998–99. My Department is taking forward the development of the New Deal for Communities initiative in England with the Treasury, the Social Exclusion Unit and other Government Departments. The exact location of these projects is yet to be decided.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in reply to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) about Best Value pilots and the Joint Commissioning of new social housing schemes on 11 June 1998, Official Report, columns 632–34.

  UN World Environment Day
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives the Government took to promote the UN World Environment Day on 5 June. [47221]

  Angela Eagle
  Advertising specifically promoting World Environment Day ran in the national press and on radio on 4 and 5 June as an extension to the Are you doing your bit? advertising campaign which took place during March and April this year. My Department also launched its Climate Change Impacts programme. To draw further attention to World Environment Day, the Deputy Prime Minister, as President of the EU's Environment Council, visited both the Donana National Park in Spain and the site nearby caused by a serious spillage of chemical waste.

  Cleaner Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had, and with whom, on the production of less-polluting motor vehicles. [47336]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers from my Department have held discussions with vehicle manufacturers, component suppliers, environmental groups and trade associations on the production of less polluting vehicles. These discussions are being undertaken both within the context of the EU's strategy on CO2 emissions and the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force which the Government have established, in conjunction with industry and other bodies, and which is looking in particular at what action can be taken to improve fuel efficiency and reduce vehicle pollution. These organisations have also been involved in discussions on the EU's Auto-Oil directives, which set more stringent emissions standards for new vehicles.

  Shipping Industry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the results of the working group investigating the shipping industry. [47320]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A shipping paper based on the work of the shipping working group will be published shortly after the Integrated Transport White Paper.

  Government Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the use of compressed natural gas in Government fleet vehicles. [47414]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government Car Service announced last year that they would be converting all the cars in their fleet to run on compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas as the cars were replaced. The Government have also taken a number of other steps to encourage the use of road fuel gases more generally, including freezing the duty on these fuels in two
  83
  successive budgets and providing funding for the Energy Saving's Trust's Powershift programme which aims to create a sustainable market for alternative fuels.

  North West Water
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for the period from 1989 to date those works carried out by North West Water to achieve environmental improvements which were(a) required by statute and (b) undertaken without statutory requirement by the company; and if he will publish the cost benefit information on the works listed in each category. [47540]

  Angela Eagle
  Government set the statutory framework for water quality standards. The Environment Agency, through its monitoring and enforcement functions, has responsibility for ensuring that the water quality standards set by statute are met. It is for the privatised water companies to determine how those standards are met. In some cases, water companies may elect to exceed statutory requirements. The Director General of Water Services, as financial regulator of the privatised water companies, has responsibility for ensuring that water companies meet both statutory requirements and discretionary improvements in a cost-effective manner.

  Information on the works undertaken to meet statutory requirements and discretionary improvements is not held centrally.

  Name of agency

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Highways Agency

  —

  —

  2,115,465

  1,854,510

  1,651,520

  1,555,145

  Vehicle Certification Agency1

  -93

  -96

  -250

  -22

  -44

  -120

  Maritime & Coastguard Agency2

  —

  —

  79,238

  83,393

  88,747

  83,247

  Vehicle Inspectorate3

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Driving Standards Agency4

  1,629

  1,540

  1,567

  1,050

  921

  1

  Planning Inspectorate

  21,296

  25,661

  23,065

  24,579

  21,238

  22,951

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  685

  6,951

  6,561

  6,171

  4,792

  7,484

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  162,617

  165,226

  172,095

  173,345

  178,342

  155,041

  1This Agency was subject to a net running cost control regime and receipts more than offset voted expenditure

  2Launched on 1 April 1994 as two agencies (Coastguard Agency and Marine Safety Agency). The two agencies were merged on 1 April 1998

  3The Inspectorate operates as a trading fund and has only a token Vote

  4The Agency commenced operation as a trading fund with effect from 1 April 1997

  Grant-in-aid (in £000s) paid to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department in 1992–93

  Name of body

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994‒95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Housing Corporation

  2,303,900

  2,539,987

  2,098,693

  1,732,140

  1,655,398

  1,476,477

  Castle Vale HAT

  —

  2,000

  6,400

  11,787

  11,464

  18,800

  Liverpool HAT

  —

  16,000

  13,715

  17,340

  20,750

  18,800

  North Hull HAT

  —

  26,500

  27,450

  17,000

  17,000

  2,381

  Stonebridge HAT

  —

  —

  850

  2,750

  5,320

  9,000

  Tower Hamlets HAT

  —

  8,600

  6,900

  10,043

  9,800

  10,000

  Waltham Forest HAT

  —

  22,000

  36,650

  23,168

  22,530

  30,100

  Black Country UDC

  59,650

  52,150

  40,000

  23,500

  20,800

  20,000

  Birmingham Heartlands UDC

  5,490

  10,200

  7,500

  8,500

  8,000

  —

  Bristol UDC

  22,900

  12,800

  8,000

  —

  —

  —

  Central Manchester UDC

  17,225

  6,500

  8,800

  6,125

  —

  —

  Leeds UDC

  7,790

  4,700

  3,591

  —

  —

  —

  London Docklands UDC

  156,455

  105,364

  70,700

  64,500

  54,680

  59,600

  Merseyside UDC

  32,000

  22,447

  17,000

  20,600

  15,950

  18,300

  Advanced Driving Instructors
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost to the Driving Standards Agency of tests for advanced driving instructors in each of the last two financial years. [47509]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) it is necessary to pass a driving theory test, a practical test of driving ability and a practical test of instructional ability. Qualified ADIs are then subject to regular check testing of their continued ability to give instruction. The costs for the separate tests for the past two years were as follows:

  £

  1996/97

  1997/98

  Theory test

  232,700

  158,640

  Practical driving and instructional ability tests

  681,678

  963,041

  Check tests

  786,939

  1,332,614

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the payments per annum since 1992 to(a) those executive agencies with which his Department has framework contracts and (b) those non-departmental public bodies which are sponsored by his Department. [47455]

  Angela Eagle
  Net Voted expenditure (in £000s) for the years 1992–93 to 1997–98 by those executive agencies which are currently part of the Department, Transport and the Regions was as follows:

  to 1996–97, and provision for grant-in-aid for 1997–18, was as follows
  85

  Name of body

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Plymouth UDC

  —

  7,858

  8,139

  9,450

  7,264

  11,836

  Sheffield UDC

  13,185

  12,000

  9,700

  8,600

  7,800

  —

  Teesside UDC

  40,255

  37,000

  30,000

  28,600

  28,617

  28,884

  Trafford Park UDC

  31,600

  30,600

  22,700

  25,139

  22,100

  —

  Tyne & Wear UDC

  44,055

  41,500

  31,302

  27,900

  24,700

  27,600

  Docklands Light Railway

  84,383

  28,091

  29,110

  37,100

  20,670

  32,500

  English Partnerships

  —

  21,728

  118,306

  155,721

  210,965

  250,779

  Countryside Commission

  42,600

  44,354

  47,192

  42,212

  25,439

  24,093

  Rural Development Commission

  16,800

  19,965

  41,208

  38,791

  40,805

  41,464

  English Nature

  38,100

  38,819

  40,177

  40,419

  39,186

  38,853

  National Forest Company

  —

  —

  —

  1,882

  2,000

  2,500

  UK Eco-labelling Board

  —

  676

  775

  842

  986

  863

  National Rivers Authority

  74,700

  61,248

  60,264

  58,200

  —

  —

  Environment Agency

  —

  —

  —

  5,500

  111,917

  112,573

  Health & Safety Executive/Commission

  —

  —

  176,359

  180,700

  177,635

  180,957

  Traffic Director for London

  1,758

  8,529

  10,676

  13,456

  17,456

  21,890

  London Regional Passenger Committee

  —

  —

  459

  471

  553

  523

  HAT—Housing Action Trust

  UDC—Urban Development Corporation

  Nuclear Material (Trains)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what appraisal he has made of safety factors in relation to the carriage of nuclear waste by train in the United Kingdom. [47467]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The safety standards for the transport of nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel are already extremely high. They are based upon the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the excellent safety record is maintained. The Government are active in, and will continue to support, the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the other international bodies that regulate the carriage of radioactive material, including the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the level of radiation emitted from trains carrying nuclear material. [47432]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The radiation level from trains carrying nuclear material during normal operations is limited by Regulation to a maximum of 2 milliSievert/h at any point on the wagon outer surfaces, or the vertical planes projected from the outer edges of open wagons and to 0.1 milliSievert/h at a distance of 2 metres from those surfaces.

  In a major study of road and rail transport (Radiation Exposure from the Normal Transport of Radioactive Materials within the United Kingdom, 1991 Review, by R. Gelder, National Radiological Protection Board Report NRPB-R255, ISBN 0 85951 351 3) the scenario of a householder living 100 metres from a marshalling yard where fuel flasks may be held for several hours, was assessed to give rise to a maximum annual dose of 6 microSievert. The maximum dose to persons living closer (50 metres) to a railway line with passing traffic (where exposure times would be very much shorter) was assessed to be very much lower. For comparison, the average annual dose in the UK due to natural background radiation is about 2000 microSievert.
  86
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, for each of the last five years, the number of accidents involving trains carrying nuclear material, within a five mile radius of Warrington. [47430]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: During the last five years there have been no accidents involving trains whilst carrying nuclear material in the Warrington area. There have, however, been three incidents involving trains transporting empty irradiated nuclear fuel flasks from Sellafield to UK nuclear power stations:

  1. December 1994
  A flatrol carrying an empty flask was derailed at Walton Old Junction.

  2. December 1995
  Electrical arcing was observed from a wagon attached to a nuclear flask train (but not itself carrying a flask) whilst in Arpley sidings.

  3. March 1998
  A buffer wagon (not a flatrol carrying a flask) was derailed following a low speed collision at Arpley sidings.

  In no case was there any release of radioactive materials.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average number of trains per week carrying nuclear waste which pass through Warrington. [47431]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: Nuclear waste as such is not generally transported by train through Warrington. However, flasks carrying irradiated nuclear fuel regularly pass along the west coast main line through Warrington. There has never been a radiological incident involving the release of radioactivity from these trains.

  An average of 2 trains per week, carrying between them an average of 9 flasks per week, pass through Warrington carrying irradiated nuclear fuel from UK nuclear power stations to Sellafield. A similar number of empty flasks is also transported through Warrington in the return direction.
  87
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many rail journeys are undertaken each year in the United Kingdom in which radioactive material is carried from(a) Sellafield, (b) Dounreay, (c) Hartlepool, (d) Dungeness and (e) Hinkley Point. [47745]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  For the calendar year 1997, the number of such journeys are estimated as follows:

  (a) Sellafield: 133

  (b) Dounreay: Nil

  (c) Hartlepool: 25

  (d) Dungeness: 85

  (e) Hinkley Point: 72.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent measurements he has evaluated in respect of the level of radioactivity found on the outside of rail wagons used for the transport of radioactive material. [47715]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Measurements of non-fixed contamination on the outside of rail wagons used to transport irradiated fuel flasks by UK operators have shown no instances of contamination exceeding the regulatory limit of 4 Becquerels/cm2ßγ during the period January 1997 to the end of the first quarter of 1998.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government's consultation document on energy efficiency will be issued. [47800]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government plan to issue a consultation paper later this summer on policy options for meeting the UK's climate change targets. This will focus on the Government's legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period 2008–2012, and also look at measures which could deliver the Government's aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010. The scope for greater energy efficiency in business, the public sector and households will be an important feature of this paper.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated change in air traffic into and out of the United Kingdom over each of the next five years. [47586]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority's latest base case air traffic forecasts for commercial flights within UK airspace for the next five years are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Number of Commercial Flights (000s)

  1998–99

  1,734.0

  1999–2000

  1,758.8

  2000–2001

  1,813.3

  2001–2002

  1,891.8

  2002–2003

  1,973.0

  Council Ward Boundaries
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions each year since 1983 the Local Government Commission for England has conducted an interim (non-periodic) review of council ward boundaries; for which councils; and for what reasons. [47682]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1992, when the Local Government Commission was established, it has undertaken no non-periodic reviews of council ward boundaries, other than those associated with local government structure reviews.

  Greenwich Peninsula (Cable Car)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contracts have been signed in relation to the proposed cable car across the Thames at Greenwich peninsula. [47784]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The proposed cable car across the Thames at the Greenwich peninsula is a private-sector project. The company promoting it, Meridian Cable Cars Limited, has already obtained planning consent and is in discussions with the New Millennium Experience Company in regard to a lease for the area where it would 'land' close to the Dome. Whether the project goes ahead depends very much on the promoter's ability to raise the necessary funds.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the operating capacity of the Jubilee Line extension will be on 1 January 2000 in(a) trains and (b) passengers per hour. [47788]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  By 1 January 2000, LT plan to be able to run 24 6-car trains per hour in each direction on the Jubilee Line Extension. This will provide a capacity of well over 24,000 passengers per hour in each direction.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the Jubilee Line extension. [47789]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Tunnelling and tracklaying for the Jubilee Line Extension are complete. The new trains are in service on the existing Jubilee Line. Work on station fit-out and electrical and mechanical equipment is well under way. On-site testing of the signalling and communications software has begun. LT have undertaken a thorough review of the programme and plan to open the entire line in spring 1999.

  Greenwich Peninsula (Bathing Facilities)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to provide bathing facilities on the Greenwich peninsula. [47785]

  Angela Eagle
  None.

  Globe Conference
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Globe Conference held in Aarhus, Denmark. [47782]

  Mr. Meacher
  I attended the Aarhus Conference for Parliamentarians, "Our Common European Garden in 1998", for the Ministerial Panel, organised by Globe Europe on 22 June. The conference reaffirmed the central role played by Parliamentarians in progressing sustainable development, and was a useful contribution to the Aarhus Environment for Europe Conference which began the following day. Parliamentarians from 37 countries agreed a set of conclusions from the Globe Conference, covering the Environment for Europe conference, sustainable development in Europe, endocrine disrupters, climate change and energy efficiency, and the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

  Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what checks are presently carried out on(a) approved chemicals and (b) chemicals for which approval is sought to assess their potential for endocrine disruption. [47779]

  Angela Eagle
  Pesticides represent the major class of chemicals for which formal approval is required before they can be used and which may be present in the environment. The UK Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR) (1986) (amended) is currently operated alongside the EC Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC), which is implemented in the UK by the Plant Protection Products Regulations (1995) (amended). Annex II to the Directive states that possible effects on all aspects of reproductive physiology in both males and females, as well as possible effects on pre-natal and post-natal development, must be investigated and reported.

  Approved chemicals are subject to a review procedure, which may include assessment of their endocrine disrupting potential.

  For veterinary medicines, all applications for marketing authorisations must meet statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. In this context, safety includes to the operator as well as the health and welfare of the treated animal, to the consumer of any food products from treated animals and to the environment.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research the Government have initiated into endocrine disrupting chemicals. [47777]

  Angela Eagle
  New research programmes, totalling over £3 million, to study (a) trends in male reproductive health and the possible influence of chemicals and (b) endocrine disruption in the marine environment have been initiated jointly by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, other Government Departments and Agencies and the European Chemical Industry Council.
  90
  In addition, DETR has initiated research into non-reproductive effects of endocrine disruption in wildlife and recently contributed to an Environment Agency led study of the effects of endocrine disrupters on reproduction in wild fish.

  Government Departments and Agencies also support a range of projects on chemicals with known or suspected endocrine disrupting properties including tributyltin (TBT), dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the chemicals(a) known to cause endocrine disruption and (b) suspected of causing endocrine disruption. [47778]

  Angela Eagle
  The Institute for Environment and Health and the Environment Agency have listed some individual substances within the following chemical categories as having endocrine disrupting activity; naturally produced female sex steroid hormones, synthetic steroid hormones, phytoestrogens (naturally occurring chemicals found in plans), polychlorinated organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, organotins, alkylphenols, alkylphenol ethoxylates (short chain), phthalates and biphenolic compounds. Within each category there are also related substances suspected of having endocrine activity, but for which the data are not yet adequate to allow a definitive conclusion.

  Other categories of substances, including some pesticides, are also suspected of having endocrine disrupting activity.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the content of, and decisions reached at, the third meeting of green ministers. [47780]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 8 June, Green Ministers met for the third time, to consider the next stage of the Greening Government Initiative.

  We agreed that we should continue to meet three times a year. Starting in the next Parliamentary Session in the Autumn, we will announce our main programme of work for the coming year to progress policy integration, environmental appraisal and greening operations.

  Ministers are keen to find the best way of publicly reporting progress. We discussed a number of options and will reach a final view in the light of the forthcoming report on Greening Government by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee.

  Green Ministers considered the role of sustainable development indicators. We welcomed the work that had already been done involving a large number of stakeholders both within and outside Government and emphasised the need to ensure that the links between economic, social and environmental areas are easily understood.

  We also noted progress in implementing the green operations model policy and improvement programme and green transport plans. Now that these plans were in place Government Departments needed to play a leading role across the UK in helping green business operations.
  91
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Ministers attended the Third Meeting of Green Ministers; and which Ministers were represented by officials. [47781]

  Mr. Meacher
  I chaired the third meeting of the group on 8 June 1998 and the following Green Ministers attended:

  Department

  Green Minister

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Jeff Rooker MP

  Culture, Media and Sport

  Mark Fisher MP

  Defence

  John Spellar MP

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Glenda Jackson MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Derek Fatchett MP

  Health

  Tessa Jowell MP

  Home Office

  Mike O'Brien MP

  Law Officers

  The Lord Falconer QC

  Lord Chancellor's

  Geoff Hoon MP

  Office of Public Service

  Peter Kilfoyle MP

  Social Security

  John Denham MP

  Trade and Industry

  John Battle MP

  Note:

  The Scottish and Welsh Offices were represented by Henry MacLeish MP and Peter Hain MP respectively

  The Chancellor's Departments, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department for International Development and the Northern Ireland Office were represented by officials.

  Public Participation Convention
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he plans to take to implement the Convention on Public Participation, Access to Information and Access to Justice. [47774]

  Mr. Meacher
  On behalf of the UK, I signed the UNECE Convention on Public Participation, Access to Information and Access to Justice on 25 June 1998. The Convention will become legally binding when we ratify it. We are developing our strategy on how best to implement the Convention and we will have the necessary measures in place before ratification.

  Our consultation paper on a revised sustainable development strategy highlighted access to information and public participation as important for the achievement of sustainable development and we will be considering these issues further in light of the consultation responses.

  The Government's proposals for a new Freedom of Information Act will also be an important measure for the implementation of the Convention.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the representations from other countries his Department has received since 1 May 1997 in respect of the Sellafield reprocessing facility. [47746]

  Angela Eagle
  Since 1 May 1997, the Department has received the following representations in respect of the Sellafield reprocessing facility, the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP): one letter from Germany, one from France, one from Ireland and two from Denmark.

  Millennium Experience Site
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost of decontaminating the Millennium Experience site at Greenwich to date. [46345]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 30 July 1997,Official Report, column 412.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what impact he expects the Millennium Experience at Greenwich to have on the local transport system. [46344]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 1 June 1998,Official Report, columns 33–34.

  Green-Field Land
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much green-field land he estimates has been sold, and for how much, in England in each of the last five years. [47735]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information is not held centrally on the amounts and value of green field land sold.

  Non-fuel-powered Cars
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on public funding to manufacturers to establish or expand(a) fuel cell, (b) electric and (c) solar car or component factories in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [47725]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Funding to develop new technologies for the automotive industry is available under the DTI Foresight vehicle LINK programme and fuel cells are also supported under the Advanced Fuels Cells Programme.

  The DETR is providing £6.5 million to the Energy Savings Trust's Powershift programme to help stimulate the market for alternative fuels by providing grants towards the purchase of alternatively fuelled vehicles produced with proven technology which is already in the market place.

  The DTI provides Regional Selective assistance for the safeguard and creation of jobs in Assisted Areas. All manufacturing industries could be eligible for support except those which are subject to special EU restrictions.

  Housing (Planning Permission)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning permissions have been granted in each of the last five years in England for developments of(a) up to 100, (b) up to 500 and (c) up to 1,000 homes. [47724]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Information on the number of applications granted for planning permission for minor
  93
  and major dwellings developments is available from my department's quarterly statistics of planning applications. Figures for 1993 to 1997 are shown in the table.

  Applications granted for planning permission

  Thousands

  Year

  Minor dwellings developments1

  Major dwellings developments1

  All dwellings developments

  1993

  38.4

  7.1

  45.4

  1994

  40.6

  7.1

  47.7

  1995

  37.6

  6.3

  43.9

  1996

  34.6

  5.8

  40.4

  1997

  35.5

  6.0

  41.4

  1A major dwellings development involves the construction of 10 or more dwellings or, where the number is not given in the application, the area of the site is more than 0.5 hectares. A minor dwellings development is one which does not meet the criteria for major development

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the amount of(a) CO2, (b) SO2, (c) NORx, (d) fine particulates, (e) black smoke and (f) radiation emitted as a result of the burning of 25 mt. coal per annum in power stations. [47608]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency has advised that the quantity of pollutants emitted from burning 25 million tonnes of coal are estimated to be as follows:

  (a) Carbon dioxide: the quantity of CO2 released will be dependent on the ash content of the coal but is likely to be approximately 55 million tonnes per annum.

  (b) Sulphur dioxide: the quantity of SO2 released will depend on the sulphur content of the coal utilised, the relative proportions of coal burnt at power stations fitted with Flue-Gas Desulphurisation units compared with unabated stations and the extent to which other abatement techniques are introduced. Depending on these factors the quantity of SO2 released is likely to be between 340 kilotonnes and 510 kilotonnes per annum.

  (c) Oxides of nitrogen: following completion of the current improvement programme to reduce emissions, releases of nitrogen oxides from coal fired power stations are likely to be approximately 160 kilotonnes per annum.

  (d) Fine Particulates: the quantity of particulates released will depend to some extent on the quality of coal burnt, the relative proportions of coal burnt at power stations fitted with Flue-Gas Desulphurisation units compared with unabated stations and the extent to which plants are able to reduce emissions as a result of the ongoing improvement programme. Based on current performance, the quantity released is likely to be approximately 14 kilotonnes per annum.

  (e) Black smoke: the term black smoke refers to the extent to which a sample of air is able to blacken a filter. The quantity released will depend on similar factors to those affecting the release of particulates and is estimated very approximately to be 6.25 kilotonnes per annum.

  (f) Radiation: the amount of radiation released, depending on the ash content of the coal and flue gas clean-up measures, is estimated very approximately to be 0.5 Tera-becquerels (TBq) per annum.

  Benefit Fraud (Data Matching)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage local authorities to use data matching 94
  techniques with respect to benefit fraud which also require access to medical records, as provided for by the Audit Commission Bill 1998.[47380]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Whilst we welcome any progress in counteracting all types of fraud, it is for the Audit Commission and local authorities to decide the best approach to adopt in any particular case, having regard to their statutory powers and to the measures available to them, including data matching techniques.

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the public registers which his Department has responsibility for. [47355]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not held centrally.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the consultation paper on leasehold reform. [47721]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Later this year.

  Ramsgate-Ostend Ferries
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to facilitate the landing of Sally Line passengers from Ramsgate in Ostend; and if he will make a statement. [47716]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department is liaising with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in pressing the Belgian authorities to take action to enable the Sally Direct passenger ferry service from Ramsgate to Ostend to begin as soon as possible.

  Wembley Park Underground Station
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in upgrading Wembley Park Underground Station as part of the preparations associated with the bid to host the World Cup in 2006. [47719]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a Public/Private Partnership for London Underground and an additional £365 million of funding for London Transport over the next two years. LT and the Government have been considering together what additional investment projects should go ahead in the next two years. London Underground has proposals for a comprehensive redevelopment of Wembley Park Station, including improved platforms, canopies, ticket hall, staircase and walkway. Subject to that review, and securing substantial contributions from outside parties, London Underground has indicated that construction of the Wembley Park Station redevelopment could start in 1999–2000.

  Cycling
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent steps
  95
  he has taken to encourage (a)(i) Ministers, (ii) officials and (iii) employees of his Department and (b) other Ministers to use bicycles. [47834]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The upper limit on salary advances to staff for purchase of bicycles and associated equipment was increased in April 1998. Staff cycling to work on National Bike to Work day were welcomed at DETR headquarters buildings with a bike breakfast. Further encouragement to use bicycles for business travel should stem from Green Transport Plans being developed for DETR premises.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of journeys to work in London are made by bicycle. [47831]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  According to the Department's most recent National Travel Survey 1994 –96: for that period, an average of 2.7 per cent. of people living and working in London, travelled to work by bicycle.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of dedicated cycle lanes separated from other traffic there are in London. [47830]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Taking together the London Cycle Network, the Thames Cycle Route, the priority (Red Routes) programme and other measures on London's trunk roads, approximately 225 miles of cycle lanes were in place by March 1998. Specific information on dedicated routes separated from other traffic is not held centrally, nor are details of cycle lanes provided by highway authorities on local roads outside of the LCN and red route Network.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that trains arriving in London terminals are able to carry bicycles. [47836]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In general, services arriving in London are able to carry bicycles except during the morning commuter peak. It would be impracticable to require franchisees to make facilities available on all services because, on busy local and commuter networks, passenger capacity is of prime importance to both operators and passengers. The provisions in the franchise agreements therefore strike a balance between the desire for operators to accommodate cyclists whilst acknowledging that it may not always be possible for them to do so. The Franchising Director, as part of his remit under the Objectives, Instructions and Guidance issued last year, discusses with franchisees the provision of space for bicycles on new trains.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of his Department's buildings in London have parking racks for bicycles available for use by visitors. [47833]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Bicycle parking facilities are available at Eland House, Ashdown House (V), Great Minister House, Riverwalk House and St. Christopher House. The facilities are available to all Departmental employees, pass holders and visitors on a first come first served basis. There are no reserved spaces.
  96
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with Westminster Council about bicycle traffic in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement. [47835]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Deputy Prime Minister met representatives of Westminster City Council in March 1998 to review progress on the "World Squares for All" Masterplan. The Masterplan covers the main routes in the vicinity of the palace of Westminster, and makes a number of proposals to assist cyclists.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of journeys to school in London are made on bicycles. [47832]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  According to the Department's most recent National Travel Survey 1994 –96: for that period, an average of 1.3 per cent. of children aged 4 –16 living in London, travelled by bicycle for the purpose of education.

  Irish Sea (Pollution)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the cost of monitoring pollution levels in the Irish Sea in each of the past 10 years. [47739]

  Angela Eagle
  A number of agencies collaborate under the National Marine Monitoring Plan in monitoring pollution in the seas around the United Kingdom. It is not possible to disaggregate the activities in respect of any particular area of the sea.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total tonnage of sewage sludge dumping in Liverpool Bay in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [47740]

  Angela Eagle
  These figures are set out in the Reports of the Group Coordinating Sea Disposal Monitoring, published by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) in their Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report series, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of algal blooms in Liverpool Bay. [47743]

  Angela Eagle
  There is a high level of nutrient input into Liverpool Bay. This supports the growth of algal and the development of intense and regular algal blooms. The occurrence of these blooms in Liverpool Bay has been known for sometime and is reported in a variety of Environment Agency publications. Some of these bloom can cause a nuisance through foam formation on beaches but blooms of harmful algal which produce toxins do not occur.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a)statutory and (b)] non-statutory bodies that have monitored pollution levels in the Irish Sea in each of the past 10 years. [47744]
  97
  Angela Eagle
  A number of monitoring reports covering the Irish Sea have been produced over the past 10 years. The information contained in these are drawn from different Government Departments, Agencies and other organisations who carry out monitoring under the UK National Monitoring Plan. The main reports are as follows:

  1) Irish Sea status report produced by the Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group (MPMMG) in 1987 (R. R. Dixon Lowestoft);

  2) A review of radioactivity in the Irish Sea (Kershaw et al Lowestoft 1992);

  3) Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report No. 32.

  In addition, a new Irish Sea Quality Status report is being developed by both the UK and Irish Governments for incorporation within the Oslo and Paris Commission's (OSPAR) Quality Status Report 2000. This will be the first overall assessment of the marine environment in the North East Atlantic area since the 1992 OSPAR Convention came into force.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on co-operation between the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government on monitoring pollution in the Irish Sea. [47742]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has been working with the Department of the Environment and the Department of the Marine of the Republic of Ireland for a number of years. These Departments, together with the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, funded a three-year project to review research and monitoring in the Irish Sea, under an Irish Sea Science Co-ordinator. His third report was published in 1995 and identified gaps in research on the Irish Sea. These conclusions have informed my Department's decisions on funding research in this area.

  In addition, the relevant Government Departments in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and in the Republic of Ireland are jointly taking the lead in the production of a Regional Quality Status Report on the Celtic Seas, including the Irish Sea. This report is one of the five regional reports on which the Quality Status Report of the North East Atlantic, which is being prepared by the OSPAR Commission, will be based.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Jonus programme; and what are the future funding levels for the programme over the next five years. [47791]

  Angela Eagle
  The Jonus I research programme, which ended in December 1995, has led to a better understanding of the flux of nutrients (particularly nitrogen) from the land, through the Humber and Wash, to the North Sea, especially in relation to the nitrification/denitrification processes in estuaries. The work has indicated that algal blooms of phytoplankton only occur when tidal energy is below a certain level and light levels are sufficiently high.98
  The data collected from Jonus I, together with data collected from similar work conducted under the Southern Nutrient Study (Sonus), has also been analysed under a modelling contract which ended on 31 October 1997. A follow-on Jonus/Sonus modelling contract was let in early 1998 and is scheduled to end on 31 March 1999. In addition, the Jonus II programme, which ends on 28 February 1999, aims to quantify the impact of nutrients discharged from land-based sources on the Irish Sea and from the Thames.

  The estimated funding, supported by a number of agencies, is £148,000 for the follow-on Jonus/Sonus modelling contract and £487,955 for Jonus II.

  Decisions remain to be taken on what further work would be justified in this field.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if information on marine pollution collected by(a) the Environment Agency, (b) the MAFF and (c) local authorities is collected on a central database. [47741]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the UK National Marine Monitoring Plan, a central data base is being set up by the Environment Agency, with the support of My Department. This holds all the relevant data collected under the plan from 1993.

  Plankton Recording
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the international 60-year programme of continuous plankton recording around the British Isles. [47736]

  Angela Eagle
  The continuous Plankton Recorder Survey was started by Sir Alister Hardy in the North Sea in 1931. It is now operated by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth. The survey is funded by an international consortium. My Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are long-term supporters of this work. They met approximately 40 per cent. of the costs of the core survey in 1997. The survey is one of the most important sources of information about long-term trends in the marine environment. Recent work suggests that changes in plankton frequency over recent decades may be linked to changes in the temperature of the North Atlantic.

  Algal Blooms
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations of algal blooms in United Kingdom waters ranked in order of severity. [47792]

  Angela Eagle
  Regular monitoring of coastal waters for the presence of potentially harmful algae is carried out under the EU Shellfish Hygiene Directive by the three UK Fisheries Laboratories. Reports of the results from each monitoring site, including the absence or concentration of toxic algae when present, are published annually and are available from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).

  Rural Transport Grant
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to apply the rural sparsity criteria used to allocate the £50 million rural transport grant to the calculation of standard spending assessments. [47571]

  Ms Armstrong
  Standard spending assessments (SSAs) take account of the population living in wards and enumeration districts in which the density is between 0.5 and 4 persons per hectare, and those in which the density is less than 0.5 per hectare, with the latter being given a double weight. The support for rural public transport takes account of the population living outside built-up areas of 3,000 or more people.

  We have no plans to change the measure used in the calculation of SSAs.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria were used to define rural sparsity in the allocation of the £50 million rural transport grant. [47572]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In this year's Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional spending of £50 million a year for rural public transport in the UK. England's share (under the well-established Barnett formula) is £41.7 million. Of that amount, £4.2 million will be devoted to rural community-based transport schemes, £5 million to a rural bus challenge competition for local authorities later this year, and £32.5 million to local authorities for the subsidy of rural bus services.

  Under Special Grant proposals now laid before the House, the £32.5 million will be distributed in proportion to the rural population in each eligible local authority area. 'Rural population' is defined as those living outside built-up areas of 3,000 people or more as shown by the 1991 census.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria determined the shift of resources in standard spending assessments from shire areas to metropolitan areas in the current financial year. [47573]

  Ms Armstrong
  The standard spending assessments of the shire areas increased by £662.7m in 1998–99 (on a like for like basis); those of the metropolitan areas increased by £ 386.9m. The criteria used in the calculation of standard spending assessments are based on objective indicators and the most up-to-date information available is used for all authorities. The same formulae apply to all authorities with the same responsibilities for services. We treat authorities all on a fair and consistent basis.

  Ministerial Helicopter Travel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times, and on which occasions, he and his Ministers have travelled by helicopter during the current month; and at what cost to public funds. [48034]
  100
  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister travelled by helicopter during part of his visit to the Donana National Park when, at the invitation of the Spanish Government, he viewed the environmental damage caused by a leak of toxic waste. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment travelled by helicopter to address the Institute of Wastes Management Centenary Conference. On neither occasion was there any cost to public funds.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the total unemployed workforce are aged over 25 years; and what targets he has set under the New Deal to reduce unemployment for those aged over 25 years. [47723]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The proportion of all claimant unemployed who are aged over 25 is currently 74 per cent. One of this Government's objectives is to increase the proportion of adults unemployed for more than two years who find jobs and leave unemployment through the New Deal for people aged 25 and over.

  Teachers Pension Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what charges are made by the Prudential Insurance Company for the management of the Teachers Pension Scheme; and if he will place the management agreement for that scheme in the Library. [47596]

  Dr. Howells
  The Teachers' Pension Scheme is a statutory scheme for which the Secretary of State retains responsibility. The administration of the scheme is carried out under contract by Capita Business Services Ltd. The Prudential Insurance Company is the appointed provider of the scheme's Additional Voluntary Contribution (AVC) arrangements. Those arrangements are governed by the Teachers' Superannuation (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2924). No charge is levied by Prudential under these arrangements, although their administration costs are met by a 1 per cent. deduction from the AVC contributions paid by individual teachers.

  University Students (Residence)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students who went to university resided at home with their parents, as a percentage of the total, in each year since 1990 including 1998 to date. [47720]

  Dr. Howells
  Comprehensive data on the number of university students who resided at home with their parents are not available in a consistent form for the period requested. Available information is that from local education authorities in England and Wales which provide data on the number of mandatory award holders studying in the United Kingdom who are eligible for the parental home rate of grant. Numbers of award holders eligible for the parental home rate of grant and the percentage of mandatory award holders this represents are given in
  101
  the table for academic years 1990–91 to 1996–97 (provisional), the latest year for which information is available.

  Mandatory awards in England and Wales1,2: academic years 1990–91 to 1996–973

  Students eligible for the parental home rate of grant4,5

  Academic year

  Award holders eligible for the parental home rate of grant5 (thousands)

  Percentage of award holders eligible for the parental home rate of grant5

  1990–91

  38.9

  8.1

  1991–926

  49.8

  9.1

  1992–93

  65.9

  10.2

  1993–94

  78.7

  10.9

  1994–95

  88.3

  11.6

  1995–96

  95.9

  12.4

  1996–973

  101.9

  13.3

  1Awards made by local education authorities to students normally domiciled in their area

  2Table includes students who receive partial or nil maintenance grants because of high parental or other income but whose fees are still paid by the authority

  31996–97 data are provisional

  4Excludes placement year sandwich students

  5LEAs can exceptionally give the parental rate to students who live away from the parental home but who could, in their opinion, conveniently attend their course from the parental home

  6Data for 1991–92 do not include information on approximately 8,600 awards made by the London Residuary Body for which information on rates of grant is not available

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those schools included in the education action zones announced on 23 June which currently have grant-maintained status. [47823]

  Mr. Byers
  There are six schools in the first tranche of Education Action Zones which currently have grant-maintained status. One of the Zones, East Basildon, has a grant-maintained school as its leading partner. The Schools are:

  All Saints CofE Primary School, Calderdale

  Barstable School, East Basildon

  Chalvedon School, East Basildon1

  Friars Primary School, Southwark

  Northlands Junior School, East Basildon

  Reay Primary GM School, Lambeth

  1Leading partner in Zone.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what index of social deprivation his Department used in determining the winning bids for education action zones announced on 23 June; [47824]

  (2) if he will list the criteria used in assessing the winning bids for education action zones announced on 23 June. [47825]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State selected the 25 education action zones on the basis of recommendations from his advisory panel. The criteria used by the panel were three: social deprivation, as indicated by free school meals data; the innovative quality of the strategies proposed by the partnership; and on an assessment of the ability of the proposers to deliver school standards.
  102

  Higher Education
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of those aged(a) under 21, (b) 21 to 24 and (c) 25 years and over, registered in England, applied through UCAS for admission to a course of higher education for the (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996, (iv) 1997 and (v) 1998 entry cycles; what were the numbers of the population in England aged (a) to (c) for (i) to (v); and what was the proportion of those applying as a percentage of the appropriate population cohort. [47272]

  Dr. Howells
  Figures on English domiciled UCAS applicants to full time first degree, HND and DipHE courses in the UK by age and relevant English population from 1994 to 1998 are given in the table. Final applicant figures are shown for 1994 to 1997 together with the latest available, as at 16 May, in the current application cycle for 1998 entry, compared with corresponding figures as at 17 May 1997. The latest figures show that applications from young people so far this year are 1.6 per cent. higher than at the same stage last year. Even when population movements are taken into account the rate of applications is similar to last year. Furthermore, while mature applicant members are down, demographic factors have affected these. Another factor may be the strong labour market.

  English domiciled UCAS applicants to full time first degree, HND and DipHE courses in UK by age and relevant English population 1994–1998

  Age group/year

  Applicants

  Population1

  Proportion(%)2

  Age under 21

  1994

  222,739

  1,751,839

  12.7

  1995

  222,764

  1,689,185

  13.2

  1996

  223,989

  1,654,311

  13.5

  1997

  246,716

  1,693,590

  14.6

  19973

  232,681

  1,693,590

  13.7

  19983

  236,302

  1,776,522

  13.3

  Age 21 to 24

  1994

  35,005

  2,822,061

  1.2

  1995

  35,121

  2,717,868

  1.3

  1996

  31,617

  2,583,813

  1.2

  1997

  34,615

  2,460,902

  1.4

  19973

  26,104

  2,460,902

  1.1

  19983

  23,096

  2,354,387

  1.0

  Age 25 and over

  1994

  46,892

  11,231,696

  0.4

  1995

  48,098

  11,369,756

  0.4

  1996

  44,858

  11,506,630

  0.4

  1997

  48,082

  11,568,986

  0.4

  19973

  35,830

  11,568,986

  0.3

  19983

  30,241

  11,562,875

  0.3

  1The English population cohorts used are aged 18 to 20, 21 to 24, 25 to 39 and are mid-year estimates. The ages of UCAS applicants are as at 30 September in year of entry

  2These give the proportion of the age group shown who applied in the given year. Because some of the age group may apply in later years, the proportions do not indicate the full take up of higher education over time by these age groups

  3The latest available figures for 1998 entry are as at 16 May and comparable figures for 1997 are given as well as final totals of applicants for that year. Final applicant figures are given for earlier years

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average class size of schools in Cumbria on 30 April in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [44898]

  Mr. Byers
  The information in the form requested is not available centrally.

  School Classes (Age Mix)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of five, six and seven-year-old school children currently being educated in classes containing a mixture of pupils from more than one age group. [44305]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: Provisional figures for numbers of children in key stage one classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in England in January 1998 show that 345,000 or 21 per cent. of these children were in mixed age classes.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cull Ewes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the cull ewe trade with France is not able to use the abattoirs(a) MUS in Douai, (b) CVD in Rungis, (c) Ovimpex in Rungis, (d) SNVC in Cedex, (e) Macquet in Fruges and (f) Moreville in Fruges. [47270]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  It is the responsibility of the French authorities to designate the premises in France which can handle ewe carcases.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the earliest date the cull ewe trade can recommence. [47268]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Under the Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997, the spinal cord of older sheep must be removed in authorised abattoirs or cutting plants. This requires the carcase to be split. Exports of carcases of cull ewes can take place once all such materials (and other specified risk material) has been removed.

  We have recently issued proposals for statutory consultation to amend the Regulations to allow export of ewe carcases with spinal cord intact to premises designated by the French authorities to remove the spinal cord under French domestic controls on specified risk materials. The earliest date when exports of carcases with spinal cord intact can commence is dependent on the laying before Parliament of the amending Regulations following completion of the statutory consultation period. We would expect this to be during July, subject to the consultations being concluded without issues being raised which would require further work and to Parliamentary approval.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the meetings, together with the dates and the subjects discussed, which were held with the French Government to discuss the cull ewe trade in the context of the SRM ban. [47269]
  104
  Dr. John Cunningham
  This has largely been pursued through correspondence, although the Agricultural Attaché at the British Embassy, Paris, and the Chief Veterinary Officer have been in contact with French veterinary authorities to pursue this point.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the policy reviews his Ministry is currently carrying out; and when he expects the results of each will be made public. [47264]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Review

  Results to be made public

  Review of food from Britain

  summer 1998

  Review of the UK legislation on the disposal of animal waste

  summer 1998

  Review of the current rules on quarantine of imported pet animals

  summer or early autumn 1998

  Review of the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme

  autumn 1998

  Review of fishing vessel licensing

  December 1998

  Review of the future funding of regulatory arrangements for pesticides

  December 1998

  Review of the public analyst arrangements in England and Wales

  by end of 1998

  Review of the nitrate sensitive area schemes

  by 1 April 1999

  Review of environmentally sensitive areas, stage IV schemes

  June 1999

  Review of access provisions of agri-environment schemes

  during 1999

  Review of the meat and livestock commission

  1999

  Review of salmon and freshwater fisheries

  by end of 1999

  Review of tuberculosis in cattle and badgers

  1—

  Review of raw cows' drinking milk policy

  2—

  1 Krebs Committee reported December 1997; decision on action to be taken will follow

  2Consultation announced November 1997; Ministerial announcement in due course

  In addition, operational matters are regularly reviewed and there is a rolling programme of policy evaluations.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when public consultation on the proposals of the Advisory Committee on Quarantine will(a) begin and (b) end. [47866]

  Mr. Rooker
  The public consultation will commence after the report of the Advisory Group on Quarantine has been published in the summer or early autumn, and is expected to last for two or three months.

  Pig Farming
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pig farmers he has met in the last four months to discuss the present state of the sector and its future prospects. [42999]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: My colleagues and I have met several pig farmers and their representatives in the last four months.

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the increase in body weight over any given period of time of(a) pigs and (b) poultry fed a diet which includes antibiotics as growth promoters when compared with the same types of animals fed a diet which excludes such growth promoters. [46981]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department does not hold this information. Figures from the National Office of Animal Health Ltd. which represents manufacturers of feed additives authorised as growth promoters indicate that dietary enhancers improve feed conversion efficiency of farm livestock by between 3 and 6 per cent. and increase daily liveweight gains by 5 per cent. to 8 per cent., according to species.

  Cheese
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Department of Health about the use by his officials of powers granted under the Food Safety Act 1990 to ban the sale of cheese without court proceedings; and if he will make a statement. [47069]

  Mr. Rooker
  I fully support the recent exercise of powers under s.13 of the Food Safety Act by the Minister for Public Health in respect of cheese from a Somerset producer, for the reasons set out by her in the recent Adjournment Debate on 17 June 1998,Official Report, columns 342–46. It was for this reason that I attended the debate.

  BSE
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the(a) number, (b) grades, (c) original department and (d) current roles of all civil servants assisting the BSE inquiry. [47230]

  Mr. Rooker
  Total staff at the Inquiry is currently 83. This includes a number of casual staff engaged on specific short term tasks.

  Ten civil servants have been seconded to assist with the BSE Inquiry.

  Grade

  Department

  G5

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Solicitor to the Inquiry

  G5

  D.E.T.R

  Secretary to the Inquiry

  G6

  D.T.I

  Head of Analysis Branch

  G7

  D.E.T.R

  Deputy to the Secretary

  SEO

  D.E.T.R

  Head of a Witness Team

  SEO

  D.E.T.R

  Office Services Manager

  SEO

  Cabinet Office

  Website and IT Manager

  SIO

  Cabinet Office

  Press Officer

  HEO(D)

  Cabinet Office

  Analysis branch member

  EO

  Cabinet Office

  Deputy Office Manager

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the likely savings to his Department arising from the transfer of current responsibilities for food safety to the proposed Food Standards Agency. [47591]
  106
  Mr. Rooker
  Resources currently devoted to food safety and standards work will be transferred to the Food Standards Agency when it is established. There will therefore be no savings to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Poultry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of permitting the use of vaccines for poultry which are permitted for use in other EU member states. [47446]

  Mr. Rooker
  Vaccines for poultry which are licensed in another member state may be the subject of applications for marketing authorisations in the United Kingdom. In cases where vaccines have already been authorised in accordance with Directive 81/851/EEC in another member state, marketing authorisations may be granted in the United Kingdom by a process of mutual recognition.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require imported turkey meat to be labelled with details of(a) vaccines which have been administered to such poultry and (b) vaccines which have been administered which are not approved for use in the United Kingdom. [47447]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no powers to do so. The vaccines in question will have been authorised in the member state in which they were administered.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require imported poultry meat to be labelled with information about whether the meat has been subject to residue testing. [47451]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. Residue testing is a legal requirement for all EU member states and for third countries wishing to export here.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require imported poultry meat to be clearly labelled to show if(a) meat and bone meal and (b) animal proteins have been used in the feeding of such poultry. [47445]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no such intention. However, when appropriate, UK producers and retailers are free to provide additional indications voluntarily on domestic production where they consider this will improve marketability of their products.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require imported poultry meat which is packed or processed in the United Kingdom to carry on-pack information about(a) its source and (b) its compliance or otherwise with United Kingdom health and welfare standards. [47443]

  Mr. Rooker
  Food labelling regulations require an indication of the place of origin of a food if failure to give such particulars might mislead a purchaser to a material degree about its true origin or provenance. In the case of processed foods, the place of origin is generally taken as the place it last underwent a substantial change.

  There are no proposals to extend labelling requirements to cover compliance with national animal health and welfare standards.
  107
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require imported poultry meat to be labelled with its country of origin. [47442]

  Mr. Rooker
  The labels on pre-packaged poultrymeat must give an indication of its country of origin when imported from outside the Community. The UK is in the process of taking steps to require this information to appear on labels, tickets or notices near where unpackaged poultry is offered for sale.

  There are no plans to require poultrymeat of Community origin to indicate its country of origin on labelling, although all poultrymeat produced in the Community must include the registered number of the slaughterhouse or cutting plant which supplied the product (except where cutting and boning is carried out at the place of sale). These registered numbers are pre-fixed with the initials of the member state concerned.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the charge for residue testing under European Union Directive 96/43/EC does not exceed the costs of testing. [47452]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on 24 February 1998,Official Report, column 186, for background to this issue. He will wish to note, however, that the charge per tonne of poultrymeat is incorrectly stated as £1,0461; it should have read £1.0461.

  The non-implementation of the requirement of Council Directive 96/43/EC to impose the minimum charge on the poultry industry is not an option. We have assured the industry that we will seek to re-negotiate this charge should the opportunity arise.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the import into the United Kingdom of meat from poultry which has been fed on meat and bone meal. [47444]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. The ban on meat and bone meal in poultry rations in the United Kingdom is to prevent cross contamination of ruminant feed with meat and bone meal incorporated into feed for other farm animals. It does not have any bearing on the poultry meat itself and there is therefore no basis on which it would be reasonable to extend these controls to imports.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will restrict the import of poultry meat which has been subject to antibiotic growth enhancers. [47449]

  Mr. Rooker
  Additives, including antibiotic growth promoters, incorporated in animal feedingstuffs are controlled throughout the European Union under Council Directive 70/524/EEC. This provides that no additive may be used in animal feed unless it meets a requirement that, at the level permitted in feedingstuffs, it does not adversely affect human or animal health or the environment. Approved additives may be freely marketed in the European Union and there would be no justification for restricting the import of poultrymeat which had been subject to approved antibiotic growth promoters.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to restrict antibiotic growth enhancers in poultry production. [47448]
  108
  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are giving careful consideration to recommendations made by the Agriculture Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which concern the use of antibiotic growth promoters. Neither Committee made a specific recommendation relating to the use of antibiotic growth promoters by the poultry industry. The Government are advised on this issue by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee (VPC). In addition, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food is reviewing the food safety implications of antimicrobial resistance.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures she has introduced to conduct audits of the disability living allowance reviews and appeals in respect of particular medical examiners. [46292]

  Mr. Denham
  All the doctors who complete medical examinations for the Benefits Agency Medical Services in connection with Disability Living Allowance reviews have their work subjected to regular audit. Random samples of statistically significant numbers of cases from the work of all doctors are examined for the quality of the history, examination findings and the opinions given, according to nationally determined standards. When the quality of the work of an individual doctor is questioned this will be subject to targeted audit and remedial action taken to remedy any deficiencies identified. Similarly, the work of newly appointed doctors is subject to targeted audit until the auditors are satisfied with the quality of work being produced.

  Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the likely yield less charges of an approved personal pension plan based solely on rebated national insurance contributions; and on what assumptions of future growth that estimate is based. [47595]

  Mr. Denham
  Over time, an appropriate personal pension plan based solely on rebated national insurance contributions should yield after charges an amount broadly equivalent to the additional pension derived from SERPS. The reduction in yield allowed for in the rebate structure as a result of charges, based on the assumptions used by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) in calculating the age-related rebates, is estimated at 1.4 per cent.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the percentage of employees in each decile of employees' incomes who do not contribute to personal or occupational pensions. [46491]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  109
  The table contains information based on the 1996 General Household Survey (GHS), using deciles of the earnings distribution derived from the GHS sample.

  Percentage of employees who are not current members of an occupational or personal pension scheme, by earnings decile

  Earnings decile

  Percentage

  1

  87

  2

  72

  3

  63

  4

  52

  5

  41

  6

  29

  7

  24

  8

  15

  9

  10

  10

  9

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  2. Excludes some individuals who did not know if they were members, but thought it possible.

  3. Includes people who are not current members, but have been members in the past and therefore have some deferred pension rights.

  4. Information relates to earnings not income.

  The pensions review is considering ways of encouraging people to contribute to second pensions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of the basic retirement pension in 1999–2000 if uprated in April 1999 in line with(a) prices and (b) average earnings. [45825]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Forecast expenditure on basic Retirement Pension (RP) is £32 billion in 1998/99. The additional cost of uprating by earnings in April 1998 is provided in the table.

  The additional cost of uprating retirement pension and linked benefits by earnings in 1998/99

  £ million

  Contributory RP only

  Contributory RP and linked benefits

  Gross cost

  170

  200

  Means-tested benefit offset

  -40

  -50

  Net cost

  120

  150

  Notes:

  1. Forecast expenditure on RP has been taken from the 1998 Social Security Departmental Report rounded to the nearest £ billion. Government expenditure plans for future years (1999/2000–2001/2002) will be published after the completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review

  2. Estimates in the table are rounded to the nearest £10 million. Totals may not agree due to rounding

  3. National Insurance Fund benefit costs were estimated by the Government Actuary's Department

  4. Means-tested benefit offsets were calculated using the 1995/96 Family Resources Survey and the May 1996 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, both uprated to 1998/99 prices, benefits and earnings levels, and calibrated to the forecasts underlying the 1998 Departmental Report

  110
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the potential impact of rebate-only approved personal pension plans on future means-tested social security entitlements and expenditure. [47730]

  Mr. Denham
  Based on the assumption used by the Government Actuary in "Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes Review of Certain Contracting-out Terms" (Cm3888) an individual investing only the National Insurance Contribution rebate in an appropriate personal pension (APP), would receive a pension broadly equivalent to that which they would otherwise get from the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS). The actual amount of pension payable would depend on the costs and performance of each individual pension scheme.

  Both the annuity derived from a rebate-only APP and the additional pension derived from SERPS are taken fully into account in claims for means tested benefits. So the numbers of future rebate-only APPs taken out in place of SERPS should have little or no impact on future means tested Social Security entitlements and expenditure.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information she has collated on lapse rates from approved personal plans by(a) provider, (b) region and (c) socio-economic group; and what extra information on lapse rates she has sought in the course of the Pensions Review. [47727]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. As part of the Pensions Review, we have sought information from the Personal Investment Authority (PIA). PIA figures state that for all personal pensions sold through company representatives, approximately one third had lapsed within three years. Approximately one quarter of those sold through independent financial advisers had lapsed within three years.

  We are seeking further information on lapse rates for the Pensions Review.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many approved personal pension plans were active in each of the last four years; how many were terminated before retirement; and how many new plans were taken out. [47598]

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

  Thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Appropriate personal pensions

  Active Plans1

  5,396

  5,380

  5,376

  5,441

  New Plans1

  383

  217

  143

  145

  Terminations before Retirement2

  162

  231

  143

  —

  11995–96 is the latest year for which the information is available

  21994–95 is the latest year for which the information is available

  Notes:

  1. The number of terminations before retirement include early retirements and deaths

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand

  Source:

  The Lifetime Labour Market database (LLMDB); a 1 per cent. sample of the National Insurance Recording System taken at February 1997
  111
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the number of occupational pensions subject to transfer to personal pension plans in the last five years; how many of these transfers were caused by early leavers transfers; and whether the past practices of early leaver benefits will be covered in the Pensions Review. [47593]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available relates to contracted-out schemes and is set out in the table.

  The Report of the Pension Provision Group covered some aspects of early leaver benefits and we are considering this Report as part of our Pensions Review. We will publish a Green Paper later this year.

  Transfers of pension rights from contracted-out occupational pension schemes to appropriate personal pension schemes1

  Year2

  Number of Transfers3

  1993–1994

  37,000

  1994–1995

  22,000

  1995–1996

  12,000

  1996–1997

  9,000

  1997–1998

  6,000

  Total number of transfers in 5 years

  85,000

  1A personal pension scheme is appropriate if it has been given an appropriate scheme certificate by the Secretary of State allowing its members to contract-out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS)

  2 Each period of a year is the financial year 6 April to 5 April

  3 Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000, therefore, the total is not their sum

  Source:

  Contracted Out Employment Group

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent present rules for means-tested benefits include paid-up or lapsed personal plans in the calculation of savings; and what plans she has to review these rules. [47731]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The value of funds held in a personal pension scheme are fully disregarded, as is the value of the right to receive a personal pension at a future date. There are no plans to review the disregard.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the total number of active approved personal plans which are financed solely by rebated national insurance contributions in each of the last four years. [47594]

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

  Number of personal pension arrangements financed by national insurance rebates only

  Year

  Number

  1993–94

  2,900,000

  1994–95

  3,070,000

  1995–96

  3,020,000

  1996–97

  3,160,000

  Note:

  1996–97 is the latest year for which the information is available

  Source:

  Inland Revenue Statistics 1997

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many subject access requests were received by the Contributions Agency in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998 to date; and if she will make a statement. [47367]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of subject access requests received by the Contributions Agency is:

  Year

  Requests

  1995–96

  13,229

  1996–97

  22,586

  1997–98

  27,242

  1998 to date

  5,993

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of delay caused by the introduction of the new computer at the Contributions Agency; and if she will make a statement. [46752]

  Mr. Denham
  The introduction of the new computer system at the Contributions Agency is a matter for George Bertram, the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend with further details.

  Letter from Alan Fisher to Mr. Peter L. Pike, dated 25 June 1998:
  George Bertram is the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency and is responsible for answering questions about all operational matters relating to the Agency and their new National Insurance Recording System 2 (NIRS2) computer system. In the absence of Mr. Bertram, I have been asked to reply to your question about our assessment of the delay caused by the introduction of the new NIRS2 system and to make a statement.
  Contributions Agency and Andersen Consulting are committed to ensuring, that by working together, every effort is made to introduce the new system at the earliest possible occasion whilst minimising any disruptive impact on our customers.
  Our plans assess possible impact on our customers in the event of delay and outline the steps that will mitigate such impacts. We regularly review these plans to make sure that they reflect the current status of system implementation and have a strategy to inform both customers and the pensions industry as to how delays in the introduction of the system will affect them.
  In a very small number of cases complex Retirement Pension and Widows Benefit claims will be finalised when supplementary information is available from the new system. Payment will be made meanwhile on the basis of available information.
  Our service to pension providers and scheme administrators has also been affected, but we are in close touch with the Industry and have set up direct contact facilities for the personal pension providers in order to identify and resolve issues relating to policy holders.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will place a copy of the code of practice, which relates to data matching by her Department with respect to benefit fraud, in the Library. [47368]

  Mr. Field
  The use of data matching is an important weapon in the fight against benefit fraud. We are now looking to extend this technique across Government through the use of powers contained in the Social Security
  113
  Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. We want to extend data matching in a way which places significant additional obstacles in the path of fraudsters whilst at the same time ensuring that citizens' rights are properly protected. Consequently, these powers will not be used until the DSS Code of Practice for Data Matching has been published.

  We will be seeking the views of Liberty and the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux on the draft Code of Practice. We shall also be placing a copy of the consultation document in the Library of the House, and the views of hon Members will be most welcome.

  We anticipate that the Code will be published by early October.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to use data matching techniques with respect to benefit fraud which require access to medical records, as provided for by the Audit Commission Bill 1998. [47369]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Audit Commission Act 1998 does not confer powers on my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to gain access to medical records,

  Centrally sponsored pilot schemes

  Pilots/prototypes

  Aim

  Areas

  Pensioner pilots1

  To test the best ways of getting Income Support to those who are currently entitled but do not claim their entitlement; and to experiment with administrative improvements in the delivery mechanism to prevent future Entitled Non Recipients (ENRs)

  York, East Renfrewshire, Lambeth, South Staffordshire, Stroud, Preston, Glasgow, Torbay and Torfaen

  Teleclaims service1

  To enable claims for Retirement Pension to be made over the telephone using an IT based claim form

  Greater London

  New Deal for Lone Parents1

  Lone parents on Income Support are offered advice and support on job search, childcare, benefits and training to help them make the move into work. The service is provided on a one-to-one basis by Personal Advisers

  Started July/August 1997 in Cambridge, Cardiff and Vale, Clyde Valley, North Cheshire, North Surrey, North Worcestershire, Sheffield East and Warwickshire Extended nationwide on 6 April 1998 to lone parents making a new claim for Income Support

  Integrated Services Prototype (DSS/LA)1

  To offer a one stop service combining DSS and local government services. April to October 1998

  Lewisham Council, the local Benefits Agency in Lewisham, South London and Belfast Benefits Centre (to which work from Lewisham BA is re-located)

  Integrated Service Prototype (Lone Parent)1

  To handle lone parents income support, child support and housing needs together by offering a teleclaims service; April to October 1998

  Benefits Agency Chilterns South Directorate using a remote processing centre (Glasgow Benefits Centre) linked to four London offices; Ealing, Acton, Euston and Highgate in partnership with the London Borough of Camden

  ADAPT Project

  ADAPT project was established to deliver phased approach to involvement of the private sector. The first phase entails a period of partnership between 3 private sector consortia and 3 BA Area Directorates

  Yorkshire, East London and Anglia and West Country

  Payment Card

  Development of a new method of paying benefits by automating post offices

  Newcastle and Gloucester

  Personal Account Security

  To reduce the incidence of identity fraud and reduce the opportunity for the NINO to be abused

  Edinburgh City BA District office and Highriggs ESJ, Newcastle (Saxon House), Rotherham South, Liverpool (Crosby), Worksop/Worksop ESJ. Chilterns South

  114
  whether in support of a data matching exercise or otherwise.

  Action Zones
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the initiatives undertaken by her Department since 1 May 1997 which have involved the establishment of(a) action zones and (b) pilot schemes limited to particular geographical areas, indicating the name of the programme and the action zone or pilot scheme areas covered in each instance. [47059]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Area based initiatives, including Action Zones and pilot schemes, which place a premium on local partnership and co-ordination are a key feature of many of our plans for the future. They also form the basis of much of the progress we have made in improving services and targeting facilities, resources and opportunities.

  We are involved in a number of centrally sponsored pilot schemes throughout the country and these are listed. In addition, local managers are encouraged to develop initiatives in partnership with local authorities that promote improved services for the customer.
  115

  Centrally sponsored pilot schemes

  Pilots/prototypes

  Aim

  Areas

  Electronic Government Initiatives

  Series of initiatives testing the delivery of departmental business using electronic means

  London, Norwich, Cumbria, Bristol, York, West Country

  Remote Access Terminals

  To provide advice and benefit information to the departmental business using electronic means

  Over 20 locations throughout the country

  Better Government for Older People

  Local pilot projects to improve public services for older people

  Stirling, Newcastle, Wolverhampton, Harrow and Exeter

  Edinburgh LA and BA Project

  Joint Benefits Agency/Local Authority project looking to improve liaison and communication through modernizing Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit procedures

  Edinburgh

  Earnings Top-up

  To explore the effects of an in work benefit aimed at encouraging people without dependent children to take up and stay in work

  Eight pilot areas including Newcastle, part of Yorkshire, North Wales, Southend, Sunderland, Doncaster, Bournemouth and part of Scotland

  1Indicates initiatives that have commenced since 1 May 1997

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her policy in relation to benefit payments in respect of housing being purchased under rental purchase schemes; and if she will make a statement. [47194]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Provisions already exist, within the Housing Benefit scheme, to cover payments under rental purchase agreements.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average housing benefit paid per dwelling by region for(a) council housing, (b) housing associations and (c) private rented properties. [47204]

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

  £

  Rent rebate

  Rent allowance

  Region

  Local Authority Tenants

  Housing Association Tenants

  Private Tenants(excluding Housing Association)

  North East

  30.70

  43.60

  48.10

  North West

  34.50

  45.80

  53.90

  Merseyside

  37.50

  42.80

  50.10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  29.10

  50.20

  46.80

  East Midlands

  32.20

  48.50

  44.90

  West Midlands

  34.70

  46.10

  51.40

  Eastern

  37.00

  48.50

  57.40

  London

  50.30

  63.70

  81.10

  South East

  41.10

  51.40

  63.70

  South West

  36.80

  48.20

  53.50

  Great Britain

  36.20

  49.30

  58.40

  England

  37.20

  51.10

  59.50

  Wales

  34.20

  42.20

  47.80

  Scotland

  31.50

  34.60

  51.00

  Note:

  Average weekly amounts have been rounded to the nearest 10 pence

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System 100 per cent. caseload counts taken November 1997

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the conclusions of the review of the Child Support Agency. [47901]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have been looking closely at all aspects of the Child Support scheme to see where improvements can be made and we will shortly bring forward a consultation paper on our proposals.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage and number of(a) pensioners and (b) pensioners on income support are (i) in receipt of disability living allowance, (ii) in receipt of attendance allowance, (iii) registered blind and (iv) registered deaf. [47917]

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

  People of pensionable age

  Number (thousands)

  Percentage

  Total number1

  10,420

  100

  In receipt of disability living allowance2

  564

  5

  In receipt of attendance allowance2

  1,224

  12

  Blind people in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance2,3

  66

  —

  Deaf people in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance2,4

  4

  —

  Sources:

  1Office of National Statistics and Scottish Registrar: mid 1996 estimates

  2 Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data. Figures to 31 May 1998 and are provisional

  Notes:

  3Figures relate to those whose main disabling condition is blindness

  4Figures relate to those whose main disabling condition is deafness

  117

  People of pensionable age in receipt of income support

  Number (thousands)

  Percentage

  Total number1

  1,514

  100

  In receipt of disability living allowance1

  143

  9

  In receipt of attendance allowance1

  472

  31

  Blind people in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance1,2

  23

  —

  Deaf people in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance1,3

  2

  —

  Source:

  1 Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data. Figures relate to 30 November 1997

  Notes:

  2 Figures relate to those whose main disabling condition is blindness

  3Figures relate to those whose main disabling condition is deafness

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the earnings disregards limits for means-tested benefits will be revised to take account of the announcement of minimum wage rates. [47732]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Friend to my written answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 620.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will express the present earnings disregards limits for each means-tested benefit in terms of permitted hours of work under the proposed minimum wage rates. [47733]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Earnings disregards rules achieve a balance: encouraging those people who wish to work to do some part-time work without creating a disincentive to take up full-time work, or increasing their dependency on benefit. The information requested is set out in the tables.

  National minimum wage—basic rate

  Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income-based)

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

  Amount of disregard £

  Equivalent number of hours work

  Amount of disregard £

  Equivalent number of hours work

  Single—all ages1

  5

  1.38

  5

  1.38

  Couple3

  10

  2.77

  10

  2.77

  Lone parent

  15

  4.16

  25

  6.94

  With Disability or carer premium

  15

  4.16

  15

  4.16

  Special Occupations2

  15

  4.16

  n/a

  n/a

  Note:

  Earnings disregards expressed in terms of hours of work at £3.60 per hour
  118

  National minimum wage—youth rate

  Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income-based)

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

  Amount of disregard (£)

  Equivalent number of hours work

  Amount of disregard (£)

  Equivalent number of hours work

  Single—all ages1

  5

  1.66

  5

  1.66

  Couple3

  10

  3.33

  10

  3.33

  Lone parent

  15

  5

  25

  8.33

  With Disability or carer premium

  15

  5

  15

  5

  Special Occupations2

  15

  5

  n/a

  n/a

  Note:

  Earnings disregards expressed in terms of hours of work at £3 per hour

  National minimum wage—development rate

  Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income-based)

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

  Amount of disregard (£)

  Equivalent number of hours work

  Amount of disregard (£)

  Equivalent number of hours work

  Single—all ages1

  5

  1.56

  5

  1.56

  Couple3

  10

  3.12

  10

  3.12

  Lone parent

  15

  4.68

  25

  7.81

  With Disability or carer premium

  15

  4.68

  15

  4.68

  Special Occupations2

  15

  4.68

  n/a

  n/a

  1Earnings disregard for a single person on Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance (Income-Based) is as stated unless they are engaged in a special occupation

  2 Special occupations are Auxiliary Coastguards, part-time members of the fire brigade maintained under current legislation, part-time manning or launching a lifeboat, members of the territorial or reserve forces

  3 For Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income-Based) a £15 disregard will be applied to couples if any of the other conditions apply regarding qualification for a £15 disregard i.e. if the claimant/partner is disabled or a carer

  Note:

  Earnings disregards expressed in terms of hours of work at £3.20 per hour

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when her Department will start to review the cases of people subject to the Benefit Integrity Project prior to 9 February. [47566]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 25 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when her Department will start to review the cases of people subject to the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) prior to 9 February.
  Ministers announced on 17 June that certain cases decided under the BIP before 9 February would be re-examined. The cases affected are those where the decision to reduce or remove benefit was made

  119
  on the basis of the customer's statement alone, and where the customer has not exercised their right to ask for a review of the decision. The Benefits Agency is aware of the commitment to bring this in as quickly as possible. Work is already underway to identify how we might best proceed, recognising the particular sensitivities surrounding this work.
  The intention is to write to customers giving them the opportunity to apply for their case to be re-examined. At the same time, we need to notify them that there is no guarantee of a positive outcome to a review of the BIP decision, but we need to do that in a way that does not deter them from applying for a re-examination if that is their choice. We want to consult disability organisations about the wording of the letter and the proposed procedures, all of which will have to be cleared by legal advisors within the Department. It is vital that we get this right and that, of course, will take time.
  The Agency is currently recruiting additional staff from mainstream Disability Living Allowance to deal with this work, and again we are looking at this to ensure that these moves have the minimum impact on our other customers.
  I hope you find this information helpful and that it explains why we are not yet in a position to set a firm start date for the exercise. I will, of course, write to you again as soon as the matter has been decided.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what specialist training and guidance on(a) fibromyalgia, (b) cystic fibrosis, (c) ME/CFS and (d) MS is offered to examining medical practitioners employed by the Benefits Agency Medical Services. [46520]
  120
  Mr. Denham
  The administration of the Benefits Agency Medical Services 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. Bill Etherington, dated 25 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what specialist training and guidance on (a) fibromyalgia, (b) cystic fibrosis, (c) ME/CFS and (d) MS is offered to examining medical practitioners employed by Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS).
  It may be helpful if I explain that all BAMS' medical examiners are required to hold a full medical degree and must be fully registered medical practitioners. BAMS also require their employed doctors to have at least three years post registration experience, including one year in general practice and at least six months experience of psychiatry or rehabilitation/occupational medicine. Alternatively BAMS require five years post registration experience as a principal (or equivalent) in general practice.
  The role of the BAMS doctor is to assess the effects of a customer's disability and to provide advice to the Adjudication Officer, who will consider all the evidence available and determine entitlement to benefit.
  All BAMS doctors are given additional training in carrying out this specialised type of assessment. As fibromyalgia, cystic fibrosis, ME/CFS and MS are commonly encountered conditions they are covered in the training. Guidance is given to examining doctors relevant to the analysis of the needs of people with disabilities and this is published in the Disability Handbook. This guidance is based on the consensus view of the medical profession at the present time and is periodically updated. BAMS doctors are also expected to keep abreast of developments in the medical field. Where deficiencies of knowledge or understanding are identified, via our routine monitoring of casework, relevant guidance or training is provided on an individual basis.
  I hope you find this reply is helpful.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Organophosphates
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make clear the extent to which they regard organophosphates as user-friendly.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, provided that organophosphate products are used in accordance with their conditions of authorisation or approval, they should, on current scientific evidence, pose no unacceptable risks to users. All veterinary medicines, pesticides and human medicines, including those containing organophosphates, must meet statutory safety criteria which address the safety of those using the products.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am lost for words—adequate words—that the Ministry of Agriculture should have the gall to put words such as "no risk to public health" into the mouths of Ministers in successive governments.
Is the Minister aware that as long ago as 1950 Lord Zuckerman called attention to the danger, as did the Health and Safety Executive in 1980? Does not that argue a lack of urgency on the part of the Ministry? Furthermore, the fact that for six years the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has been asking Questions and eliciting hopeless, inconclusive, padding Answers indicates a lack of candour on the part of the Ministry.
I hope that the noble Lord will give a helpful answer to my question. Will he undertake as a matter of urgency to set up clinical studies into the effects of the use of organophosphates on humans, as opposed to studying what happens to vegetables? I hope that the Minister can satisfy your Lordships.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sorry if my Answer was not wholly satisfactory. I must point out that I said "on current scientific evidence", because Ministers can act only in line with the scientific evidence available to them.
The noble Lord's question about research is very pertinent. We hope in future to act on more scientific evidence. There are currently 15 clinical and epidemiological studies into the effects of OPs on humans, costing more than £1 million and spread over a number of institutions, in particular the Institution of Occupational Health in Edinburgh, whose report we expect by the end of the year, and others at Newcastle and Reading.
428
As regards the noble Lord's historical statement about the delays in treatment, I am in nothing but agreement with him. However, if he wishes to know why there has been so much delay, particularly in the past 20 years, perhaps he could direct the question to some of his colleagues rather than across to this Bench.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House about whether investigations into organophosphates and their connection with BSE are included in the studies which are taking place?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, they have been investigated by the Scientific Advisory Committee, which has advised Ministers that there is currently no evidence of such a link so as to require different action by Ministers.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am not surprised to see that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, receives the same kind of Answers as do I. However, I am sure that the Minister will try to do better in future. Does he recall that a little while ago I asked him to look into the feasibility of either severely curtailing or banning amateur use—that is the use of OPs in the home and the garden—by people who do not come under the COSHH regulations and who have no training? Often they expose their children to high quantities of OPs in cat and dog flea collars, flea treatments around the house, fly sprays and various other products. I believe that about 150 products can be bought over the counter without any regulation as to their use. How far have such inquiries gone? I realise that his department is not involved, but has he looked into the matter?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes, we did indeed look into that and some action has been taken on the amateur use of OPs. As regards their use in relation to pets, the Veterinary Products Committee is reviewing all such OP use. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is currently reviewing the use of 24 pesticides for gardening and household use, of which 15 are OPs. Human use for the treatment of head lice is currently being reviewed by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines. Therefore, in each of those areas we are reviewing current use.
However, as there appears to be a slight strain of criticism of the Government for inaction in that area, I shall take the opportunity, particularly for the benefit of the noble Countess, whose work in this area has been tremendous, to remind the House of what steps have been taken in the past 12 or 14 months.
We set up the official co-ordinating committee on OPs whose report was produced last week. It was published and made available in this House. The Veterinary Products Committee is reviewing all OPs in its sphere. The ACP is reviewing all non-veterinary pesticides. The Committee on the Safety of Medicines is reviewing the use of OPs for the treatment of head lice. The membership of scientific committees, something which is of particular concern to the noble Countess, is being changed so that there is lay and occupational health membership.

429
As regards information, we are publishing all advice to Ministers. We have published the report. Moreover, we support the Private Member's Pesticides Bill, which is currently passing through this House. That legislation improves information. On research, we shall now appoint lay assessors. We are also issuing new regulations to deal with disposal and water, subject to consultation, and we have improved the information to users of OPs.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that all those many committees will be advised of and told to report on the fact that OPs are systemic pesticides which remain within the system of the human being who consumes them? They are not excreted in the usual way. Therefore, they build up within the bodies of all the children and human beings who consume them, starting with the vegetables they eat which are contaminated by that poison.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that observation, which we bear in mind. That is why we are extremely concerned about the whole impact of OPs and have taken the many steps that I have indicated.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, are there any regulations covering the spraying of crops with organophosphates by aeroplane? I ask that question because I have a friend whose health has been seriously damaged due to the low spraying of crops with organophosphates. Not only has she suffered considerable ill health but her cows have too.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not know the precise answer to that, but I shall write with rapidity to the noble Baroness on that matter.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, if the Minister agrees that there is some doubt about the use of organophosphates, why is it that beef on the bone was banned on the basis that there was some possible doubt and yet there is some possible doubt with regard to organophosphates but their use has not been banned?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the two are different. We received advice on the danger of beef on the bone from the relevant scientific committee and we were advised by the Chief Medical Officer that we should ban it. We have not received such scientific advice about organophosphates. On the contrary, we received advice recently from the Veterinary Products Committee that there was no reason to ban them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am very pleased to hear that steps are being taken in relation to organophosphates? However, such action needs to be taken on practically every scientific aid to farming. We need information about what is good for farming and what may be harmful, because various groups take up crusades against practically every aid to farming. Therefore, MAFF must be ready with scientific answers to those allegations much earlier than it has been.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, from my brief experience of MAFF, I can say that we are not short on scientific advice. We are concerned also about the impact on farming and that farmers need clear advice. They need to be protected but they wish also to take measures. For example, organophosphates are the only compounds which are effective in dealing with some problems which face them. It is a difficult balance but I assure the noble Lord that the amount of scientific advice that we have is not deficient. The problem is to balance the various interests that then arise.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister referred to the report which was published last week and which he said was available in the House. In fact, it arrived at 2.30 this afternoon so, unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to look at it. However, there was obviously also a MAFF briefing with reference to that document. Will the Minister tell me which department—MAFF, health or COT—will be pulling together all the scrutiny which has taken place; what will be the time-scale; and what will be the budget allocated to it?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, on the availability of the report, I am advised that a number of copies were sent to the Printed Paper Office. The report has also been available in the Library since last week. On co-ordination, seven departments are involved. Currently, MAFF is in the chair because the department, having had considerable concern on the issue, instigated the inter-departmental review. I cannot forecast what will happen in future but that is the current position. I cannot answer as to the costs involved.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister quite sure of his ground when he says that clinical research is now being carried out into the effects of organophosphates on human beings? If he is sure, will he tell the House by whom and where such research is being undertaken?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am advised that such research is going on. It is being carried out in Edinburgh, Newcastle and Reading. However, I do not know the specifics in that respect. If it would help the noble Lord, I shall undertake to have sent to him a written list of where such research is going on, provided that I know in what category of research he is interested.

Wales: Regional Aid
2.50 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will be able to make a statement on the future amount of European Union regional aid to Wales under the Structural Funds' new Objective 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Commission's draft regulations for the structural and cohesion funds which are part of the Agenda 2000

431
package were published on 18th March. The regulations must now be agreed by all 15 member states and approved, where appropriate, by the European Parliament.
Our concern is to ensure that the draft regulations should be affordable and durable. We do not expect the regulations for the structural and cohesion funds to be adopted until early 1999. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate before that time the amount of any aid which Wales might receive once the new regulations come into effect.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. However, does my noble friend appreciate that west Wales, Holyhead, north-west Wales, together with valley areas like Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr, all have high unemployment levels? In addition, Welsh gross domestic product is only 80 per cent. of the European Union average, with some areas having a level as low as 55 per cent. Therefore, as negotiations with the EU Commission proceed, will my noble friend ensure that those basic facts are fully aired so that those deprived areas can have the appropriate objective status and the resources that they so badly need?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the points that my noble friend makes are indeed well based. A concept has been established by Eurostat, the Commission's statistical office—namely, NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Regional Statistics). The question of what divisions should be applied in respect of NUTS to Wales is presently under review. The points which my noble friend made have been very much borne in mind in the negotiations which have taken place.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can the Minister go a little further in that respect? Can he assure the House that some areas of Wales will qualify for Objective 1 status?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wish to be as helpful as I can both to the noble Viscount and to noble Lords generally. I understand that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be providing a Written Answer in another place today dealing with the agreement of the new classification of United Kingdom areas for European statistical purposes. As the noble Viscount will know, that is a necessary precondition as regards Objective 1. In all the circumstances, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to go further than that bearing in mind the pending Written Answer to be given in another place.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in order that noble Lords may form some evaluation of the reply of my noble friend the Minister within its context, and bearing in mind the fact that the UK contributes 12 per cent. of the amount made available in the structural funds, can my noble friend give the House some indication of, first, what the total UK contribution to those funds is; and, secondly, the amount in total that the Government expect to receive from those funds? Perhaps my noble friend will also indicate the difference.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the time available to me I am not able to indicate the difference. However, I can specify the different funds involved. There is a European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); the European Social Fund (ESE); the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF); and, finally, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). All those funds are targeted towards specific geographical regions and at various objectives. The critical objective is the one which I believe was referred to by my noble friend Lord Islwyn, and indeed by the noble Viscount; namely, regions where development lags behind that taking place elsewhere. It is our hope that the NUTS areas for Wales will be redefined and that, therefore, at least one of them will be favourably placed to qualify under Objective 1.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, without anticipating the Written Answer to be given in another place, perhaps I may warmly welcome in advance what I believe will be contained in it. I should like to stress the importance of the designation of the whole of the western coast of Wales as a potential recipient of Objective 1 in view of the crisis in agriculture, manufacturing industry and income per head in that region. Perhaps I may also congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales and, indeed, colleagues in other parties who have campaigned on this issue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that was a particularly Delphic question to which I can only offer a Delphic answer. It is a fact that Wales is presently split in the way outlined by the noble Lord. Some hold the view that that is perhaps based on historic rather than changed economic circumstances. A sound case was put forward forcefully by my right honourable friend Mr. Ron Davies and his junior Minister Mr. Peter Hain. I am hopeful that the outcome will be what the noble Lord desires and, indeed, what many other people in Wales hope for.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the answer that he gave to his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, does the Minister agree that, as we are in fact net contributors to the European budget, it is not true to say that the European Union really gives this country any money at all? Indeed, the EU merely gives back about 30 per cent. of what we give it for projects which are largely designed to enhance its own image.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, up to a point. If there is a reconfiguration of NUTS 1 and 2, I do not believe that most people in Wales would accept that any benefits from that, both financial and otherwise, would be designed to enhance the image of the European Union. On the noble Lord's first point, there is a certain amount of virtue in what he says. In the same way, if any taxpayer pays to the central government, it is a misconception—as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has pointed out on many previous occasions—to think that he is being given something when it was his own money in the first place.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in reply to an earlier question, my noble friend the Minister referred

433
to a Statement to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other place which will indicate the areas that will be more favourably looked on than others. Is my noble friend aware that some areas in England which are already receiving subsidy from Europe because of deprivation are concerned that this announcement may threaten their positions and take away from them benefits that they currently receive? Therefore, does not the concern in this respect relate to a much wider area than the part of the UK covered by the Question?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I should be careful. I did not say that a Statement would be made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I said that he was answering a Question in another place. It did not seem either courteous or proper for me to go into too much detail. However, what my noble friend says is quite right. Although Wales is of significant importance in the UK, it is not of paramount importance—at least, not when I am out of Cardiff—and, therefore, those reclassifications will have repercussions in all parts of the United Kingdom as indeed they should.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, important though Objective 1 status is, will the Government ensure that other categories such as Objectives 2 and 3—indeed, I believe that there is now an Objective 4—are well and truly considered for parts of Wales? Will the Minister give an assurance that some kind of comparative study will be undertaken as to the potential value of applications for inclusion by different parts of Wales in these different categories?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have mentioned Objective 1 and defined it. Most of Wales is presently covered by Objectives 2 and 5(b). Objective 2 covers regions seriously affected by industrial decline and Objective 5(b) covers rural areas. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, about internal comparisons are extremely valid. Those are considerations which I know my honourable friend Mr. Hain has very much in mind and which he has constantly pressed in appropriate quarters.

Turkey: Human Rights
3 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, since Turkey entered the European Customs Union, the Turkish record on human rights has improved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have been working with the Turkish authorities, in particular following the entry into force of the Customs Union in January 1996, to secure significant improvements in Turkey's human rights record. We welcomed the announcement by the
434
Turkish authorities in March 1997 of the reduction in detention lengths before charging detainees, and the Turkish government circular to police authorities of December 1997 reiterating that torture is prohibited by the Turkish constitution. We are monitoring progress on implementation. We nevertheless remain concerned at the continuing reports of torture, extra-judicial killings and "disappearances". Turkey still needs to make substantial progress in the field of human rights before meeting the standard criteria for EU membership.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness whether there had been any improvement. She has pointed me in the direction of a statement that Turkey would reduce the incidence of torture. That statement has been made frequently in the past by Turkish presidents and prime ministers. Did not the European Commission's annual report on relations with Turkey state in March that there had been no substantial progress as regards human rights and the democratic reform process? Will the Government make it clear to the Turks, before handing over the presidency to the Austrians tomorrow, that the Luxembourg criteria for Turkey's entry into the accession process are not negotiable, and that Kurdish and Islamist parties, their leaders, newspapers and broadcasters, must be allowed to operate freely, particularly in the period leading up to the general election next April?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Luxembourg criteria remain, of that I can assure the noble Lord. Cardiff made clear that all countries pursuing candidature for EU membership, including Turkey, will be judged by the same criteria. Each should proceed at its own pace, depending on its own efforts. The noble Lord asked what has been done. As I have said, we welcomed the 4th December announcement of the Turkish Government about the treatment of detainees. Of course there is still a long way to go. We also welcome the lifting of the state of emergency in some of the eastern provinces. We look forward to early visits by the UN special rapporteur on torture and the UN working group on enforced or involuntary "disappearances" which the Turkish Government have already agreed, and about which we have spoken a number of times in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the fact that Cyprus is within the first group of candidate countries seeking accession to the European Union, will the Minister consider the possibility of inviting the authorities in the northern part of Cyprus to meet with authorities in the southern part of Cyprus to consider whether together they can reach some understanding about human rights in the island, which might be a first step to introducing Turkey to the necessary conditions of membership of the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we and others favour the accession to the EU of a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation from Cyprus. We believe that the UN process must stay on track. We look to Turkey and others concerned to support this. Mr. Clerides has offered

435
some discussions to Mr. Denktash. They have not so far been taken up but they remain on the table and enjoy the support of the presidency.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when speaking of human rights, is the noble Baroness aware that within the past fortnight the Turkish Supreme Court has ruled that adultery should no longer be a crime for women? It has never been a crime for men. Does the Minister agree that this is a bold and commendable move, given that Islamic sentiments are still quite strong in Turkey, particularly in the rural areas?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is much to be welcomed. However, there are still a number of outstanding issues, as I have already rehearsed to your Lordships, such as extra-judicial killings and other such incidents. The Prime Minister spelt out clearly to Mr. Yilvmaz in December that one of the major obstacles to Turkey's relationship with the European Union is still its record on human rights. Although there has been some improvement in some limited areas, we still expect there to be further improvements.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is it not a condition of Turkish entry to the European Union that the illegal military regime in northern Cyprus should be dismantled and cancelled altogether?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know whether that is a precondition. I shall write to the noble Lord with an answer to that question.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given that Turkey refused to attend the European conference in March on the grounds that its remit was cosmetic and artificial, what assessment have the Government made of Turkey's threat that it will not stand by quietly and will withdraw its application to join the European Union if it is not included in the list of candidate states? Although the Minister said that Turkey would be judged by the same criteria, given that Turkey is a valued member of NATO, what assurances have the Government given Turkey that her candidacy for membership will be judged by the same objective criteria as any other country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that Turkey's application will be judged by the same objective criteria. In that respect Cardiff reiterated the Luxembourg position. I am glad that Turkey regards the Cardiff position as a step in the right direction, particularly the recognition of Turkey's candidature for EU membership and the EU' s endorsement of the European strategy as a principal plank of the EU/Turkey relationship in the future. Her Majesty's Government believe that the top priority now must be for the Austrian presidency and the Commission to carry forward the work on the strategy in close consultation with the Turkish authorities. We hope that Turkey will attend the next European conference under the Austrian presidency.

Fireworks Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I am glad that many noble Lords with knowledge and experience of life in Northern Ireland are present and have put their names down to speak in the debate today. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has sought the views of many noble Lords on matters relating to Northern Ireland and always welcomes the advice she has received. I, too, will listen to their contributions with care.
I am also glad that there are many noble Lords here today who have worked constructively for a political settlement in Northern Ireland. Such a settlement has been the objective of both this Government and the previous government. While in opposition we gave our full support to the previous government in their policies on Northern Ireland. I believe that that support was welcome and helped to establish the conditions in which political progress could be made. I would hope that the noble Lords who sit on the Opposition Benches would today give their support to this Bill which implements the Good Friday Agreement. It is an agreement which I know many in your Lordships' House support, and indeed some, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, through their support, helped to make it a reality.
The purpose of the Bill is to implement those parts of the Good Friday Agreement that relate to the release of prisoners. Under the agreement both governments gave a commitment to:
"put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences".
The reference is to page 25, paragraph I of the agreement.
I know that many noble Lords are uncomfortable with this legislation. I share that discomfort. Prisoners who meet the conditions set out under the Bill will be released from prison early, in some cases years ahead of their original release date.
Many people in Northern Ireland and Great Britain have suffered greatly at the hands of the terrorists, including some noble Lords who are here today. The security forces who have pursued the terrorists with vigour have also paid a high price over the years, in many cases with their lives. People have said that those who have committed such terrible crimes should not receive any special consideration at this time.
I acknowledge and have sympathy for that sentiment, but it cannot be allowed to determine the issue. The release of prisoners is part of the price to be paid for long-term peace in Northern Ireland. That prisoners

437
would be part of the settlement was recognised in the negotiations that led to the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement.
The people of Northern Ireland were asked to consider the agreement—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has referred several times to the agreement. Will he say whether or not Sinn Fein have yet signed the agreement?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, all parties that took part in the Good Friday negotiations support the agreement.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. With great respect, I did not ask him that question. I asked whether Sinn Fein had signed the agreement.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not know whether they have formally signed the agreement. But certainly the fact that they took part in the negotiations up to Good Friday and gave their support to the settlement that was achieved is to my mind a sign that all parties that were there support the agreement.
The people of Northern Ireland were asked to consider the agreement and to vote on whether to accept or reject it in a referendum held on 22nd May. As your Lordships will know, more than 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland endorsed the agreement.
Since 22nd May my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been working to implement the agreement. Indeed, on 25th June elections to a new Northern Ireland Assembly took place. Other work is in hand. The Bill which is before your Lordships' House is also intended to implement the agreement.
The agreement contains a number of elements which form a package. None of the elements of that package stands alone. All were negotiated by the parties and put to the people. It was always going to be the case that no one party would get everything it wanted in the agreement. Everyone has to accept compromises. Everyone has had to accept parts of the agreement that they do not like. That will always be the case with an agreement of this kind.
The sentences Bill before the House is a product of that agreement. As I have said, under the agreement both governments gave commitments regarding the release of prisoners. I am aware that many noble Lords have concerns about the early release of prisoners, concerns that are shared by many people in Northern Ireland, including those who supported the agreement.
But this must be put in context. This is not the first piece of legislation to deal with the release of prisoners convicted of scheduled offences. In October 1995 your Lordships' House considered legislation brought forward by the then government which was designed to reduce the period that prisoners sentenced to five years or more for scheduled offences would serve in custody. That legislation was a direct response to the progress that had been made in political talks and the
438
consequential changes in the security situation. Since November 1995, more than 240 prisoners have been released under that legislation. Of those released, only two prisoners have had their licences revoked.
We must also remember that prisoners convicted of terrorist-related crimes are being released on an ongoing basis. Since 1983 more than 450 life sentence prisoners have been released. And of that 450, only two have committed further serious offences. Prisoners convicted of the most heinous crimes have already been released and would continue to be released even were this Bill not to become law. The Bill before the House accelerates that process for certain offenders who meet the conditions set out under its provisions.
On 20th April my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland placed a paper in the Library of the House which set out in detail how the Government would intend to implement those parts of the agreement relating to prisoners. The Bill that is before your Lordships' House contains the safeguards that were set out in that paper; that is: prisoners who support terrorist groups that have not established or are not maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires will not be released; all applications will be considered by independent commissioners against criteria set out in the legislation; life sentence prisoners will not be released if they would be a danger to the public; prisoners will be released on licence and can be recalled and have their licence revoked if they engage in any terrorist activity after release; the Secretary of State can suspend the scheme in its entirety should the circumstances require it; and if an organisation returns to violence, prisoners released on licence who continue to support that organisation may be recalled.
The Bill also includes those matters referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech at Balmoral on 14th May. He said that the legislation would set out factors to be taken into account in deciding whether an organisation had established and was maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Those factors are fully reflected in the text of the Bill.
There are some who would want those factors which were set out by the Prime Minister to be made into individual tests each of which must be satisfied. To do so would depart from the terms of the agreement. Under the agreement the test is whether an organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. That is the test. The Prime Minister has helpfully set out factors that will be taken into account in applying that test but he has not—and the Government will not—change the test.
I shall now set out the main provisions of the Bill. Under the Bill prisoners may apply to commissioners appointed under its provisions for a declaration that they are entitled to be released on licence. The Bill sets out criteria that prisoners must satisfy to be eligible for release under its provisions. Each application will be considered on its merits and, if the conditions are met, the commissioners are required to make a declaration in favour of the prisoner.
The conditions a prisoner must satisfy are as follows. The first is that the prisoner must have been convicted in Northern Ireland of a qualifying offence and

439
sentenced to five years or more, or life imprisonment. A qualifying offence is a scheduled offence which was not certified out by the Attorney-General and which was committed before 10th April 1998. Prisoners convicted and sentenced outside Northern Ireland may also apply if they have been convicted of an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence and transferred to Northern Ireland.
The second condition is that the prisoner must not be a supporter of a terrorist organisation. For the purposes of the Bill, terrorist organisations are organisations specified by order of the Secretary of State that,
"are concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it and have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire".
The agreement explicitly says that prisoners who support such organisations will not benefit.
As I have already said, in deciding whether an organisation meets the test under the Bill the Secretary of State is required to take account of the matters set out in Clause 3(9) which reflect the Prime Minister's speech of 14th May. Those factors are important and will be given the weight they deserve. The Secretary of State will also keep under review the list of terrorist organisations identified under the Bill and add or remove organisations as appropriate.
The Bill has no effect on whether an organisation is proscribed. Organisations that are proscribed will continue to be proscribed and membership of such organisations will continue to be a criminal offence.
The third condition the prisoner must satisfy is that he may not be released if he would be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. This means that no prisoner who the commissioners believe will return to terrorism may be released under the Bill.
The fourth condition applies only to life sentence prisoners. Such prisoners may not be released if they would be a danger to the public and this maintains the protection that applies in respect of the release of all life sentence prisoners.
Prisoners serving fixed sentences are not subject to this test, as in Northern Ireland the release of such prisoners is not dependent on a favourable risk assessment. But, as is the case for life sentence prisoners, prisoners serving fixed sentences will not be released under this Bill if they are considered likely to re-engage in terrorism.
If the commissioners make a declaration that a fixed-term prisoner meets the conditions set out in the legislation, he will be required to serve one-third of his sentence in custody before being released on licence.
A life sentence prisoner who satisfies the conditions will have a date set for his release which marks the elapse of about two-thirds of the period that the commissioners believe the prisoner would otherwise have been required to serve in custody. The commissioners will be given information about the periods served by life sentence prisoners who have been
440
released on licence since 1982 to assist them in making an assessment of the period that individual prisoners would have been required to serve.
As a consequence of time already served, a declaration may result in the release of the prisoner on the next available day of release or on a later date. If a prisoner remains in custody, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to refer his case back to the commissioners at any time before he is released if she believes that he no longer meets the criteria for release under the legislation. A prisoner might no longer meet the criteria because of a change in his personal circumstances or because the organisation he supports has subsequently been identified as a terrorist organisation. In such cases the commissioners must consider whether the prisoner satisfies the conditions and if he does not they must revoke the declaration.
All prisoners released under this legislation will be released on licence. The licence conditions apply automatically in every case under the terms of the legislation. The Secretary of State may suspend a licence if she believes a prisoner is a supporter of a terrorist organisation and has become or is likely to become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland. In addition, life sentence prisoners must not become or be likely to become a danger to the public. If a licence is suspended it will be for the commissioners to decide whether the licence should be revoked.
For most fixed-sentence prisoners the licence will expire at the two-thirds point of sentence. Life sentences do not expire and prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment who are released under this legislation will remain on licence and therefore liable to recall for the rest of their lives.
The Bill also provides for the release of prisoners who remain in custody two years from the commencement of the legislation. This honours the commitment expressed in the agreement which said that,
"should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point".
Similar provision is made for those prisoners sentenced or committed to custody after the commencement of the legislation, but no prisoner will serve fewer than two years as a consequence of Clause 10.
The Secretary of State has the power to vary this two-year period or to bring forward an order under which it would lapse. I shall not speculate about the grounds on which such a future decision would be made but would draw attention to the paper the Secretary of State placed in the Library on 20th April which referred in particular to,
"progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society".
By giving the Secretary of State a power of this kind the legislation ensures that any decision on this matter can be taken at the proper time.
The Bill also includes provision in relation to victims. The Secretary of State received representations from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and members of his party about the provision of information to those victims who

441
request it regarding releases under this legislation. I believe that the clause that was inserted in the Bill as a consequence has improved the Bill as a whole.
As I have indicated, this is an unusual Bill. Before the Bill was published the Secretary of State met representatives of a number of the parties, including some noble Lords who are here today, to discuss the Bill. Representations were made regarding the terms of the Bill and those representations were considered carefully. But in each case consideration was given on the basis that the Bill before the House must be fully consistent with the Good Friday Agreement that was endorsed by more than 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland.
The scrutiny of this Bill is not an opportunity to re-write the agreement. But where improvements are suggested which are helpful and would improve the terms of the Bill the Government have already demonstrated that they will accept or bring forward government amendments as necessary. Amendments have already been made to the Bill in another place which give greater certainty to the process where declarations are referred back to the commissioners (to which I have already referred) as well as to include more of the words of the Prime Minister and, as I mentioned, the Bill now includes a new clause relating to victims.
But, where amendments have been proposed which go beyond the terms of the agreement, they have been rejected. As the right honourable Member for Upper Bann said in another place:
"We must take the Stormont agreement as a whole, and should not pick and choose".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/98; cols. 1096–97.]
If the Government were to depart from the terms of the Agreement they would lose all moral authority to hold other participants fully to the commitments they have made under the same agreement.
This Bill is a product of the Good Friday Agreement. That agreement concluded a process that was begun under the previous government, notably under the stewardship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and his predecessor. When we sat on the other side of the House we supported the Government in their policies on Northern Ireland. I believe that that support was important in bringing us to where we are today. I would hope that noble Lords who sit opposite today would support this Government in their policies on Northern Ireland and would support this Bill as part of the Good Friday Agreement, an agreement they also worked hard to achieve. To do otherwise would give support to those who have committed themselves to undermining the agreement. We cannot allow that to happen. My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Dubs.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have previously told your Lordships' House that I hate the idea of this Bill to release early those who have been convicted of the most horrible crimes. These terrorists had no compassion for their victims of all ages and occupations, including bystanders and so-called mistakes. They rejoiced in killing and maiming and in attacking economic life and smashing property. They did all that, from both sides of the political divide, to terrorise people and to destroy democracy. We all remember incidents which stick in the mind: murder at a war memorial and murder in a cemetery. The horrors will live with us for life. This is not an amnesty and it does not wipe clean the legal slate, and it cannot wipe out our memories either.
The act of release not only frees the prisoners, it does an injustice to the victims and their families. It eats away at the deterrent value of long sentences. It negates the painstaking work of detectives and forensic scientists who, under attack themselves, secured convictions. It mocks the work of the judges and lawyers, targeted and assassinated themselves. Judges have risked their lives to say "25 years", and we are going to say, "No, two years".
These releases, therefore, can only be acceptable as part of a process which will really lead to an end to the attempt to terrorise the people and the state.
However, an opportunity to reinstate democracy has arisen. The agreement is not what we, left to ourselves, would like; but that is true, as the Minister said, for every participant in the talks. It is the only agreement on offer, after years of effort by successive British governments and the other parties concerned.
I think we should take the risk and I support the agreement, but the whole agreement. The people of Northern Ireland supported the agreement, both in the referendum and in the vote last week for the new assembly. So should we.
I believe that no party to the agreement has physically signed it. But the parties, including Sinn Fein, recommended their followers to vote "yes" in the referendum, which shows support. The agreement says on page 1 that every participant,
"will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement".
It is therefore right for this Bill concerning one specific type of action—prisoner releases—to insist that the other parts of the agreement are also observed. If each of the other parts do not go ahead, it would be wrong for the releases to go ahead. We are not trying to create a link. Everything in the agreement is linked by the agreement itself.
A key matter of concern in considering the Bill is the decommissioning of terrorist weapons. I do not mean that that aspect is the only one of importance, but it has a key link with this Bill, and that link is the terrorists themselves. The Bill helps convicted terrorists out of prison and decommissioning is the direct and clear responsibility of the terrorist arms of the organisations we face.

443
I do not for one moment accept that Sinn Fein and PIRA are separate organisations, but those who stand for democratic office and have become members of the new assembly claim that. With regard to weapons, Sinn Fein can possibly claim to have used its influence without success. But PIRA cannot make that claim. Its members will be judged by the results, and the same is true on the loyalist side of the divide. The prisoners who stand to benefit from this Bill are mostly self-acknowledged members of specific terrorist organisations. The wing and the cell that they occupy in prison is evidence of that. Both this sentences Bill and decommissioning involve the terrorists. The constitutional Bill will not.
Ministers have said that decommissioning must proceed in parallel with prisoner releases and everything else over the next two years. The Secretary of State repeated that yesterday on television. Ministers' words are important; but Bills such as this one are Parliament's words. In spite of appearances in another place just now, Bills become Acts of Parliament, not Acts of government. The only way that we in Parliament can ensure that provisions in the agreement proceed in parallel is to write them into the Bill.
The wording of the Bill will be discussed in Committee, though it is right to refer to it today, as the Minister did. The Bill has been stiffened, both in its draft form and in another place. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her willingness to accept some of our suggestions, as well as others. But the Government have not yet accepted the most important suggestion that we made—to make clear that progress on decommissioning as well as other matters must proceed in parallel with progress on prisoner releases.
The Bill says that the Secretary of State should take into account decommissioning among other factors. We believe it is right, and crucially within the agreement, that she should satisfy herself on each factor, including specifically that decommissioning is progressing. The Bill says that the organisation must be committed to ending violence. But we are entitled to more than the words of killers. We are entitled to see some action over their huge arsenals as the months progress.
The Minister referred to the Balmoral speech of the Prime Minister as being a precursor to the relevant clause in the Bill. In that speech the Prime Minister set out tests one, two, three and four. The Bill crucially omits the word "and". I understand that that has the effect of meaning that each criterion need not be fulfilled, as the Prime Minister appeared to promise in that speech.
Much has been said in debates on this subject in relation to avoiding "preconditions". I want to be absolutely clear about that. The agreement does not provide for either decommissioning or prisoner releases to start one before the other; everything is to proceed together. We support the agreement and do not ask for physical decommissioning of actual weapons to start first. We want these events to move in parallel.
The agreement provides for both processes to take place over two years. Under the agreement, the two years for decommissioning started with the referendum
444
on 22nd May. The two years for the prisoner releases will start some two months after the coming into force of this Bill. This fact of the agreement, on which the Government, we in Parliament and the public are entitled to rely, is significant. The accelerated releases of those with most to gain from the Bill under the two-year rule in Clause 10 will become due in July 2000 after we can all judge from the reports of the decommissioning commission whether,
"the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms",
has in fact been delivered by 22nd May in the year 2000.
It is said by some—though not by the Government—that to insist on decommissioning is to want the impossible. We are told that in Irish history there is no precedent for it. But Irish history is the story of terrorism returning time and again after a lull. We are not trying to legislate for another lull, however long, but for a permanent acceptance of democracy. The whole process, to the credit of the Secretary of State and the Government, as well as their predecessors, has been full of unlikely, even seemingly impossible hurdles, and so far we have been pleasantly surprised. In some respects the impossible has happened. Everyone knows that without a permanent end to violence the agreement will fail. Decommissioning is part of that. With it, the agreement can succeed.
I firmly believe that it is both necessary and possible for decommissioning to succeed. I am supported in that view by the statement of the senior man from PIRA in the Maze—in an interview given to an unlikely paper, the Financial Times. There have been other statements from loyalist terrorists accepting the idea of decommissioning. That is Irish history in the making.
The fact is that decommissioning should not be seen by PIRA or anyone else as evidence of surrender. It is not the same situation as the commanding officer handing over his sword to the winning general or the collection of arms from defeated troops. This is agreed disarmament under independent auspices as an acceptance of democracy. The analogy is with the destruction of weapons recently following the end of the Cold War rather than the collection of German weapons in 1945.
I am not naÏve enough to believe that decommissioning by itself will solve the security problem; of course it will not. Not every group and breakaway group is likely to accept the agreement. The financial rackets will remain. Even if every weapon were destroyed at present, more weapons can be bought, and fertiliser cannot be decommissioned. But decommissioning, even if incomplete, will be a massive reassurance to everybody and of great symbolism both in Irish history and in our present situation. That is why we seek it and why it is important that it should appear specifically in the Bill.
Before I sit down I want to refer briefly to two other matters. We know and welcome the fact that this is not a general amnesty. The Bill requires the authorities to consider each prisoner and his or her organisation. The tests are both individual and collective.

445
Curiously, as the Minister pointed out in his opening speech, the condition that the prisoner would not be a danger to the public if he or she were to be released is only to be applied to life sentence prisoners and not to those with fixed sentences. The explanation that the Minister gave was not entirely satisfactory and this will be one of the matters we will return to in Committee.
Similarly, we know that prisoners who are released will be released on licence. That means that a released prisoner who subsequently breaks the law will go back to prison to continue his sentence—provided the authorities can find him or her. What will happen if a released prisoner re-offends and escapes to the Republic of Ireland? Is there an agreement with the government of the Republic to ensure that such a prisoner can be returned to finish the full original sentence as well as any new sentence that may have been acquired in the process?
This Bill for the release of prisoners can be part of the key to a permanent end to violence, but it would be a monstrous injustice to implement it unless that end is clear.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the terms in which he introduced this debate. In the eight years in which I have had the privilege of speaking on Northern Ireland matters from these Benches, this is quite the most difficult Bill that we have had before us. We are looking now at the dark side of the Good Friday Agreement whose brightness gave us all hope. This is the other side of it: the moment when we have to think what the consequences of that agreement are. We have to deal with the future of those who have used terror, who have maimed and killed to get their way and who, having now failed, may or may not be seeking a better way.
I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said at the beginning of his remarks. I deplore the records of the people whom we are discussing this afternoon. I again express my sympathy for their victims, who include members of your Lordships' House. We must now look to the future. We cannot will the ends of the Good Friday Agreement without willing the means. It would be well to remind ourselves of the section of that agreement which relates specifically to prisoners. The agreement says:
"Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners … Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements … The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998".
We support the agreement and so, in logic, we have to support the legislation. It is as simple as that. Some noble Lords may suggest that the legislation is born of a compromise of principles. It is the reverse of that; it is a principled compromise. We cannot have the agreement without this legislation. As other noble Lords have said in previous debates, it is impossible to cherry-pick. We have to take the agreement as a whole.
446
It is undeniable that there are risks. Of course there are risks; there are very severe risks in the months and years ahead. Is the new adoption of the paths of peace by some who have horrendous records of violence a genuine change of mind? We do not yet know. Is it permanent? We cannot yet know, although each day that passes encourages us in that respect. What evidence of good faith can they provide? What are the confidence building measures? It is high time that we saw some from the PIRA.
More practically, what barriers to re-entry to violence can we provide through legislation and the newly-established settlement? We would do well to consider the legislation in context—not only in the context of the agreement but of the precedent legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs said. The Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, pioneered by the previous government, set the precedent on this issue.
That legislation passed through Parliament just a few months after the first republican and loyalist ceasefires. It increased from one third to a half the amount of remission that prisoners convicted of scheduled offences could expect. It has led to some 240 prisoners being released on licence earlier than they would otherwise have been, of which only two have had their licences subsequently revoked. The House united behind the pioneering 1995 legislation. I hope that it will unite behind this successor legislation today and in the coming days.
A close consideration of the Bill suggests that a similar number of prisoners will be affected. Approximately four out of every five prisoners who are currently serving sentences for scheduled offences will be released within two years as a result of the legislation. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that 45 per cent., roughly half, would have been released within two years anyway.
The legislation is not a sudden swinging open of the prison doors to allow a flood of prisoners to roam. It is opening the prison doors little by little so that the inmates can smell the fresh breeze outside. It is letting them out one by one while keeping them on a tight and secure leash.
There need to be safeguards in legislation such as this, and some of them are set out in Clause 9. As the noble Lord said, it sets out the terms of the licences under which prisoners will be released. If the terms of licences are broken the prisoners can be locked up again and their sentences reimposed. Let noble Lords put themselves in the mind of one of those prisoners. They can imagine how strong a deterrent that would and could be to re-offending.
We welcome the independent element provided by the sentences review board, and in particular the independent commissioners. Their independence gives the process added credibility. We also welcome the fact that all prisoners will have to have served a certain amount of their sentence, depending on its length. Anybody who perceives that this is simply a "get out of gaol free" card is incorrect.

447
As my noble friend, Lord Alderdice, is not able to be here today, I shall talk about victim notification. In the light of the comprehensive Bloomfield Report on the victims of violence over the past 30 years, it is essential that victims should not be overlooked in the legislation. In the whole process of settlement and reconciliation, the victims are as essential to our feelings and perceptions as the prisoners. I particularly welcome the new Clause 14, which was added to the Bill at Committee stage in another place, as the noble Lord said. The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland have led the way by making the issue of victim notification a central part of their post-agreement platform.
Just as the views of Nationalists and Unionists need to be reconciled, it is good that there is an attempt to reconcile as far as possible the differences between prisoners and their victims. It will be very difficult. Victims and their families deserve, and have not received adequately until recent times, recognition and respect. They do not have a political wing and we all have a responsibility to see that they are not ignored in the process.
I turn now to the most contentious part of the Bill, the linkage between decommissioning and release of prisoners. When this legislation was discussed in another place there was a controversial amendment making the release of prisoners entirely conditional on the prior decommissioning of former paramilitary weapons. We do not support that amendment. If that view is advanced in this House, we will not support it. I can see the emotional appeal and the symmetry of it. If one puts together the two, a lot of people say "Yes, that makes sense". It is flawed for practical reasons. Decommissioning must be meant and voluntary if it is ultimately to succeed. Otherwise, in the arms bazaar of the modern world, armaments arms will simply be replaced. We must have a will to decommission, not simply the measures to decommission.
Secondly—a point made already by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—the legislation as drafted is entirely in line with the spirit and letter of the Good Friday Agreement. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we support that agreement. When one signs up to an agreement, one signs up to all of it. That is why it was called a deal; and it was. It was a hard-negotiated deal. We in this House should not seek to renegotiate or change the agreement, or to go back on the agreement made then. The agreement is, of course, not perfect. It creates fears for many people and it has flaws for many others. But it is none the less a good agreement. I hope that in this House we do not undermine the agreement.
The legislation before us already links prisoner releases to decommissioning. Paramilitary groups must be involved in the decommissioning process in order for their prisoners to be released. So if former paramilitaries show bad faith in the decommissioning process the Secretary of State—let us remind ourselves of this—can bring those prisoners back to prison if she thinks it appropriate. The current drafting of the legislation maximises the chances for General de Chastelain and his colleagues to advance decommissioning and to make sure that it takes place.
448
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, there are somewhat hopeful signs from Mr. Patrick Wilson of the Provisional IRA and from loyalist circles that perhaps the time has come to start matching fine words with deeds. I should just like to say a few words to Conservative colleagues—I deliberately say "colleagues" because we work closely on these issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, will confirm that we on these Benches gave the previous government consistent and loyal support on their steps towards peace in Northern Ireland, as we try to do with the current Government. That is not always easy. It does not follow that because one tries to operate consensually one agrees with everything the Government do. However, I hope that our Conservative colleagues will try to avoid in this House any repetition of the "grandstanding" that went on in another place in trying to establish extra guarantees and extra linkage, which, although emotionally appealing, unbalanced a very hard-won agreement.
I noted yesterday that, immediately following the election, Mr. David Trimble went out of his way to say how unhelpful those efforts from the Conservative Benches in another place had been during the election campaign to those, particularly in his party, who were trying to advance the cause of a peaceful settlement. Indeed, he said that those efforts seemed to be more for short-term party advantage than in support of a fair and full settlement. I shall read the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, described to us and I shall see the balance it strikes; but I have to say that we shall regard it as our main priority to ensure that the legislation is passed.
The greatest impact of the legislation will be on those organisations which will be listed under Clause 3(8)—those terrorist organisations which have not enacted a ceasefire. Because of this legislation, any prisoners from those organisations will be pleading for a ceasefire to be declared. But because of the agreement and the fact that most paramilitary groups seem to be abiding by it, those organisations should now feel the full force of the security efforts concentrated against them. They will do so now without any pretence to legitimacy.
The people of Northern Ireland have spoken and have said that they want a new way. That way has to include all those who are prepared to abandon the armed struggle. I believe that this legislation is a vital element in bringing a lasting peace to Northern Ireland. We shall be supporting it from these Benches.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in his interesting opening speech the noble Lord the Minister suggested that the Northern Ireland parties and groups all had to make concessions to reach agreement. But your Lordships are not in that same position for you are not a party to the agreement. Yet this House is being invited to establish a very different and dangerous precedent. For example, it is not clear to me how the Parliament of the United Kingdom is going to limit or restrict release to one category of prisoners but deny it to others. How in the longer term can release be denied to those who have committed murder in the course of robbery, but have repented, or appeared to repent, of

449
their sins? What about murders classified as crimes of passion? Then again, drug barons convicted and rightly imprisoned can claim to have seen the errors of their ways. Child molesters are also taken out of society, but after encounters with the counselling industry, can claim to have forsaken their evil ways.
Over many years, long before I had the privilege of joining your Lordships' House, some noble Lords have lobbied for the release of individual prisoners, mostly without success. Are all individual prisoners in the above categories to be exempted because they do not have a "union" to wring concessions from government; and would they too qualify if they organised in paramilitary-style interest groups? Arms should not be a great problem because, while 1.5 million legally held firearms were confiscated last year, absolutely nothing was done to destroy the 2 million illegally held weapons in England and Wales. In any case, the pressure groups would only need to convince governments that they could hold the nation to ransom—because modern environments make society very vulnerable even to the threat of force.
How can the Government or a future government resist future pressures—perhaps backed by threats of force—from prisoners in the groups I have mentioned? I have discovered that throughout the United Kingdom there is a conviction that the Bill is a concession to terrorism. We can be certain that the lesson will not be lost on other interest groups and will not be lost on any future terrorist organisations in Ireland or elsewhere.
In regard to the phrase "release on licence", I note that the Secretary of State is given the power to suspend the licence if the prisoner re-offends. But the Bill is very thin on the subsequent steps. There is the phrase,
"he shall be detained in pursuance of his sentence and, if at large"—
that is, after being released on licence—
"shall be taken to be unlawfully at large".
The words "unlawfully at large" are unlikely to terrify the said prisoner, who almost certainly will have crossed the frontier into the republic within a matter of hours.
What then does the Good Friday Agreement do? Does it contain a secret clause providing a fast track for instant return of prisoners from the Irish Republic to the Secretary of State, to be enrolled again in the five star hotel called the Maze Prison? Surely all those brilliant minds involved in drafting the agreement could not have failed to produce a provision for the return of escaped prisoners. Surely they were not so negligent as to fail to substitute arrangements to replace the ludicrous extradition farce, which can be spun out by the Irish judiciary for around three years with a nil return at the very end.
The gaping hole in the Bill is left by the omission of a firm insistence on decommissioning before the release of prisoners. Indeed, it is the indispensable key to even the preliminary arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly structures. That was explained by the leader of the SDLP, Mr. John Hume, who is to be congratulated on establishing his party as the largest in
450
Northern Ireland. He asserted that democratically elected parties cannot sit down and do business with a group,
"which has guns on the table; under the table; or outside the door".
Not for the first time in my political career do I find myself in agreement with Mr. Hume in that very clear statement, which I do not believe was made out of consideration for opportunism.
It also appears to be the position of the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. He, too, has clearly listed his criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has listed some of them. Admittedly, some are repeated in the Bill, but the more emphatic passages, such as the following, have been omitted:
"an end to violence for good";
and
"the so-called war is finished, done with, gone";
and
"an end to bombings, killings and beatings";
and
"an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
Those are the Prime Minister's words, not mine. More recently, in another place, in answer to a question from the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, the Prime Minister declared,
"It is essential that any agreement is signed up to in full".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/5/98; col. 711.]
He said, in answer to the question, that, yes, of course it is the case that, both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and in respect of the early release of prisoners, the only organisations that qualify for that are organisations that have given up violence and given it up for good. That too could not be construed as political opportunism.
Last week, in conversation with some noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the absence of linkage of prisoner release with the decommissioning of weapons and structures was pinpointed as the fatal flaw in the Bill. Many noble Lords have spotted and agreed that that is a fatal flaw. At that time I suggested that the Bill might have been drafted some weeks before the Prime Minister gave those cast iron assurances which I have repeated. That would appear to be the only convincing reason. It is fortunate and desirable that, in the next very few weeks, the Prime Minister will have an opportunity to impose his clear intentions and directions on the Bill.
All noble Lords will agree that the Prime Minister has devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to this current initiative. I suggest that we owe it to him to ensure that his sacrifices are not sabotaged by any department in either government.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, by the nature of the draw and the order in which we speak, I speak after the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. He has the great advantage of knowing more than most about Northern Ireland and I am aware of that. I speak just before the

451
noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and he knows the reality of it in other respects and I am aware of that. I say that both ways. I have 24 tapes on Northern Ireland. They contain my thoughts over a period of time. I intend to destroy them. They should not be sold at some future date. When I returned to this country my signing-off note was, "Back home where people know very little about the problem." Going back, I wrote, "They live in the problem". I am very much aware of that.
This Bill has to be seen in the context of Northern Ireland. It is a place apart and it is different. There are 3,000 dead. There are large security forces there and there is special legislation that we would not have in this country. I remember going to Northern Ireland for the first time in 1971, I believe, and going to Longkesh. It looked like a prisoner-of-war camp with barbed wire—yet within the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is different and remains so. Nevertheless, even in the darkest days, there is a way forward. Over a period of 20 years most governments have much the same policies. They try to ameliorate and they try to do a good economic job. They are hopeful that democracy will break through. I do not know whether it will always be that way, but, as things are, small steps forward are important.
I have never believed that there can be a military victory. No general advising me ever said that a military victory could be achieved. There is no such victory. In my view in recent months the paramilitaries have realised that there can be no military victory. It is not a place in which there can be a military victory. The history of Ireland shows that. Through the last century we had special legislation by Gladstone and Disraeli year after year. The situation has not changed in that respect. The only way forward is via the ballot box and recognition of the fact that there are two communities in Northern Ireland, whether we like it or not. The Belfast agreement is one part of the process of moving forward.
The section in the White Paper on prisoners is the key to this Bill. There is one part about prisoners which speaks about their reintegration. No-one has mentioned that. If I have time I shall return to that. The Bill is in line with the special laws on security. There is the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the emergency provisions Act, which followed the special powers Act. People could be locked up. There are harsher powers in the Republic than there are in the United Kingdom. That is in line with the differences that arise because of the violence that occurs.
Scheduled offences arose from the Gardiner Report in 1975, I believe, which I set up. Those scheduled offences are an important difference between that side and this side of the water. There was the establishment of juryless courts. A debate took place the other evening on the two soldiers. It has been said that if there were not special courts the soldiers would have been set free, but I doubt it. There are no juries in Northern Ireland because they cannot be trusted. They would be biased one way or the other. That situation arose from the Gardiner recommendations. I knew that it was not possible to have parole in Northern Ireland. An officer could not walk up the Falls Road to the Shankill or to the other side of the road, and say, "Mrs. So-and-so,
452
what sort of son have you got? Is he a good lad? If we let him out on parole do you think he will behave himself?" The officer or the woman would be shot. So I introduced 50 per cent. remission. The last government returned to that a couple of years ago. Those who broke the rules would go back to prison if they were sentenced again for a similar crime.
I ended detention. That was executive detention. Those people were locked up by me. I signed a bit of paper. I used to sit in my office at the weekend with a policeman and someone from MI5. I would say, "OK, I will sign for this man to go away". It was executive action and I ended it. I was right to do so. The mistake that both Houses made was in allowing internment to take place. Violence escalated, and it led to the rebirth of the Provisional IRA. It was not thought so here, but that was the situation in Northern Ireland. I ended that, but I was not abusing the legal process. At the same time, I ended the special categories.
All governments have made mistakes. It was the Conservative Government who had been in power until 1974, when I took office, who set up special political category status. The Labour Government ended that. In fact, it was my actions that led eventually to the blanket protests and so on because although I said that 1st March was the cut-off date, it mattered not. I was right to do that although a real problem resulted from it. When we consider police primacy and the ending of special categories, how can I approve of this Bill? I have the figures with which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, supplied me about the number of people who will be released. They are significant figures. I hope that those figures have been placed in the Library.
Although questions remain to be asked, I shall leave them for now, except one. How can I subscribe to this Bill when I worked so hard to end that sort of thing? If people went to gaol, they stayed in gaol. Such matters were not decided by a "politician", to use a word that some noble and learned Lords sometimes use. I can subscribe to this Bill only if it is part of the peace process. If it proves not to be part of the peace process, my belief will be wrong.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may say that I see the merit in decommissioning. I know about the Mitchell principles, but I came across a note which I think was the view of the then Chief Constable of Northern Ireland. I repeat that I only think that this was his view. The note states:
"Everybody who was close to what was going on wanted to see the guns out of circulation but there was a difference between what was achievable and what wasn't achievable".
This was in the days of the previous administration. The note continues:
"It was perfectly clear from all of the intelligence assessments that the Provisionals were not going to hand in their arms. Indeed, some individual reports made it clear that some prominent players said they wouldn't hand in as much as a single rifle. In pragmatic terms, the issue of decommissioning was less important for the security forces".
I paraphrase: it was a political matter. What mattered far more was evidence that the Provisional IRA was demobilising its whole system. With the ability to make

453
bombs that do not come from Gaddafi or the Middle East, what good is decommissioning when the IRA can make explosives at the drop of a hat?
The argument is not about decommissioning, which has become a political shibboleth because it looks good. The important question is the structure of the paramilitaries. If their structure remains in place, they will soon be able to return to violence and make arms themselves. Nevertheless, the cry has been, "Decommissioning!". This is not easy—and there are the Mitchell principles also.
I do not believe—I never have believed—that there is a solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. I believe that we are making a mistake if we believe that there is such a solution. Sometimes when good things happen in Northern Ireland, the media go rattling on as if all the problems are solved. That is foolish. The media do not know the area about which they are writing.
Both the previous administration and this Administration have tried hard. We have had the Belfast Agreement. This Bill arises out of one of the agreements made—out of an unsigned agreement, but an agreement nevertheless. This must be worked through. Whether it will be worked through and come about, I do not know. However, I am glad that there was the Belfast Agreement. It is a credit to all those who played a part in it. I wish it well. I wish this Bill well. I wish that I could say that I have no doubts about whether it will work. I would be dishonest if I said that. But the Government have tried hard and I wish them well.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, for whom I have the greatest respect, will not carry out his threat to destroy the tapes that he has made over his years of experience in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will see them safely locked away for many years. I believe that future historians would deeply regret it if that priceless material were not available. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider what he said.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, and others from the other side of the water will also have picked up a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, because it says so much about what we on this side of the water have got wrong about Northern Ireland. The noble Lord said that when he arrived in Northern Ireland he saw things which we would not put up with in this country. Northern Ireland is in this country—that is the whole issue. It is because we on this side of the water, as much as those south of the Border, tend to forget that that we have encouraged the IRA over the years in the belief that we do not truly regard Northern Ireland as a part of this Kingdom.
I must make my next remark because I shall then have some critical words to say about the policies of the Secretary of State. I must put on the record how much I appreciate her unfailing courtesy towards me during these difficult months in which a very heavy load has been set upon her and when her health has only been
454
recovering to its normal strength. Whatever differences I may have with her, I have a very considerable admiration for that lady.
It occurred to me only today that Clause 3(8) gives us a flavour of the whole of this agreement and this legislation. Under it, we can expect that the IRA will not be defined as a "terrorist organisation". What is the IRA if it is not a "terrorist organisation"? If we believe that the IRA—or, as I should properly say, "the Provisional IRA"—is not a terrorist organisation because it has declared a truce, we delude ourselves.
Many people assume that my opposition to the agreement and the Bill is personal and that it arises from the fact that I was bombed by the IRA. That is not the case. Like most of my generation, I was bombed by better men than the IRA while I was still in short trousers. I was bombed by the Luftwaffe—men for whom I have a high respect and high regard. Nor does my opposition spring from the loss of five good, close friends, murdered by the Provisional IRA and the INLA; nor from the savage injuries which were inflicted on my wife, which have left her imprisoned for life in a wheelchair. There is no provision for early release for the victims of these terrorists. There is no provision for the early release of the innocent—only of the guilty.
My involvement in Irish politics goes back to 1972 when I became Parliamentary Private Secretary to Robin Chichester-Clark, the Member for Londonderry. I was, I am, and no doubt I shall die, a Unionist, whatever happens to the Union.
The Northern Ireland Agreement, of which this Bill is a part, grants to those who have used violence what would not have been granted had they not used violence. It is a victory for the bomb and the bullet over the ballot. It is a denial of the protection of the law to the law-abiding and a grant to the lawless of what democratic politics would not grant them. It undermines the Union of Northern Ireland with Great Britain. Before Ministers seek to argue the contrary, let them recollect that they claimed that devolution in Scotland would kill the SNP. I believe they now understand that feeding that monster has only strengthened it and it has every opportunity to devour the Labour Party in Scotland.
The strongest argument of the Government is that after 30 years of war Northern Ireland is simply war-weary, that the war cannot be won, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, and that these are the best terms on which it can be suspended. It is hard to believe that a nation that spends £20 billion a year on defence is unable to defend its citizens against an army that is numbered in hundreds rather than thousands. What has been lacking is not the means but the will.
There is a stronger argument—stronger by far than war-weariness or belief in appeasement—for this Bill and the Northern Ireland agreement but it is one that the Government prefer not to make. In January 1996 I and my good friend Austin Mitchell, the Labour Member for Grimsby, interviewed Dr. Mowlam, then Opposition

455
spokesman on Northern Ireland, on Sky Television. Dr. Mowlam told me openly and frankly:
"Our policy is for the union of Ireland by consent";
that is, Labour was and is in Irish terms a republican party. Nor should that be any surprise. The Labour Party does not have any members in Northern Ireland because its sister party is the SDLP—a non-violent democratic hut republican party. Mr. McCartney was refused the Labour whip—because he was a Unionist.
This Bill is part of a policy to achieve Irish unity, so I cannot complain that the Government are not achieving their objective; only that I do not share that objective. I oppose this Bill for the violence that it does to the concept of justice and the distinction that it draws between murder and bombing in pursuit of politics and in pursuit of any other end. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, was right. Justice must be even-handed. This legislation gives special treatment to political criminals. It would have been better entitled the Legitimisation of Political Crime Bill.
My former constituent, Mr. Reggie Kray, is not a nice man. In my judgment, he should have been hanged for the crime that he committed, but it is 30 years since he was convicted of a single murder. It is held that he is still too devious and manipulative to be released. On this side of the water a man is liable to imprisonment for the possession of a single shot 22 calibre handgun. In Northern Ireland known serial killers are to be released to be reunited with their armoury of weapons. Indeed, killing in connection with Irish politics on this side of the water is to be excused by the expedient of transferring murderers into the Northern Irish jurisdiction. Can such a contrast be justified on any grounds of principle or solely upon expediency?
What about Guardsmen Fisher and Wright? I was in America and was unable to attend the debate on this subject last week. I returned from America only this morning specifically to be here today. What about Fisher and Wright? I read carefully the words of the noble Lord. He indicated that they would have an opportunity to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill—like terrorists. The Prime Minister was economical with the truth when Mr. Hague questioned him on this. We know that the Secretary of State had decided last October that those guardsmen should serve not less than six years. Mr. Ingram, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, informed the other place that,
"Fisher and Wright had not served a period sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the crime".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/98; col. 348.]
One murder. What a contrast!
It is my intention to move an amendment to this Bill to delay its coming into effect until Fisher and Wright are released. Common decency, let alone justice, demands that. It does not conflict with the agreement in any way whatever. Today we have finally wrung out of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that that agreement has not been signed by Sinn Fein. The weasel words that have been used are "signed up to", not "signed".
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that not a single party in
456
Northern Ireland has formally signed the agreement? There was no procedure for signing as such. However, every party to the agreement, including the two governments, have stated publicly that they support the agreement in totality.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am aware of that. Surely, it is a remarkable state of affairs that one is constantly told that this is an agreement to which people have signed up but no provision has been made for any party to be asked to set its hand to it. I do not believe that Sinn Fein would sign the agreement even if given an opportunity to do so. In a way Sinn Fein is a curiously honest group of people. Sinn Fein knows that the IRA has no intention of giving up its weapons before Northern Ireland is ceded to the republic. My noble friend Lord Cope was far too optimistic. As Mr. Adams has made plain, the Provisional IRA will not give up its arms unless the United Kingdom renounces its right to deploy Her Majesty's Armed Forces in its territory. That is what it means by "decommissioning".
The Earl of Longford: I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting his remarks. Does he see any prospect of the Protestant paramilitaries giving up their arms?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I do not distinguish between them except in the sense of scale. They are all of the same ilk and should be treated in the same way. But the weapons of the IRA are essential, not just as a threat—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House sympathises with the noble Lord's feelings about terrorism. But is he aware of any settlement reached since the war with former terrorists that has not involved some element of amnesty, and does he condemn them all?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Earl forgets that this is not an agreement reached between the United Kingdom and citizens of a foreign place. This is in our land, over which we have jurisdiction. This is not a war of independence against a colonial power. This is Her Majesty's Kingdom. The IRA knows that its weapons are essential not just now as a threat to the people of Ulster but to be used sooner or later to back up an IRA campaign of ethnic cleansing designed to create a majority for unity with the Republic.
I intend to move an amendment to add a fifth condition to the release of a prisoner: that he should have given,
"full co-operation with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning to implement the provisions of this Agreement".—[Official Report, 21/5/98; col. WA 199.]
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be familiar with the words; he used them in a Parliamentary Answer to me. I believe that they are also the words of the Prime Minister.
I have spoken for too long. I have spoken as a Unionist. I speak also for the victims of these criminals who have shown no repentance or contrition. They have uttered not a single word of regret for their crimes. There has been no sign of repentance and regret. The victims of the past would not wish to stand in the way

457
of a process if it meant that there would be no more victims in the future, but there can be no lasting peace without justice. This Bill reeks and stinks of injustice.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, when the agreement was first debated in this House I said that given the overall situation in Northern Ireland I was inclined to support it with grave reservations about prisoners and the RUC. Since then, during every day that has elapsed I have had a real conscience striking me in relation to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that this was by far the most difficult part of the agreement. This morning, after hearing on the radio what was liable to happen in Northern Ireland this week, particularly on Sunday in regard to the march at Drumcree, I debated whether to say anything in this House. Whatever I said could be misinterpreted as being an attack on the agreement. The one thing which persuaded me to stand up today was the knowledge that I would be speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. If there is any noble Lord in this House with whom I can agree in emotion, in conscience and in every other way it is the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. That is not because of his opposition to the agreement, but because of the terrible things that happened to him. Every morning he gets up and looks at his wife in a wheelchair. The IRA's atrocities will be with him and his wife until the end of their days.
It is in no one's ambit to criticise the noble Lord for his opposition to the Bill. I feel exactly the same. Some of my colleagues—among them, one of my closest colleagues—were murdered by loyalist paramilitaries. I had to identify my colleague's body after he was almost decapitated by a loyalist murderer. That murderer fought an election to the assembly last week. Thanks be to God that he did not achieve majority support at the polls.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will know, we have in Northern Ireland what we have referred to over the years as "whataboutery". When one talks about the atrocities of the IRA, someone from the other side will say, "Ah, but what about?" I have lived with that for 30 years in Northern Ireland. There is a lot of "whataboutery". If the IRA gives up its arms—and I want it to do so—I want the same criteria applied to the other paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland which have carried out the most atrocious murders seen in the island of Ireland in my lifetime and long before.
Today, we are asked either to accept or reject the Bill. As I said to some of my friends this afternoon, I find it offensive when people from the Northern Ireland Office and Ministers refer to "cherry picking". Perhaps I am not well read, but the first time I heard the expression was when some civil servants were making a vicious and prolonged attack on the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, at the end of her career in Northern Ireland. They said that the report on the alleged misdoings in her office was cherry picking. I find that an offensive term because people who are giving of their all, their conscience, and their whole being, in expressing
458
opposition to elements of the agreement are not cherry picking. They are not. I hope that from now on no Minister, in an attempt to push the agreement, will accuse those who have a conscience and mental reservations about some aspects of cherry picking.
Should the Bill mean that the agreement was defeated I would be opposed to it. Grave as my reservations are, I support the agreement. Despite all my reservations, I believe that in the attempt to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland there is no further answer except by way of this agreement. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—and it makes my blood run cold when I think of it—that a convicted loyalist murderer was elected to the assembly last Thursday. A convicted IRA murderer who was responsible for the Old Bailey bombing was elected last week. An indication of the awful divide which exists in Northern Ireland is that people who have the same conscience as I have can go into a ballot box and vote for people who have carried out such atrocious crimes. I will have to live with that. Those people will be elected to the assembly in Northern Ireland and they will speak with the authority of a mandate in Northern Ireland. Much as I would wish, there is no way in which I could reject that mandate. People voted for them in the democratic process in the privacy of a polling booth in Northern Ireland.
I listened with great attention to my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. I could detect that he, too, was wrestling with his conscience about the Bill. He was in Northern Ireland during a great deal of travail with car bombs and murders almost every day, sometimes almost every hour. He cannot be happy with the Bill. Incidentally, I notice that in today's debate only myself and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, are what I consider to be supporters of the Labour Government. I hope that it will not be assumed that the Conservatives are opposed to the Bill but that Members on this side of the House are not. I believe that many Members on this side of the House cannot be happy with the Bill. Perhaps they are not speaking about it, perhaps they are not writing about it and perhaps they are hoping that the problem will go away.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that I understand every fibre of his being in his opposition to the Bill because he has lived through the incident and every day that he lives he will remember it. Every day that I live I remember that identification of my friend's body and all the other atrocities that took place. I remember very well when a pub was blown up in my constituency. I went down there and helped to pull 16 bodies out of the pub—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was McGurk's Bar.
Lord Fitt: It was McGurk's Bar. I had to pull out 16 bodies. One of the bodies which I tried to bring out from under the rubble actually broke in my hands. They are incidents which I can never forget. But the Bill seems to be absolving people who were responsible for the commission of those horrendous crimes.
Will the noble Lord explain to me whether McArdle, recently convicted in a British court of driving that horrendous bomb from Northern Ireland and sentenced

459
to 25 years, will be able to gain remission under the terms of the Bill? Will he serve only two years of his 25-year sentence? Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland make some accommodation transferring him to Northern Ireland where he will be released? After all, he killed two innocent people; he murdered two people. Will he become part and parcel of the Bill? I hope that the commission will take very seriously those who have great reservations about the Bill.
Seventy one per cent. of the population voted in the referendum. Those people voted because they wanted peace. Who does not want peace in Northern Ireland? Since then, we have seen a reduction in that yes vote in the assembly elections because the people who voted yes began to think and to examine the agreement. They began to look at the police Bill and at this sentences Bill and did not vote in such great numbers. Therefore, I urge my noble friend at all times to be acutely aware of the great sensitivities which exist.
I wish to associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about the report of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in relation to the victims in Northern Ireland. There are many victims in Northern Ireland in the same category as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who will have to live the rest of their lives with the consequences of what was carried out by those paramilitaries, loyalists and republicans. I urge my noble friend to make certain that in the years that lie ahead those victims and their consideration must never be taken out of the equation in this agreement. I continue to support the agreement but with great reservations, which I had at the time and continue to have.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, of course I support what this Government and the government before them have done to create the conditions in which Northern Ireland may be able to work out its future. But I have a number of difficulties with this Bill which I expect the general public in Northern Ireland share.
The first is the definition of eligibility for release. Clause 3(4) requires that the prisoner is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation. Clause 3(8) provides that the Secretary of State may specify a terrorist organisation but only those which are either,
"concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland or … have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire".
Clause 3(9) requires the Secretary of State to take into account in particular whether an organisation,
"is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives; (b) has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence; (c) is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations",
that is presumably intended to cover the continuity IRA, the real IRA and the 32 counties group. Paragraph (d) covers any organisation which,
"is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act".
460
I presume that that is the international independent commission set up to serve both the British and Irish governments.
My difficulties are that first, the prisoners being offered the opportunity to apply for release on licence and a major reduction of sentence are being offered it precisely because they are, though they are there for murder and violence, first and foremost, members of and therefore presumably supporters of terrorist organisations. Are they in the least likely to say that they no longer support the very organisations which both put them there and now have the political leverage to get them out?
My next difficulty, at least with the IRA prisoners, is that the IRA does not appear to be taking any steps to end the breaking of the ceasefire by its so-called breakaway groups. The latter could not operate without both the expertise and the special materials, including semtex, available only to the PIRA itself.
Next, the Secretary of State must take into account whether the organisation which they have supported to this day is co-operating with the commission on decommissioning. How can that come about when the IRA has said, not only in May this year but on many other occasion, that it has no intention of decommissioning its arms, not one ounce of semtex; when Martin McGuinness has reiterated that for the IRA, decommissioning means only with the withdrawal of the British forces and the disarming of the RUC; and when Gerry Adams said in June 1995:
"Even a symbolic gesture of decommissioning arms would symbolise an IRA surrender, and is hardly a reasonable or justifiable demand by the British".
I believe that one of the IRA leaders in the Maze—mention has been made of this today—has recently been reported as floating the possibility that the IRA might itself destroy some arms. There is of course provision for that in the decommissioning plans, provided that the destruction is both supervised and certified by the commission. But no more has been heard of that and it may well have been a pre-election gimmick, dictated by the IRA to raise hopes, rather like the more recent hints that the IRA may at last reveal where its victims are buried.
It is of course always possible that in order to secure the release of prisoners the IRA may indeed instruct its members to say that they no longer support the IRA although I do not believe, for reasons of face, that that could ever happen. It is much more likely simply to instruct them to say that they are now men of peace. Will that be enough? But since the IRA recently said publicly that members of Sinn Fein who were also members of the IRA were free to stand for election and serve in the assembly, such an instruction is not perhaps impossible if it will obtain the release of the prisoners. It would be cynical, but would it count under the terms of the Bill? It could be simply another tactic in the political phase of the struggle.
The IRA's use of Sinn Fein is always flexible and has allowed it to say that it did not consider itself in any way bound by Sinn Fein's support of the Mitchell principles, thus implying, successfully at that time, that they were quite separate institutions.

461
The Secretary of State's powers in the Bill are very wide and I suggest that by comparison the sentencing review body is an instrument rather than a truly decision-making body. It is becoming clear that this Bill is flexible enough to allow the paramilitaries on both side to get their men out and into a splendid rehabilitation programme promised in the Belfast agreement—something the RUC and other victims never had—without any quid pro quo at all. Here we come to a major difference between the Secretary of State's view of the policy—and I share the admiration expressed for her courage—and that of the Prime Minister which I find difficult to understand. Discussing the Belfast agreement on 20th April 1998, when the point had been made that there was no explicit linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners in the agreement, most unfortunately, she said:
"There is quite consciously no bartering of prisoners for weapons—no link between the two. All along, the Government have believed that that would be an unacceptable bargain to strike … There are no side deals and no bartering ".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/98; col. 491.]
Negotiation is not bartering. It is a perfectly proper procedure. It is deeply unfortunate that there is no explicit linkage between decommissioning and the release of the men of violence in the agreement but the Prime Minister's statement, in his speech at Balmoral on 14th May, quite apart from his reply in the other place to Mr. David Trimble, makes it clear that he regards a commitment to decommissioning as explicit in the agreement. He said:
"Their commitment to democratic, non-violent means must be established in an objective, meaningful and verifiable way".
He includes among the factors to be taken into account in establishing whether violence has been genuinely given up for good:
"Full co-operation with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the provisions of the agreement".
Therefore, I suggest that to make release conditional on actual decommissioning is not unreasonable. It is a very important way in which, as the Prime Minister also said, there can be,
"confidence building measures from those organisations after all the suffering they have inflicted on Northern Ireland".
That is not bartering. It is entirely consonant with the Mitchell principles on the total disarmament on paramilitary organisations and is identifying a perfectly reasonable quid pro quo which also offers all the many victims who must now see the murderers of their fathers, sons, mothers and daughters going free some reassurance. They deserve to see the confidence-building measures which the Prime Minister had in mind form part of the process of release. It would be infinitely more convincing than the ceasefire.
As the Prime Minister said:
"It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence".[Oflicial Report, Commons, 6/5/98; col. 711.]
Decommissioning is part of that, of course. What we cannot have in terms of security for people is a tactical ceasefire following which organisations whose prisoners have been released return to violence.
462
I should say that I am well aware that the loyalist paramilitaries too have been responsible for terrible grief and murder. I have concentrated on Sinn Fein/IRA because the loyalists have, it is said, taken the first steps to discussing decommissioning with the commission. The IRA has not.
I have only two other questions at this stage. All we know of the Irish draft legislation is that it is reported it will under no circumstances consider for release under the new process those who may be convicted of the murder of a Gardai officer, Detective Garda Gerry McCabe. Can we be reassured that we too will follow that admirable precept and not release the murderers of policemen or members of the forces? They would not have been released if they had been, other than, in effect, political prisoners.
Incidentally, I hope that we shall be given details before the Committee stage of the Irish draft legislation. I shall be especially interested to know whether provision is made there for the extradition to Northern Ireland of any prisoner released on licence under this scheme from Northern Ireland who breaks a condition of release by, for example, engaging in renewed paramilitary activity in the Irish Republic or takes refuge there.
The Minister will tell us that under arrangements made as far back as 1985 by the previous government quite large numbers of those paramilitary prisoners have already been released or are due for release. That was intended to stop the violence; it did not do so.
The general public—and most especially the victims on all sides—do not wish to see a series of efforts by the Government, even for the most admirable reasons, to try to set up arrangements which will in effect let the IRA in particular, and the paramilitaries generally, literally get away with murder. It is really not enough for them to have a last minute conversion to peace, unless they and Sinn Fein/IRA also publicly urge their former organisations to engage actively in decommissioning. Alas, I know that this is extremely unlikely to happen, but it is surely the least that we should be requiring of them, if only on behalf of their victims, in return for freedom and a new start in life. We of all people, after Munich, should know the difference between peace and appeasement.
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am a very loyal but not automatic supporter of the Government. However, on this occasion I rise to give the fullest possible support to my noble friend the Minister who made such an effective speech. I am aware that no none who lives in Northern Ireland thinks that anyone who lives over here is worth listening to. But I have one or two qualifications of my own. They do not compare for one moment with those of my noble friend Lord Fitt, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux or, indeed, in a different tragic sense, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Nevertheless, I suppose that I am one of the few people present today who was given a drink of whiskey—specifically Irish whiskey—by James Craig who was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the

463
1930s. I wrote a book—still, I am glad to say, a standard book—about the treaty of 1921, which established the Northern Ireland state as we know it. Moreover, as I believe I have mentioned once before in the House, a few years ago I stayed with the leader of the Ulster Volunteer Force (a Protestant paramilitary body) who was later assassinated. I learnt from him that Carson was still the great hero—Carson being the man who brought guns into Ireland. After all, the guns came from a Protestant source. Resistance to the British Government was why guns first came into Northern Ireland with the slogan, "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right"; but that was not the IRA, it was the opposite. However, that is by the way.
I return to the present situation. I express the strongest possible support and admiration for this settlement. I congratulate all those concerned. In my eyes, particular credit goes to our Prime Minister. I fervently believe that without him the settlement would never have been reached. So all credit to him.
That admiration leads me, I believe quite logically, to have confidence in those who are concerned with operating the agreement. There are many difficult choices in front of them. It is no good pretending from outside that I know exactly the best course of action in every case. I leave it confidently in their hands. If you like, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, there are very serious issues before us today. For example, the whole question of releasing people who have done terrible things cannot be glossed over quickly.
Something like 3,000 men and women in this country have been convicted of murder. I am in touch with and see about six of them from time to time. Indeed, only last week one of those men who has been convicted of murder asked: "Why are the Irish people being treated better than we are?" That is the kind of question that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, raised in his speech. It is a question that needs a serious answer. Why should people who have been convicted of murder—and of course not all members of the IRA have been convicted of murder, whether it is the IRA, UDA or whatever—be let out early, as is intended will occur if the ceasefire holds?
One cannot answer that question without taking a long and hard look at the difference between the situation in this country and that which prevails in Northern Ireland. For example, no one in this country would tolerate for a moment the existence of a series of paramilitary bodies. That is the first difference. There are six or more paramilitary bodies in Northern Ireland, half of them Protestant and half of them Catholic. Roughly speaking, half are involved in the agreement while the other half are not. Those who are not involved are particularly dangerous because they are not even committed to the agreement. However, that is the situation that whoever is responsible for our affairs here and in Ireland has to cope with. Those people may not like it, but that is the regrettable fact. Perhaps one should ask. "Why haven't we got rid of such bodies before?" These paramilitary bodies are criminal organisations and
464
totally illegal. But they have been allowed to flourish and some of them have been indirectly involved in the agreement. That is the situation.
We shall have to make time to decide what course should be taken. Indeed, one has to try to put oneself in the position of the Government. As I said, I give them the benefit of the doubt. I can only say that I condemn utterly all violence in Northern Ireland, especially murderous violence. That is not quite the same as saying that all terrorism is unjustified everywhere. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, many terrorists have later become heroes. In 1920 Lord George spoke of "holding murder by the throat" when dealing with the Irish guerilla warfare, but later he hailed Michael Collins as a glorious figure.
In Northern Ireland today there is no excuse whatever for violence. I wish to make it plain that I am not soft on crime in Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is no excuse whatever for violence by any party. But paramilitary bodies, criminal bodies, are still permitted to exist. That is the situation with which the leaders and all those concerned have had to cope.
Before I sit down I should like to make one further plea. I illustrated it in a sense when I asked a question earlier. It is natural in England for people to think of the enemy as being the IRA. After all, it is those people who attacked the British Forces in the Province. However, over the past few years it would seem that more damage has been done by the Protestant paramilitaries. It is difficult to calculate, but more damage seems to have been done by them. They are heavily armed. Indeed they are possibly as heavily armed as the IRA but it is difficult to know exactly. Certainly, if one were a Catholic, one would think that the Protestants were the more powerful body.
I remember being present in 1969 when the British Army was brought in in strength. To some extent, it was brought in to protect the Catholics. But let us not think of the unfortunate Protestants as being at the mercy of the IRA; indeed it is the other way round. I always ask for balance. I am not saying that any of them are in the right because, ideally, no paramilitary force should exist anywhere. A paramilitary force can be a force committed to violence against one's fellow citizens and should not exist. However, assuming they exist, they should be put on the same footing, whether Protestant or Catholic. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit will agree with that.
I return to what I said earlier. I am entirely in favour of the agreement and I have the utmost confidence in those who are trying to put it into effect. I wish them very good luck.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly as someone who lives in Northern Ireland. I hope that I can impress on your Lordships the enormous impact that the prisoner issue has had and is having. It has caused passionate views to be held by those in the middle ground who have not previously held many passionate views. The Bill will be carefully assessed in Northern Ireland, and I believe that the apparent dilution

465
in Unionist support for the "Yes" campaign in the assembly elections, compared to that in the referendum, has reflected the uncertainty and concern about this prisoner issue which has continued to exist. That concern was no doubt increased by the discussion, much of it rather confused, which took place on the Bill in another place during the final stages of the assembly election campaign.
People in Northern Ireland are greatly concerned that the Bill may not be an integral part of the process which will lead to a democratic and peaceful end. They are concerned in particular that progress on decommissioning must proceed in parallel.
I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that some of the Bill's wording might be improved and that the reassurances that people want should be written more clearly in the Bill. Ironically, it was his party which moved the goal posts on the decommissioning issue on several occasions, which is why many people in Northern Ireland have lost confidence in the decommissioning process and why they now want to see some material and positive progress towards the decommissioning of illegal arms and explosives in parallel with prisoner release.
I hope that the Minister will consider tidying up the drafting of Clause 3(9) so that it will be made much clearer that the Secretary of Sate has to take into account the fact that full co-operation on decommissioning by any organisation with which a prisoner for release is concerned, is taking place. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that that litmus test should be applied to each prisoner being considered for release. In my view it is sufficient that it is applied to the organisation with which that prisoner is concerned.
Prisoner release and decommissioning must be clearly seen not to be linked—I realise that that will be difficult, if not impossible—but to be taking place in parallel. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I supported the agreement. I realise that we cannot cherry pick, as he said. He has spoken and written movingly on many occasions, as he did today, about his own experiences, and the struggle he has had with his conscience about accepting the release of prisoners who have been guilty of horrific crimes, as regards many of which he has had personal and harrowing experience.
We have all had to compromise our commitments and our consciences in some way in supporting the agreement. In that spirit, I support the need for the Bill. I urge the Minister to confirm the Government's insistence that decommissioning and prisoner release will clearly proceed in parallel. He must be aware of the great sensitivity of the prisoner issue in the Province. He must give people in Northern Ireland the clear reassurances that the process will be fair.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we in this House have the advantage over our colleagues in another place in that we have yet again seen confirmation that the people of Northern Ireland want the Good Friday Agreement to proceed. The vote may
466
have been lower, as the noble Lord said, but it was still substantial and solid. However, on a day when those newly elected Northern Ireland politicians should be planning for the future of health, education and the economy in Northern Ireland, we are, yet again, as happens each year at this time of year, discussing violence and the prospects of violence. We had only to watch the scenes on Saturday to see that that is something that will not go away easily.
One did not have to be psychic about the judgment of the officials when one saw the arrival of a thousand troops in the Province in advance of a pronouncement by the Parades Commission. This morning the chairman—to quote Mr. Trimble—of the "so-called" Parades Commission announced that there were to be no Orangemen down the Garvaghy Road.
If in previous years, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, Church leaders and community workers could not solve the problem, why should five men and women with no previous experience of these negotiations have been able to find an answer? The commission is called independent. One probably has to live in Northern Ireland to recognise that for many people any body appointed by the British Government will not be regarded as independent.
It will be the same with regard to the commissioners provided under the Bill. There will be assumptions and prejudice from day one. The independence of the Parades Commission was removed by the Prime Minister and the absence of a resignation by the chairman of the commission when he accepted the instruction not to publish the provisional plan for the commission earlier this year. It would help were the Prime Minister to learn that when one pushes something into the long grass, the long grass has eventually to be mowed. The week of the Drumcree procession is not the time to do it.
Perhaps I may use this opportunity to express sympathy for members of the RUC and the security forces who will be in the middle of any confrontation. We talk about the victims of terrorism. But what about the victims of the prejudices and enthusiasm for confrontation of constitutional politicians? Those members of the RUC and the security forces are just as likely as others to be injured and out of work for the rest of their lives. I hope that that will be borne in mind in the future.
Before I came to this House I had never heard of Henry VIII clauses. Fortunately I was well educated in them by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. If I had not learnt then, this Bill would well and truly teach me what it is. The greater the detail you find on the face of the Bill, the better it will be. It would surely help those Northern Ireland politicians who have to make it work.
From time to time we have seen legislation helped to go through quickly. Things are then often left unresolved. The purpose of your Lordships' House is to revise legislation. Most years it makes 2,000 revisions. Legislation then comes back to haunt the people who have to make the legislation work.

467
It is appropriate for me now to praise the bipartisan support I received from all sides of the House during my years in office. That does not mean that I had an easy time. I am grateful to those noble Lords who gave me that support. It is especially appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is in his place, because it was helpful to be able to concentrate on Northern Ireland rather than cross-House disputes. I hope that we shall be able to continue in that way. Northern Ireland issues are too fragile to be turned into a World Cup-style game. There will never be a golden goal in Northern Ireland.
On 16th March this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, told me:
"The noble Baroness will also be aware of the Government's view that there are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 16/3/98; col. 494.]
I am afraid that my view is that there now are, by definition, because of what the agreement contains. I was sorry to hear the Minister say that of all the people who had been released only two had committed heinous crimes. I ask about the victims of those "only two". Any prisoner who is released and commits a crime—
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Perhaps, for the sake of accuracy, I might say that I said that of the prisoners who had been released only two had committed further offences. I meant that the process of releasing prisoners had resulted in the vast majority behaving lawfully on release.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I personally think that two is two too many. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred to political categorisation. If criminals kill someone in a warehouse raid—the aim of that warehouse raid may be to raise funds for terrorists—why are they outside the life imprisonment requirement? I did not take part in the debate on the imprisoned guardsmen. Why do the Government feel that the guardsmen would pose a greater threat to the communities than the people who are being released? It would be interesting to know that.
If prisoners can count on a sentence that is given by the judicial authorities being commuted into a shorter sentence, does that mean that there may be more crime because the price to be paid for that crime will be a lesser one? Why should the protection afforded to the Garda by not releasing in the south people who have attacked policemen be greater than that afforded to policemen in the north?
I am nervous about the definition of a terrorist group in the Bill. I do not believe that the people concerned will not form new groups. As regards the fact that a crime will have to be committed before that is recognised, I think that we shall need to examine that aspect. In my view unless a victim can be resurrected, murder is murder. I cannot swallow easily the deal which has been done. Over recent years some former terrorists have worked hard to achieve the agreement. Nevertheless I find it difficult to accept that we have to swallow this step in order to move forward.
468
I believe this to be a flawed Bill and the timing unhelpful. But however fudged the agreement, the majority of people in Northern Ireland have shown that they want to go forward. They want democracy, not terrorism. I am neither a resident nor a native of Northern Ireland but I am a friend for life. As such, I am keen to see the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the subject. I feel particularly humble to be speaking in such a debate when so many eminent speakers have already spoken, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for whom I have a great deal of respect, admiration and sympathy. I am ashamed that there are people from the Province where I live who have caused such misery for so many people on this side of the Irish Sea.
I, like many others, realise that if we are to achieve a lasting peace, then unpalatable as it is, convicted terrorists may have to be released on licence earlier than their sentences would previously have permitted. Therefore I would not support an amendment to defeat the Bill as a whole. However, in the later stages I shall support amendments which in my view strengthen the legal requirements, including those relating to decommissioning, which will be necessary prior to early releases of the prisoners.
The greatest threat to the future of the assembly and indeed the peace process at this moment is the question of decommissioning of weapons and the link with prisoner releases. All the parties who are not linked to paramilitaries, including the unionists and the SDLP, have voiced concern at some level, and sympathy with victims' families and law-abiding people.
I live in County Fermanagh which is perhaps the largest mixed community in the Province with an almost 50–50 balance in religious and political mix. The nationalists and unionists work and live together. It is a rural and border county, having the largest border area of any county in the Province. I served in the regular Army in Belfast in the winter of 1976–77. I then served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for 17 years and the amalgamated Royal Irish Regiment for a further two years. I wish to add to what my noble friend Lord Rathcavan has said. I wish to explain why this issue has become such a serious threat to progress within the Province.
We have to understand the kind of people who in many cases carried out these terrorist incidents. Your Lordships should also understand why so many intelligent and normal people right across the political divide feel deep uneasiness about earlier releases without stricter criteria being applied. The Bill concerns the release of prisoners, but we must be in no doubt that these prisoners are terrorists. We must not forget that. Many of them are guilty not just of shooting people or blowing them up from a distance, but of the most repugnant acts of torture and cruelty too. I want to put this into perspective and I make no apology for doing so. At the moment we are in danger of treating these

469
people like PoWs, but I put it to your Lordships that if they were, we would pursue many of them as war criminals for the way in which they have committed their crimes. In Bosnia we are doing exactly that as regards people who have committed similar acts.
Let us think for a moment of the two corporals taken from their car in west Belfast. They were taken from their car in the full glare of the media and heli tele in the air. They were tortured and beaten to death when their own weapons were there to kill them in—dare I say it?—a less inhumane way. However, the terrorists did not choose that way; they killed them in the most brutal way by stripping them and beating them. We should remember the mentally retarded woman taken from a club in Belfast and ruthlessly killed a couple of years ago by Protestants. We should remember Captain Robert Nairac and what we believe happened to him.
Eleven soldiers in my company in 4UDR were brutally murdered. My first platoon corporal was murdered delivering vegetables to a Roman Catholic school in Roslea. The police called me out of Omagh market whilst I was selling cattle to tell me of it. Three brothers, all my soldiers, were killed over a period of time. One was killed in front of his family and his wife who was a Roman Catholic and staying with her parents at the time. Another was shot to pieces delivering groceries to a house a mile outside Lisnaskea. He was put down by the first shots but that was not enough. The killers went right up to him and shot him many times in the head. That was not a film but reality. It is impossible to describe the effects of such close range shooting.
The third brother, whom they had failed to kill previously, was killed while driving children to school on a school bus. Having wounded him, they pursued him to the back of the bus and riddled him with shots in front of the young children. The killers drove off cheering and laughing down the main street in Derrylin. They enjoyed what they were doing. We know from intelligence that after many other incidents, terrorists on both sides went to pubs and cheered and relished the brutality they had caused.
Only last year one evening I was travelling home from your Lordships' House. During the flight I read in the evening paper of a girl called Bernadette Martin. Noble Lords may remember that she was shot while sleeping in a house in Aghalee. Even though I did not have a clue as to who she was, I felt numbed by what I read. I decided to call and see the family before I got home. I asked for directions at the local police station in Portadown. I cannot describe what it is like to sit beside the coffin of a pretty young girl who has been riddled with bullets by a psychopathic killer. There were others there who did not know the family either. This was almost certainly done by a Protestant. Is he not guilty of a war crime? If and when he is convicted, does he have a right to early release? In any other country, even if there were a more legitimate type of war, would he not be tried as a war criminal?
470
I related that event because I wanted to demonstrate that the relatives and close friends of the 3,000 people murdered are not the only people affected by that sort of indiscriminate ethnic cleansing—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will give way. Has he, and has the House, considered what would happen if, God forbid, a member of the family of any of the victims he has described, on hearing of the release of the killer of their loved one, were to kill that terrorist? Presumably that person would be tried conventionally for murder and sentenced to 30 years, with no early release.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, many thousands more people are affected. That is where the danger comes for the assembly. We talk about the victims, and the Bloomfield Report is important in relation to what we should do for them. However, we must not forget that we are not talking merely about the relatives of 3,000 murdered people. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of other people in Northern Ireland who are affected, and whose trust the Government require in order to go forward in the peace process.
By now it should be understood that many of those terrorists must have a serious psychological problem. Enjoying such brutality is not normal. Imagine knee-capping a person. Shooting is one thing, but drilling a person's knee with a Black and Decker must be a traumatic experience for any normal person—but these terrorists are not normal. So why are we considering their early release without removing their primary tools—their weapons?
This morning, through the RUC statistics branch, I learnt something which far exceeded my estimate: 205 children have been killed in terrorist-related incidents since 1969. That is a frightening number. It represents some 7 or 8 per cent. of the total deaths. Can that be considered justifiable in a so-called struggle for freedom? I was horrified, as I am sure your Lordships will be, to learn that fact. I do not have to wonder—I know—how we treat child killers in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Does society not have a right to demand decommissioning of weapons? I believe that normal society does have that right. I realise that it has not happened following previous IRA campaigns—for example, the '56 campaign. But it is different this time. The weapons used then were obsolete in a few years—bolt action long-barrelled rifles and gelignite which deteriorated during storage. This time, it is AK 47s, armalites and Semtex, which will be reusable in 20 or 30 years' time, whenever it is so desired.
The matters I have set out are the reasons that so many moderate unionists, or middle-of-the-road SDLP voters, may have worries. Many on the unionist side are not extreme Paisleyites. They simply believe that it is wrong to have early release prior to some decommissioning.
In today's Independent, the Secretary of State is said to have been disappointed that the results of the election were not as clear-cut as she would have liked. I agree.

471
But we must understand the reason. It is the threat of more ill-timed releases, such as the recent ones of Michael Stone by this Government and the Balcombe Street gang by the Government of the Republic.
This Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to carry out the early release policy—but she must not act prematurely, regardless of the opinions of the vast majority of moderate people in Northern Ireland. It worries me when the only unequivocal supporters of this legislation are the terrorists and those who have close links with them. It is disturbing that that is the case.
The assembly is very finely balanced even as it stands, given the number of unionists who may not support its staying in place. If there is to be no real attempt at decommissioning, I fear for its future.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a couple of short questions on the Good Friday Agreement and the Bill. Concerning decommissioning, the agreement states of the parties:
"They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms".
Sinn Fein, through its leadership—two members of which are commonly believed to be on the IRA army council—has, or has had, control of terrorists who personally had custody of paramilitary weapons. Sinn Fein leaders state categorically that there will be no decommissioning, and yet they are still in close touch with those terrorists. Are they now to be allowed out of this by saying that they are no longer responsible for the weapons? Is it right that all they have had to do is give their weapons to another of their groups for safe-keeping? That makes a mockery of it all. Handling a murder weapon and/or knowingly being an accessory, would not be treated in that way in Great Britain. Will the Minister tell the House how their commitment to use "any influence" they may have is to be judged in the light of those negative remarks and actions?
Paragraph 3 of the paper, Prisoners and the Political Settlement, which was placed in the Library on 20th April, states:
"The Government has said that there will be no amnesty for those convicted of terrorist offences".
I accept that; but can the Minister reassure us that there will also be no let-up in the search for those who have not yet been caught—and that there will also be no amnesty for them?
In conclusion, I support the Bill as a whole. However, I may support any amendments that are put forward at a later stage. We must try to give the people of Northern Ireland more reassurance.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships today, I am wearing a different hat from my usual one. I was for two and a half years the president of the former Greater London area of the Conservative Party—that is, of the voluntary workers of the party. Before that, I was for six years its treasurer and then its chairman. As a result of the long period I spent in those positions I have had, and
472
continue to have, extensive contacts with the officers and rank and file members of all the London Conservative associations.
In addition, for reasons about which I am too modest to speculate, I am frequently asked to speak at meetings of other associations around the country. That adds to my contacts with a large number of what may be called "ordinary" members of my party. From those very widespread contacts, I can tell the House that I believe ordinary party members take a realistic view of the Good Friday Agreement—that is, the one that was accepted by a majority of voters in the recent referendum. I stress that I refer to the original Good Friday Agreement. They are realistic enough to follow the dictum of the late Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, who pointed out that the only people you can make peace with are your enemies. Unless you can utterly defeat your enemies and impose unconditional surrender, making peace involves making compromises on both sides.
Nobody can win an urban guerrilla war, neither the government nor the guerrillas. A guerrilla war is what, to some extent, has been going on in Northern Ireland and the mainland. I say "to some extent" because the so-called paramilitaries, claiming to support either the republican or the loyalist sides, are in reality nothing but gangsters. Their pretended patriotic activities are to disguise their criminal actions in various forms: extortion, bank robbery, drug dealing, counterfeiting, smuggling, confidence trickery on gullible Irish Americans and any other form of racketeering when an opportunity presents itself.
One of the things that is most bothering my colleagues out there in the field, and, indeed, a great part of the British public, is the matter we are discussing today: the early release of these violent prisoners on both sides. I shall not refer to the link to decommissioning of weapons. My noble friend Lord Cope and most other noble Lords who have spoken have already mentioned the matter today.
Considering the pain, hurt and damage that the prisoners have collectively caused, the lives they have taken and the lives they have spoiled, it really goes against the grain to see them walk free, especially if that is accompanied by the disgraceful scenes of triumphalism we saw when the Balcombe Street thugs were temporarily released to attend the Sinn Fein/IRA rally.
Realism extends to understanding that, however distasteful the early release of these prisoners may be, it is one of the compromises that has to be made in the hope of securing the peace that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland passionately want. However, in order to reassure the public, both here and in Northern Ireland, that the Good Friday Agreement will not be watered down, certain basic conditions, I believe, must be imposed. First, the prisoner must, in writing, admit his guilt and acknowledge that his crime was inexcusable. In the present case, we do not want to hear any more talk about the convicts being political prisoners or prisoners of war, which is how the IRA describes its own gaoled

473
personnel. Indeed, only yesterday we heard Martin McGuinness calling them that on the David Frost programme. It is entirely consistent with common penal practice around the world that as an essential prerequisite to release a parolee should admit his guilt. These men are nothing but common criminals.
On the other hand, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the tragic case of Mr. Patrick Nicholls who was recently released after serving 27 years for murder. His life sentence had a tariff of 13 years, but he was not released because he simply would not admit his guilt of a crime he not only insisted he did not commit but which, it transpired, never actually happened.
Secondly, the prisoner must unequivocally apologise to those he has harmed or their families or those whose property he has destroyed. He must admit some kind of guilt and must have some kind of apology to offer. The Prime Minister has recently expressed a desire to apologise for the potato famine. No one alive today has any responsibility for that. But none of the criminal and violent acts committed by the prisoners who will be released occurred in the dim and distant past. They occurred during the lifetime of your Lordships. More important, the victims or their families are still alive. An apology is the barest minimum to which they are entitled. My noble friend Lord Tebbit mentioned that far more eloquently and passionately than I could.
Thirdly, the prisoners must undertake that they will never again either commit any act of violence themselves or aid, abet or encourage any other person to do so. Fourthly, the prisoner must admit that he signed the document of his own free will. We do not want to have any later recantations on the grounds that he signed under duress.
Fifthly, the Government must make it clear that any released prisoner who commits another act of violence or encourages it will be recalled to serve the rest of his sentence, even if it would have expired by then. This may need an amendment to the present Bill.
Sixthly and lastly, any sentence for a subsequent violent crime should be consecutive to the one for which the prisoner was recalled. In my maiden speech in this House on 23rd November 1993, I asked for a limitation on the use of concurrent sentences. I said:
"Our courts ought not to be a kind of discount store—commit two crimes and get one free".—[Official Report, 23/11/93; col. 186.]
What is required from the Government is a firm and binding commitment that if prisoners are to be released as part of the price that has to be paid for peace, then those prisoners must admit their guilt and be genuinely contrite. What is also required is that we should be assured that the prisoners will not simply be free to resume their criminal activities with impunity.
I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what binding assurances will be given to all the people of the United Kingdom and especially to our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, this is a very important Bill. It is not like other Bills which, after the wording has been discussed and the Bill passed, move away, perhaps to be looked at by lawyers. On this Bill will probably depend the future of the assembly in Northern Ireland. That has already been spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, and latterly by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
The early release of prisoners is perhaps the most difficult and burning subject in Northern Ireland. It is burning people up inside. It is not just what they are talking about in the street. I find it difficult to read and think about it clearly because the idea of early release of convicted terrorists is almost impossible. One can just accept that if we had peace and a settlement and the terrorists had stopped, it could be considered. But we are not yet at that stage. This Bill has already had a significant effect on what has happened in Northern Ireland in the past two weeks. Before the referendum, the Prime Minister took particular care to make repeated assurances in Northern Ireland about prisoner releases. I have no doubt that it was considerably due to what he said and the actions he took that a 71 per cent. yes vote was achieved in the referendum.
Then, only days after the referendum, this Bill was published and the four assurances set out in Clause 3(9) were seen to fall far short of those given by the Prime Minister. That was the general view. I dare say that if the technicalities of the words are examined, there may not appear to be much difference but the people in Northern Ireland felt that they had been let down. The Secretary of State has only to take into account the relevant factors when considering early release and all efforts to tighten up the wording were rejected in another place. That was widely reported in Northern Ireland and had a significant effect.
The defects were widely reported. It was no surprise that many of those who voted yes in the referendum voted for "no" candidates in the election which took place on Thursday. It was a very near thing. It now seems that the new assembly will have sufficient "yes" members to make it possible for it to go forward, but only by the narrowest of margins—something which this Bill influenced. I have no doubt that it will also have a considerable effect on how events develop in the assembly. The subject will not go away.
Perhaps we, in Northern Ireland, are simple. We believed that the Prime Minister could deliver what he said he could deliver. However, we are not used to spin-doctoring and ambiguous words. During the run-up to the election last Thursday, David Trimble, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party who had accepted the Prime Minister's assurances, had his feet cut from under him, so to speak. He bravely and forcefully continued to promote the assembly as the only way forward. But his party's vote fell away by a substantial amount when many who would normally vote for the Ulster Unionist Party voted for a "no" candidate. The result is that there are almost enough "no" candidates to wreck the assembly, but I hope not enough.

475
Something needs to be done to help the "yes" members of the assembly. I believe it can be done in two ways. Clause 3 and its various subsections read, to those of us in Northern Ireland, as a possible subject for another fudge. The wording is not positive enough. That is extremely important. For instance, I cannot understand why an amendment, proposed in another place by the Opposition Member responsible for Northern Ireland affairs, was not accepted. He proposed that in Clause 3(9) the words "take into account" should be replaced by "be satisfied". The Bill would thus read,
"be satisfied whether an organisation is co-operating fully with any Commission [for decommissioning]".
That has much meaning whereas merely to take something into account has little meaning in the view of ordinary people. I do not see that that affects the agreement or its intention, but such a change could be extremely important in Northern Ireland.
Something further may be done to help the progress of the assembly. On 20th April the Northern Ireland Office published a statement saying what the British Government would do in respect of prisoners in the context of a peaceful and lasting settlement. We do not yet have a peaceful or lasting settlement; we have only started on the road to normality. Terrorists are still active, as last Wednesday's bomb in Newtownhamilton made clear. No terrorist organisation has yet made an unequivocal rejection of violence. But most people believe that early release is about to begin.
I hope that the Secretary of State will make clear that the conditions which will allow her to consider early release do not yet exist. Without such a statement this Bill, if passed in its present form, will be the cause of disquiet and considerable problems which will affect the assembly. Cannot the Government understand just how abhorrent is the concept of early release of convicted terrorists when little has changed on the ground? It may just be tolerable when normality has returned.
Of course I support the Bill as part of the agreement and the assembly which is to come. The great majority of people in Northern Ireland want it to succeed and it will be intolerable if the wording of this Bill is the cause of its failure. I hope that it can be amended in a careful way so that it makes a positive contribution to peace.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, at this late stage I do not intend to keep your Lordships for any lengthy period. First, let me say that I disapprove of the use of the word "prisoners". Those people are convicted terrorists and to describe them as "prisoners" is to try to put a veneer of respectability on people who do not deserve it.
I should like to refer, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to a conviction last week of a man who was sentenced to 15 years for his part in the Docklands massacre in which two people were killed. He was sentenced to 15 years and, according to the report in the Daily Telegraph,
"Under the terms of the Northern Ireland agreement, all terrorist members of groups who adhere to the ceasefire are likely to be released within two years. Recognising this, McArdle's supporters held up two fingers in the public gallery and chanted 'Two years, two years'".
476
There is not much deterrent in that. The leading article in the Daily Telegraph refers to that and concludes by saying that it would like an answer to a simple question: "is this justice?" The judges are trying to impose a deterrent sentence on people who are likely to commit crimes of that kind in the future. There is not much deterrent if those involved receive a long sentence from the judge but are let out by the back door in a short space of time.
I notice that in Clause 3(4) the Bill talks of not being a supporter of a terrorist organisation. It is easy for a terrorist to say, "It was not my organisation; it was a breakaway group". They can keep on changing the name of the group under which they operate and will move away from the one prescribed to some other one. If the Government believe that they will tie them up with those words, they must be rather naïve. Also, why do they want to keep their weapons if they have given up terrorism? What use are weapons unless they intend to start over again? I suggest that when people say that they will give up terrorism but want to keep their weapons, we should treat them with caution.
Another press report of yesterday said,
"Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam said she would not barter prisoners for Semtex in the bid to get the IRA to hand over their weapons. She insisted decommissioning was an essential part of the Good Friday agreement but she would not put a timetable on it. Dr. Mowlam also declined to say that Sinn Fein could not sit on the executive of the Northern Ireland assembly without handing over their weapons".
Apparently, they may have to leave their weapons outside the door, but they can still become part of the government and part of this country without handing over their weapons. I suggest that the Government and this House tread carefully in relation to the contents of the Bill.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, there is every reason that the issue concerning prisoners should feature highly in the present parliamentary programme. It is one of the main parts of the Good Friday Agreement. I compliment the home affairs section on the publication of research paper 98/65 on 15th June, made available by the House of Commons' Library. Some noble Lords may also have copies. I am sure that if other noble Lords had studied that report a number of questions that have been asked today would not have been asked. The report explains the Bill and its background. It is not a Northern Ireland Bill for the future; it is a reserved matter for the United Kingdom Government. The research paper sets out clearly and precisely the detailed history, the legislation, the current arrangements and procedures and the rules governing the release of prisoners in Northern Ireland.
I join with other noble Lords in condemning all those who have planned and perpetrated evil deeds under the guise of promoting the aims, objects and future well-being of the Irish people, especially the citizens of Northern Ireland. Never was anything further from the truth. These people should be utterly condemned by all sides.
I could recite for hours the repercussions that their deeds have had on the lives of many. One does not need to move too far in Northern Ireland to touch upon

477
friends, relatives or others who have had to flee the country or to move house; who have suffered under terrorism; who have been shot, maimed or murdered. It is something we live with in Northern Ireland. I found the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, interesting and challenging. I look forward to reading them again. They touched upon her sensitivity and understanding of the situation.
I share the many views expressed about the suffering. The report by Sir Ken Bloomfield deserves the careful, thoughtful support of those who have suffered directly through terrorism and violence. It is not something which is simply erected such as a statue or a garden of remembrance. There is much suffering which needs to be helped and Sir Ken is to be praised for the report he has brought forward with such great sensitivity.
As to the Bill, the subjects of prisoner releases and decommissioning are not two inextricably linked parts of a single issue in the context of the agreement. On the 22nd May, 71 per cent. of the voters of Northern Ireland supported the agreement. Much of the debate since that time has centred around the interpretation of the agreement. As with most things in Northern Ireland, interpretation depends upon your political perspective.
On the 25th June, the same day as the Northern Ireland electorate voted, Coopers and Lybrand was commissioned by the BBC to conduct a poll. People were asked to comment on five issues, but I shall refer to only two. They were asked whether they thought weapon decommissioning will have started by June 1999: 36 per cent. of all those questioned said yes and 64 per cent. said no, that weapon decommissioning will not have started. Asked whether prisoner releases will have started, 82 per cent. said yes and 18 per cent. said no. In other words, the electorate have a better knowledge of the procedures that will fall into place than some politicians. Politicians use the situation to stir up, mislead and make aspects of it more hideous than perhaps they are.
The people of Northern Ireland have suffered. The poll shows that they know in which direction the future peace lies.
The questions asked in the poll were based closely on the peace accord package which underpins the Good Friday Agreement. The outcome of that poll and the outcome of the election clearly demonstrate that the electorate is still saying what it said in the referendum. Instead of the issues of decommissioning, prisoner releases and other matters running in parallel, they must be taken as part of a programme. They do not all have to be resolved at one time in order to make progress. They must be taken in stages as they become manageable and the United Kingdom Government see them as a proper way forward.
There is a view which says that decommissioning must always come before anything; if it cannot be delivered, everything waits. If that view is put into practice there will be no assembly in place and working until all these things are brought together and resolved. That is a topsy-turvy way of putting it to the people.
478
This Bill is deserving of support. It is manageable, and the United Kingdom Government have the knowledge and the machinery available to deal with it. They do not have the machinery set up to deal with decommissioning, except for the commission that has been set up to look at it.
We are building on the principle of parliamentary democracy in the way the Bill has been presented, both here and in another place. I support it because it is a stepping stone on the road to civilised living and parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland, a feature we all want to see. It cannot be done by a bolt from the blue from heaven. It must be won by the people and those they have voted into office.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I have received a letter this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, regretting that he is unable to be with us today and unable to speak. That moves me one position up in the speakers' list. I am conscious of the fact that I am the last man in and following many other distinguished noble Lords who, like me, come from Northern Ireland. At least two distinguished former members of the Northern Ireland Office, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, have spoken. We have also heard from other noble Lords who have suffered from terrorism. I too remember Brighton and I take great heed of what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has said this afternoon. I offer my continuing sympathy both to him and to Lady Tebbit.
I wish to thank the Government Chief Whip, who, with his usual courtesy and good sense, rearranged the timetable so that noble Lords from Northern Ireland who were busy voting early, but I hope not too often, last Thursday could take part in this important debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill today. Indeed, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Molyneaux and Lord Weatherill for raising the potential clash that might have occurred when your Lordships' House met on 11th June.
However, am I alone in being surprised that there was not a murmur of protest from the usual channels; not a word from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when his Benches contain a number of distinguished noble Lords from Northern Ireland and when he was surely aware that Mr. Andrew Mackay, the main Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland in another place, was about to end the bipartisan approach to the Province's affairs; not a squeak from the Liberal Democrat Benches, when their number includes the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who always speaks so fluently and with such good sense on Northern Ireland matters? I am sorry that he is not here today but he did warn me that he would be preparing for the first meeting of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. I congratulate him most warmly on his election to that body. However, one should perhaps not be too surprised at the lack of comment as one understands that Mr. Ashdown is almost as desperate as Mr. Mandelson to become a member of Mr. Blair's Cabinet; so presumably the Liberal Democrat Benches are not allowed to protest at anything that this Government do.

479
I thank the Minister for setting out this afternoon's business with the clarity to which one has become accustomed. The election results from last Thursday give us some hope, but there are other things which still give us much cause for concern. The commission on policing is one and it is to be hoped that Mr. Patten and his colleagues will not be seduced into making ill-advised changes when we are so fortunate to be served by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who are without doubt the finest and most courageous police force in the world. Their operational efficiency and capability must not be compromised or diluted at any cost. They deserve the support of all right-minded people, in particular with the marching season that is now upon us; and goodness knows what will happen after the decision of the Parades Commission and the banning of the Orange Order from marching down the Garvaghy Road, which was announced earlier today.
Decommissioning is another cause for concern, although we are beginning to hear encouraging noises from the loyalist paramilitaries at least. Let us hope that the IRA, the INLA and other republican groups will follow suit. However, in a strange way I wonder whether the whole issue of decommissioning is being over-exaggerated. Obviously, such a process will provide comfort. But even if every weapon is decommissioned, it is so easy for anyone with the right contacts and the right money to re-arm from a world arsenal that is awash with weapons.
The third cause for concern is the emotive subject of the release of prisoners. To many, myself included, the early release of prisoners who have committed the most dreadful terrorist crimes is complete anathema. I was in Belfast city centre on that bloody Friday in the summer of 1971. Further examples of terrorist crimes have been graphically and movingly described by my noble kinsman Lord Brookeborough. However, in dealing with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, we must put personal feelings firmly to one side. This Bill is being enacted in line with, and to implement a part of, the agreement that was signed in Belfast on Good Friday.
The key is that the Bill can go no further than was agreed and signed up to by all the participating parties at Stormont. In that context, the Government in another place have accepted amendments that are wholly consistent with the agreement. The Official Opposition, in an unholy alliance with the DUP, Mr. McCartney and those Ulster Unionists who opposed the Good Friday Agreement, have sought to bring in a further amendment that would have the effect of tying in the release of prisoners to the progressive decommissioning of weapons.
While I am sure that we all find such a formula attractive, there is no linkage whatever in the agreement between the release of prisoners and decommissioning. It is not hard to envisage what would happen if we now started to cherry pick—I apologise for using those dreadful words—through the agreement. The Government of the United Kingdom would lose all credence; and with that gone their moral authority to prevent any party and, in particular, Mr. Adams and his fellow travellers in Sinn Fein/IRA, from rejecting any elements of the agreement that did not suit them.
480
Much has been made of what the Prime Minister may or may not have said at Balmoral, at Westminster and elsewhere, but that is totally beside the point and completely irrelevant. However, maybe in future he will think first before he makes his soundbites. He was not a party to the agreement which was signed up to by all those who participated in the talks. I am sure that noble Lords need no reminding that this agreement has subsequently been endorsed by 71 per cent. of the electorate that voted on it. Mr. Peter Robinson has now claimed with regard to the agreement in another place:
"on the doorstep, over and over again, it became apparent that many people did not understand the legalese and Northern Ireland Office-speak in the document".
I am sure that he maligns the intelligence of the electorate in suggesting that they do not understand the agreement. Ulster men and women are extremely astute, thanks to our excellent schools in the Province, and I am certain that they would have no problems in comprehension. In any event, one has to question why Mr. Robinson did not seek to highlight this issue when he was so desperately going for a no vote in the referendum campaign. Is he now clutching at straws?
I am sorry that he cannot be more positive. Mr. Robinson is my Member of Parliament in East Belfast and he is hard-working, highly effective and very conscientious in his constituency work. I wonder whether he ever reflects on how, if he and his party had not walked out of the talks, they might have influenced the final outcome. I hope that one day he may learn that constructive politics are so much more rewarding than always being in a position of having to say no.
I have been encouraged by press reports indicating that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, thinks that the Official Opposition will not oppose this Bill at Second Reading, in your Lordships' House. I hope, but I am not certain, that that is the case. However, it is perhaps worth remembering that, in the Division in another place on 18th June, the Opposition were not joined by any Northern Ireland MP who is in support of the agreement, be they Ulster Unionist or SDLP.
Last Friday, I was talking to a great friend. Sir John Gorman, who was standing as an Official Unionist candidate in North Down, who, thankfully, has been elected to the assembly. I would reiterate his words when he said that the Opposition's voting against the sentences Bill in the Commons was political opportunism of the worst possible kind. One shudders to think how many votes they delivered to the parties that seek to wreck the assembly.
I hope that your Lordships will not oppose the Bill, which is wholly consistent with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, this has been one of the most sombre and serious debates I have ever heard in this House and those of us who have had the privilege of being here throughout have much to think about.
My noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley said in his opening sentence that he hates the idea of this Bill. That sentiment has been repeated many times this afternoon

481
and I add my own feelings of repugnance. I have two vivid memories of two horrific nights when here on the mainland terrorists brought death and devastation to innocent people. First, I remember the Birmingham pub bombings, whoever was responsible, where young people enjoying an evening out with their friends were killed or maimed, many suffering the most ghastly burns so that they were unrecognisable from the carnage. Secondly, I was in the Grand Hotel, Brighton, on that fatal night when many of us on this side of the House lost dear friends and witnessed the most appalling injuries suffered by others. We shall carry this pain throughout our lives. So it is with a heavy heart that I approach the Bill. But this is not the time to look back. As my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon said, we have to move forward and look positively at where we are today.
The people of Northern Ireland have taken major and very brave steps, first, by endorsing the Good Friday Agreement and, on Thursday, voting for members of their own Northern Ireland Assembly. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House wishes those members well on Wednesday as they enter a new era of great responsibility. Naturally, there will be difficulties and set-backs, but with good will on all sides, the fruits of their labour could be rich indeed.
The agreement came about after dedicated work in recent years by both my right honourable friend John Major and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. It has been taken forward by the Government, culminating in the Good Friday declaration. It was supported by all parties to the negotiations. I support it and I want to see it work. I believe that we should do all in our power to see that it does. This is a chance to restore democracy as a result of compromises on all sides. One could say that it is a result that pleases no one, but if it brings to an end the terror and mayhem that has bedevilled Northern Ireland for 25 years, then it is an option that we cannot ignore and must support. As my noble friends Lord Tebbit, Lady Park and Lady Denton of Wakefield have said, it goes against decent instincts to agree to the release of convicted prisoners on both sides who have committed such terrible crimes and show no remorse. Yet we know that without bringing the subject of prisoners into the mainstream equation there would have been no agreement.
However, the subject of decommissioning is equally important to us and, I believe, to the majority of British people. Of course I understand that it is impossible to have a situation where a certain number of guns and a certain amount of ammunition is handed over simultaneously as a prisoner is released. But I believe that it is essential that there must be an absolute and unequivocal commitment to the two processes to proceed hand in hand. It is important for us to keep the fact before us that prisoners will only be released if their particular organisation has given up violence for good. We are not talking about an amnesty. A released prisoner will be on licence so recall is possible if violence erupts again, but, as my noble friend Lord Cope said, if he has not gone to ground.
482
Decommissioning is a vital issue in the process. We hope to persuade the Government to accept our argument. We believe that it is essential to spell out loud and clear in the legislation that bombs and guns must be handed over to prove the permanent commitment to non-violence. There must be maximum safeguards consistent with the agreement. We understand only too well and share the feelings of victims and their families. We cannot allow such injustice to take place unless there is a real chance of lasting peace.
It is our responsibility to ensure that the Bill leaves your Lordships' House a better, more precise and unambiguous Bill which we hope will be understood and accepted by British people on both sides of the water. To that end important amendments will be tabled by my noble friends. We intend to pursue them strenuously as we move to the next stage of the Bill.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, this has been a thorough, extensive and very moving debate. It is certainly the most moving debate that I have heard, either in this House or in the other place when I had the privilege of serving there. I understand and respect the very strong feelings that have been voiced this afternoon. I acknowledge the strong feelings. I understand the anxieties and concerns to which this legislation gives rise. I well understand that it is the natural human reaction—and I share it—to feel deeply uncomfortable that people who have committed the most appalling crimes—we have had descriptions from some of the victims of those crimes this afternoon—should be released from gaol long before they have served what society would normally demand represents justice.
I also understand that, although many noble Lords wish the Good Friday Agreement to succeed, some of them will find it difficult to support this legislation or will wish significantly to change it. I understand the sentiments which give rise to that.
It seems to me that the Government have a simple choice. There is no other way forward to bring peace to Northern Ireland. If we are right in that—I believe most sincerely that we are—then we have to make very difficult and painful decisions. The prize is peace for the people of Northern Ireland and the end of terrorism in all parts of the United Kingdom. That is the prize. I believe many people will feel it right to make sacrifices for that. But it sits uneasily that some people who have committed the most appalling crimes and not shown any remorse, will be let out early.
It is a major undertaking to make special arrangements for the early release of prisoners convicted of crimes of terrorism. The Government have not entered into it lightly or without good reason. But we are here today debating this Bill because of the other matters which are integral parts of the Good Friday Agreement. That is the only reason we have for bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House.
In drawing up the legislation, we have taken care to ensure that appropriate safeguards are included. This afternoon I have already referred to the conditions that prisoners must satisfy to be released and the terms of

483
the licence that will be imposed. I have explained the powers that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will hold to identify organisations that have not established, or which are not maintaining, an unequivocal ceasefire and to ensure that prisoners who support such organisations are not released, as well as the general powers she holds to suspend the scheme as a whole. There is quite an array of safeguards to ensure that the Bill works and that we are simply not giving these people an amnesty and letting them out without any conditions whatever.
I have a great many points of detail to refer to and I shall try to do that as briefly as possible, but I fear that it will take a little time. Before I do that, perhaps I may make two general points. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government are as one in their approach to the issues of Northern Ireland. There is nothing useful to be served by trying to find dots or commas to suggest that there are differences within the Government: there are not.
In reply to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the Government's policy is that the future of Northern Ireland will continue to be determined by the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That consent will determine whether at any point in the future there is to be a change in its status. As long as the people of Northern Ireland want it to remain part of the United Kingdom that is what the Government will ensure happens.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he telling me that the policy enunciated by Mo Mowlam in January 1996 is not the Government's policy and that the Labour Party—I know that the Minister cannot speak for it—will begin to recruit members in Northern Ireland rather than rely on the republican SDLP to represent their case in Northern Ireland?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have stated the Government's policy. It is that there will be no change in Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom unless a majority of the people there want that to happen. That is the Government's policy and there is no equivocation about it. The Secretary of State has explained that policy on countless occasions. I have heard her myself and I am sure that the noble Lord has also heard that.
As regards the recruitment of Labour Party members in Northern Ireland, I suggest that that is not a subject for deliberation this afternoon, although I shall be happy to debate it with the noble Lord on a future occasion, if he so wishes, and perhaps outside the House.
Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. No one who heard it could fail to be affected by his strength of feeling. I acknowledge, too, that his remarks were born not only out of his personal experience of terrorism—he indicated very clearly that that was not the reason that he put forward his arguments, although his personal experiences are truly shocking—but out of his strong personal attachment to the Union and his beliefs in justice. I believe that I am being fair in putting the matter in those terms.
484
However, I ask the noble Lord when reflecting on the Bill to dwell upon the fact that it has its origins in an agreement which had the consent of political parties representing the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland and that it was endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland, and by both Houses. That agreement was freely and voluntarily negotiated and entered into by the political parties of Northern Ireland—unionist and nationalist, loyalist and republican. Therefore, whatever view we may take of the legislation, it will give effect to a scheme which undeniably reflects the views of the parties and which they felt able to support. The agreement was endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland. I give way again to the noble Lord.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister is extremely generous and I am most grateful to him. However, he must accept that, although the agreement was, as he said, approved by the people of Northern Ireland, it has an effect on all the people of the United Kingdom because it affects justice, and justice is a matter which affects all of us in this kingdom, and justice must be even-handed on both sides of the water for they are both parts of this kingdom.
Lord Dubs: Yes, my Lords. Of course, justice must be even-handed, but the search for peace affects all parts of the United Kingdom as well and the people of England, Wales and Scotland are as committed to achieving peace in Northern Ireland as are the people of Northern Ireland. Both Houses of Parliament are committed to achieving that peace. It is because of the prize that is at stake—peace for the first time in Northern Ireland for many years—that we have put forward legislation which is controversial and causes some people understandable anxiety. However, peace is the aim and the motive. I suggest to the noble Lord that all the people of the United Kingdom share that aim. If we were to achieve long-lasting peace in Northern Ireland—I believe that for the first time for many years that is within our grasp—I believe that people would say, "Yes, it was difficult, but it was worth while".
Both this Government and their predecessors have spent years encouraging the parties in Northern Ireland—unionist and nationalist—to reach agreement and we must now take that agreement seriously. As I have said, the early release of prisoners is part of that agreement. We, the Government, are trying to give effect to the agreement. It is in that context that we have had this debate.
My noble friend Lord Fitt also spoke with great strength of feeling, which the whole House respected, from his personal experiences not only of threats to him personally, but also in relation to the many people close to him who have been killed or injured over many years. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the way in which he put his position and expressed his doubts and uncertainties; but he also said—I think that I am being fair to my noble friend—that, difficult as it is, he will go along with what we are trying to do because there is a greater purpose to be achieved.

485
Perhaps I may deal now with some of the very many specific points made about the Bill. I shall do my best to do justice to them, although I may not reply to noble Lords' points in quite the order that they were put to me. The noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Molyneaux of Killead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked what happens when a prisoner on licence commits an offence but then escapes from Northern Ireland, perhaps to the Republic. They asked how we can get such a person back. When persons are fugitives from justice, the Government are committed to pursuing them and to achieving extradition under international agreements. We have such an agreement with the Irish Government and we intend that that agreement should be used in such instances—
Lord Tebbit: Oh!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Lord laughs, but people have been extradited. I believe that the positive atmosphere between the British Government and the government in Dublin will ensure that there will be even better co-operation in the future than there has been in the past in order to achieve effective extradition should such a circumstance arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the difference between fixed-term prisoners and prisoners with life sentences as regards the conditions applied to their release. The noble Lord argued that all prisoners should be subject to the condition which applies to life-sentence prisoners that, if released, they would not be a danger to the public—and that this should also be a licence condition.
I understand the arguments that have been made, but there are good reasons not to apply a risk test of this kind to fixed-term prisoners. Under Northern Ireland law, all fixed-term prisoners are released automatically after they have served a given portion of their sentence. There is no requirement that they be subject to a condition that they would not be a danger to the public. This was also the case under the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act introduced by the previous government. Prisoners who were released under the terms of that Act were not subject to a risk test. To impose a condition of this kind would introduce a new concept into the law of Northern Ireland.
It is also important to remember that the primary concern of this Bill is with prisoners who have been convicted of offences related to terrorism. Under the third condition, which applies to fixed-term prisoners as well as lifers, a prisoner may not be released if the commissioners believe he would be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or to become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. So if there is a genuine concern that a prisoner may return to violence after release, he may not be granted a declaration by the commissioners. A similar condition is imposed as part of the licence. We do have safeguards, but there is a reason for dealing differently with the two sets of prisoners.
486
The key point in today's debate has been decommissioning—perhaps I may use that shorthand term—and the need to prove that there is a ceasefire. Numerous noble Lords referred to that. They argued that the test that the Secretary of State must apply in deciding whether an organisation is a terrorist organisation, that is—whether an organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire—should be supplemented by the requirement that such an organisation has already begun to decommission weapons. I believe that that was the key point in many of the arguments that have been advanced today.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that we are at one in our desire to see the decommissioning of illegal arms. There is no good reason for any organisation that is truly committed to a democratic process to hold on to arms. The agreement explicitly recognises this in the section which deals with decommissioning. But we cannot add or take away from the agreement. We cannot insert a precondition or test which is not there. To do so would be to do exactly what we have told others must not be done. We must implement the agreement as a complete document—a document voted on by the people of Northern Ireland—and remain faithful to its terms. The agreement states:
"Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements".
The agreement does not impose a precondition of decommissioning of the kind proposed by noble Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for having clearly recognised that fact.
That does not mean that decommissioning is not important or not relevant. In his Balmoral speech on 14th May, the Prime Minister set out four factors that would be taken into account in deciding whether an organisation had established and was maintaining such a ceasefire. Co-operation with the decommissioning commission to implement the provisions of the agreement was one of those factors. Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State must take account of this and each of the other factors in deciding whether the test is met. But it would not be right for this House to change the status of those factors to make all or any of them into separate tests that must be satisfied. That is not what the agreement says and we must be true to the agreement.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I imagine that we shall spend a considerable time on this in Committee, but I wanted to make it clear now that I did not argue for a precondition. I did not argue that decommissioning should have begun before any prisoner was released. I argued for the two to proceed in parallel and for a tightening in the wording to try to secure that. The Minister is attributing to me and to a number of other noble Lords a much more sweeping amendment, stepping outside the agreement, which is not what I was advocating.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, if I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and other noble Lords, I apologise,

487
but I thought that the thrust of their argument was that type of link. I was anxious to make clear where the Government stood in terms of sticking by the agreement. I believe that even the lesser position which the noble Lord has suggested is his position is still outside the agreement. However, as the noble Lord said, we can return to that point in Committee next week.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I may have contributed accidentally to the noble Lord's misunderstanding. None of us has used the word "disarmament'", which relates only to arms. The term that has been used is "decommissioning", which refers to the breaking up and standing down of the control and command structures of terrorist organisations. There is absolutely no mystery about the existence of those structures. Without giving away any intelligence secrets, the security services know exactly where they are and the membership of those command structures. There is not the slightest doubt about that.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord has just said. The security services have a great deal of information. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, and my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked how many prisoners would be likely to be released under the terms of the Bill and when those prisoners would be released if the Bill were not enacted. Under the Bill the question of release falls to the commissioners appointed under its terms. It is their responsibility to decide whether a prisoner is entitled to receive a declaration. Therefore I cannot say precisely how many prisoners will or can benefit. However, I can give figures for the number of prisoners who are serving sentences of five years or more or life imprisonment for scheduled offences. That is the first condition that a prisoner must satisfy to qualify for a declaration. Between 400 and 450 prisoners are likely to meet that condition. Under current release arrangements, over 45 per cent. of those would be released within two years anyway. Under the arrangements in the Bill over 80 per cent. could be released within two years. About 60 prisoners would remain in custody after two years and could be affected by the cut-off. To put these figures in context, the Northern Ireland Prison Service releases about 1,500 prisoners every year and since 1983 has released more than 450 life sentence prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, suggested that the words of the Prime Minister's Balmoral speech were not fully reflected in the Bill. I am disappointed that the noble Lord returns to this issue, which I believe has been fully addressed in another place. The Bill gives full effect to the words of the Prime Minister. That fact was recognised by the right honourable Member for Upper Bann in a speech recently.
The noble Lord also asked whether or not there would be any fast-track extradition if a licence was breached. No. The position is as I stated it earlier. The extradition arrangements already in place are the ones that will be applied.
488
The noble Lord also made a comparison between non-terrorist and terrorist offences. The Bill before the House applies only to those convicted of scheduled offences; that is, those generally connected with terrorism. The Bill deals with very particular circumstances that cannot be made to apply to other groups. I understand the difficulty to which the noble Lord refers, but that is the answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to the definition of terrorist organisations. He asked how an organisation that was proscribed as a terrorist organisation could not be excluded under Clause 3(8). The Bill before your Lordships has no effect upon proscription. The provisions in relation to proscription in the Emergency Provisions Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act are unaffected and will remain in place. No organisation which is currently proscribed will be de-proscribed as a consequence of this Bill becoming law. However, it is possible for an organisation to be a proscribed organisation but not be a terrorist organisation as defined by this Bill. This is because the Bill focusses on whether an organisation has established and maintained a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, whereas the EPA and PTA look to the nature of the organisation. The Bill before your Lordships' House applies a two-stage test that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State must consider. First, she must consider whether an organisation is
"concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it".
This part of the test draws on the language of the PTA and identifies the nature of the organisation in question. However, the second part of the test, which must also be satisfied before an organisation is identified as a terrorist organisation for the purpose of this Bill is whether the organisation has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. This looks to the attitude of the organisation to violence now and in the future and follows directly from the terms of the agreement. In this way an organisation can be a proscribed organisation but not defined as a terrorist organisation within this legislation.
I have already reminded the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that no party is a signatory to the Good Friday Agreement but that every party and the two governments have fully endorsed it either at the time or subsequently. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, enquired about the McArdle case and the cases of other prisoners who were transferred to Northern Ireland. I cannot comment on whether an individual prisoner will qualify for release under the sentences Bill or when a prisoner can be released. No prisoner will automatically qualify for release and only prisoners serving their sentence in Northern Ireland will be eligible to apply under the Bill.
If a prisoner sentenced in England and Wales is transferred to serve his sentence in Northern Ireland he will be able to apply to the commissioners under the legislation. The Bill makes special provision for prisoners convicted outside Northern Ireland to take account of their transferred status and the fact that they

489
will not have been convicted of a scheduled offence. But it is for the commissioners to decide whether a prisoner satisfies the conditions under the legislation.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. What has been said in no way deflects me from what I said earlier this afternoon. If a terrorist is found guilty of an offence in England and is sentenced to life imprisonment he may qualify under these arrangements. However, where a terrorist has committed an offence that results in the death of five people, such as in the Brighton bombing, and is sentenced to five life terms which all run concurrently, will he be given any priority over, or be treated any differently from, a person who has been found guilty of one terrorist murder? I have in mind particularly the Brighton bombing in which five people were killed and many more were injured. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, did not mention that. No one has asked me about this, but my conscience makes me refer to it. Would the person who did that be regarded with less sympathy than the person who had committed just one murder?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, speaking for myself I do not regard any of them with any sympathy but that is not the point that the noble Lord raises. The commissioners would have to consider each case individually and decide whether any individual qualified under the terms of this legislation. I agree that very difficult decisions would have to be made. The noble Lord points out some of the real dilemmas inherent in the Bill. However, I do not wish to speak about individual cases. It is not appropriate for me to do so; it does not fall within my terms of reference but is a matter for the commissioners. But if any prisoner convicted in England and Wales was to be transferred to Northern Ireland it would have to be for an offence connected with terrorism in Northern Ireland. There are some limiting conditions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked about the position of prisoners who claimed that they were no longer associated with a particular terrorist organisation as a way of qualifying for early release under the terms of the Bill. The Bill clearly excludes those prisoners who support organisations that have not established ceasefires, as required under Clause 3(8). No prisoner who supports such an organisation would gain a declaration under the Bill. The mere fact that a prisoner states that he no longer supports a terrorist organisation would not necessarily satisfy the condition. We could not have them merely claiming that they are no longer part of an organisation, and, that is all right then! An assessment would have to be made by the commissioners of all the circumstances, not just any particular claim made by a prisoner who is trying to imply that he had moved from one organisation to another or out of one organisation.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. How on earth can that be contradicted? What evidence would be put before the commissioners to persuade them that the declaration was not true? That is what I do not understand.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is not for me to describe how I think the commissioners will operate. Clearly, there would be other evidence about that individual. If an individual's record had been close association with an organisation that was not on ceasefire, the commissioners would presumably look at that, as they would look at other facts about the prisoner. We must make it clear that there is no easy way in which a prisoner can claim that he is part of an organisation that is on ceasefire when his track record suggests otherwise.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. My point was that all those people are being considered, and would be likely to be applying to the commission, precisely because they are paramilitaries. They are there because they are paramilitaries as well as for their crimes. It is difficult to see how they would have the faintest possibility of getting out, having spent X years in the Maze in the IRA section of the prison, behaving under "military discipline", and all the rest of it, then suddenly saying, "I am not actually a supporter of this organisation." I find it difficult to believe that anyone would dare to do it, or could be credible if they did.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there may be a misunderstanding here. I am talking about prisoners who satisfy the test that they are not associated with an organisation that is not on ceasefire. The key test is that they are not associated with an organisation that is not on ceasefire. If a terrorist happens to be a member of the Provisional IRA, and the Provisional IRA is on ceasefire, then that prisoner would qualify.
I thought that the noble Baroness was talking about prisoners who are associated with the LVF, the Continuity Army Council, the INLA, or one of the organisations that are not on ceasefire. I think that the LVF claimed recently to be on ceasefire. If the organisation is clearly on ceasefire, and the individual is associated with that organisation, that individual will qualify. If the organisation is not on ceasefire, then the second test will be whether the individual is associated with it. That is what I thought was the point at issue.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the Minister to clarify a point. To ask for release, the prisoner has to come from a prison cell block which has IRA written all over it. The IRA may be on ceasefire, but presumably to be in that block the prisoner has to be a supporter of something called the Irish Republican Army, otherwise he could not survive. In fact we have seen that those people, even within the Maze, who do not necessarily support it are sometimes murdered. This seems unrealistic. The prisoner is a supporter because he is permitted to live within the environment where there are supporters of something called the Irish Republican Army. I thought there were no other armies apart from the legitimate British forces.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Viscount's point. Let me restate the position to avoid doubt. The terrorist in prison cannot be considered by the commissioners unless he is associated

491
with an organisation which is on ceasefire. If the prisoner is associated with an organisation which is not on ceasefire, the prisoner would not qualify. That is straightforward.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the Minister give way again? There is surely a difference between being on ceasefire and being, or not, a terrorist organisation. Whether the IRA is on ceasefire or not, it is a terrorist organisation. That is the point that the noble Viscount and I are making. It is impossible overnight to become not a supporter of a terrorist organisation if one has spent one's entire time in the prison in that group and essentially supporting it. It is a totally different issue from whether the organisation is, or is not, on a tactical ceasefire.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, we have to look at the details of the Bill. We may be dealing with a point which is more appropriately dealt with in Committee. We are using the term "terrorist organisation" in the Bill as a way of identifying whether an association with such an organisation would allow a prisoner to come under the terms of the Bill for early release. That is different from organisations that are proscribed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Provisions Act. That is a different process. It is a criminal offence to be a member of a proscribed organisation. I do not want to take up more time than is necessary, but there is a distinction there which it is important to bear in mind, and which I thought I had explained earlier.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked about the relationship of Sinn Fein, the IRA and decommissioning. Under the agreement, Sinn Fein is required to use its influence to bring about decommissioning. We expect that to happen, and Sinn Fein to act according to the agreement.
As the Prime Minister has said, we consider Sinn Fein to be inextricably linked to the IRA, and we will hold Sinn Fein accountable for its actions. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked me whether we should not consider terrorists to be war criminals. I have great sympathy with the point of substance there.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I apologise if I gave the impression that I was asking for them to be considered as war criminals, because I do not accept that they are POWs. I was merely relating it to the fact that had they been POWs we would consider them as war criminals. If I said it, I apologise. I did not ask that we change them into POWs or war criminals.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thought that the noble Viscount was saying that some war criminals had committed the most appalling crimes, and that terrorists should be seen as having committed crimes of similar horror. I have great sympathy with the point the noble Viscount was making, because these crimes are horrendous. However, the prisoners who committed them have been convicted in criminal courts of crimes under the criminal law. Those prisoners are not POWs, as the noble Viscount said.
492
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said that the Bill established the concept of political prisoner. It most emphatically does not. It is not an amnesty. These are not political prisoners. These are people who have committed criminal offences, even if they claim that their motive was political. Prisoners are still required to serve sentences in custody and on licence.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I find it distressing that I have had to interrupt the Minister so often. If these people are not being treated differently because they are political prisoners, why is this particular group of murderers not being treated like other murderers? There is only one explanation: their crimes were political.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, let me restate the point. We do not accept that these are political prisoners. It may well be that their motive was political, but they have committed crimes. The noble Lord understands perfectly well that we have a Good Friday agreement and these matters were contained within the agreement. He may shake his head, but that has been the point of the debate all afternoon. I am sorry that I have not persuaded him to the Government's way of thinking. That may have been a forlorn hope, but I ask him to have at least some respect for the motives underlying the Government's position in this legislation, which is to give effect to something that the political parties who took part in the agreement supported.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not believe that those who are querying the issue of political prisoners are criticising the Good Friday agreement. Most of us have said that that is the wish of the people of Northern Ireland and we are not looking to take it away. However, we find it impossible to understand the distinction between those who commit murder as terrorists and those who commit murder during other violent crimes. How can a differentiation be made if not on a political criterion?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that difficulty is inherent in the Bill. Much of today's debate has been an attempt to explain why we have the Bill and why we are proceeding in this way. Of course at one level it is very uncomfortable to have to see one group of prisoners treated differently from another when perhaps both categories have committed murder. But the prize at stake is peace in Northern Ireland. If in order to achieve that enormous prize we must do things which are difficult and uncomfortable, this Bill is a way forward in doing so. A fundamental concept of the Bill is that we are treating certain prisoners differently because they qualify under the Bill because there was an agreement. I believe that noble Lords understand and accept that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about making remorse and an acknowledgement of guilt a condition of release. While I have sympathy with her motive it would be difficult to impose such an undertaking, particularly as some of the terrorists would sign such an undertaking whether or not they believed a word of it. I am not sure how much further forward that would take us.

493
I was asked about the impact of the Bill on Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, and a third noble Lord. Noble Lords have also said that the guardsmen should not be treated in the same manner or less favourably than prisoners convicted of terrorist crimes. We have had a number of debates in this House on the subject of these two Scots Guardsmen and their continued imprisonment. The last debate was about a week ago. I do not intend to address the issues raised in those debates, but I will set out how the Bill before your Lordships' House could affect them. Under the terms of the Bill, prisoners may apply to the commissioners for a declaration in respect of their sentence. The terms of the Bill do not require that an applicant be a terrorist or a supporter of an organisation, only that he meets the conditions set out in Clause 3. As such, it will be open to Fisher and Wright to apply under the terms of the Bill. I cannot say whether an application would be successful; that matter would be the responsibility of the commissioners. However, as prisoners whose cases have already been considered by the Life Sentence Review Board, they could expect to receive early consideration should they apply. If they choose not to apply the question of their release will continue to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the arrangements and law which currently apply to life sentence prisoners. Therefore, they can come under this Bill if they wish to or will in any case be considered next October under the arrangements already in existence.
We have had a long debate and I apologise for taking longer than intended in trying to deal with the many points that were raised. There were a number of interventions which I was happy to take. The Good Friday agreement gives the people of Northern Ireland an unparalleled opportunity for a peaceful future. Many of those persons who voted in the referendum have never known a time when there was not killing and bombing. They have grown up in a society beset with violence. But on 22nd May this year, 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted for the Good Friday agreement. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have undertaken to implement the agreement in full. This Bill is part of the implementation of that agreement and I call on noble Lords to support it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Institutions Measure
6.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn The Lord Bishop of Blackburn rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Measure before the House reforms the
494
national institutions of the Church of England with the object of enabling them better to serve the work and mission of the Church in the parishes and dioceses up and down this land.
The Measure stems from the recommendations of the Archbishops' Commission on the Organisation of the Church of England, chaired by Bishop Michael Turnbull (now Bishop of Durham) which reported in 1995. The commission examined the central structures of the Church against the background of the then financial difficulties facing the Church Commissioners but from which the commissioners have now happily recovered. The commission found that there had been a significant loss of confidence in the Church's national organisations which were characterised by fragmentation of effort and a committee-bound culture. Turnbull identified the fact that there was no focal point where responsibility lay for enabling the Church to deal with the opportunities and challenges facing it at the end of the 20th century.
As a result, the Turnbull Commission recommended the establishment of a national council to provide such a focal point coupled with the reform of the organisation of the Church Commissioners, and a redistribution of responsibilities between the commissioners and the proposed council. It also recommended the creation of a unified staff capability to serve all the national Church bodies.
These recommendations were debated in the General Synod and have also been the subject of widespread consultation within the Church, which has included debate in every diocese. There has also been consultation with members of this House and of the other place and individual Church Commissioners of both Church and state.
In the Measure now before us, the original proposals of the Turnbull Commission have been substantially modified in the light of those consultations and, as a result, we have taken particular care to ensure that the proposals do not disturb the existing partnership of Church and state. In particular, Clauses 2 and 5 of the Measure seek to preserve the existing trustee functions of the commissioners, with the current arrangements for accountability to Parliament. Clause 7 and Schedule 4 strengthen and clarify the balance of Church and state in the composition of the commissioners. Clause 8 highlights the fundamental duty of the commissioners to continue to manage their assets, having particular regard to the making of additional provision for the ministry of the Church in parishes where that assistance is most required.
In order that the council and the Church Commissioners will be able to assure themselves that expenditure is compatible with the purposes of the commissioners' trust (in particular for the making of additional provision for the cure of souls in poor parishes), the Measure provides in Clause 2 that the Archbishops' Council shall determine the application of sums made over by the commissioners in accordance with mutually agreed plans should either the council or the commissioners so request. This meets one of the main parliamentary concerns expressed about the

495
Turnbull Report's proposal; namely, that the commissioners should retain ultimate control over how their income was spent.
In order to meet other concerns, the balance of Church and state in the composition of the commissioners has been maintained in the Measure by the provision of six state commissioners and 27 other commissioners. This represents a reduction of 62 on the present number of commissioners. The accountability to Parliament is also maintained and, indeed, strengthened by the appointment of a statutory audit committee with a duty to report to the "state" commissioners on any matter relating to the functions of the commissioners which causes the committee "grave concern".
Clause 5 of the Measure refers to the allocation of the commissioners' functions. The Measure provides that they are to retain their functions in respect of asset management and support for bishops and cathedrals, while any proposal to transfer any of their other functions to the council (including, most importantly, their quasi-judicial functions under the Pastoral Measure 1983) may be effected after only consultation with the Prime Minister and the commissioners and with the agreement of the General Synod. Any such proposal must then be laid before Parliament and, where it relates to the Pastoral Measure or allied functions under the Dioceses Measure 1978, will be subject to debate and the approval of both Houses. Any other proposal will be the subject of the negative instrument procedure.
In the General Synod debates and in the dioceses there has been much concern about accountability both of the new Archbishops' Council and of the Church Commissioners. What I have already said about the commissioners will, I hope, reassure your Lordships of the accountability of that body. As regards the Archbishops' Council, Schedule 1 of the Measure provides that it will have a majority of elected members. The Archbishops have the power to appoint up to six people to the council but the General Synod will have to approve such appointments and, in addition, the council will require the approval of the General Synod and of the dioceses in order to achieve anything at all. It needs to be emphasised that the autonomy of the dioceses is unaffected by this legislation.
In the council there will be a careful balance between bishops, clergy and laity and one of the benefits of the provision for appointed members is that this will give the archbishops the scope of finding committed churchmen with the necessary expertise, skills and interests for the essential work of the council, from outside the membership of the synod. The Measure, at Clause 4(1), also requires regular reporting to the synod with regard to the work and proceedings of the council.
I hope I have said enough to indicate to your Lordships the carefully balanced nature of the legislation before the House. It offers many benefits for the Church: the creation of an Archbishops' Council which will provide a focal point for policy and strategic thinking among the national organisations of the Church; the bringing together of the responsibility for finance and policy issues which, at the moment, are separate; the creation of a stronger partnership between
496
the bodies working nationally on the Church's behalf; greater clarity and transparency for the Church at parochial level over the apportionment of central costs and the allocation of central support and resources; and the bringing of dioceses and, through them, deaneries and parishes, more effectively into decision-making at the national level. By these means, the Church will be helped better to respond to the challenge of mission in our land in a more coherent and positive way.
I am sure that it will not have escaped your Lordships that the Ecclesiastical Committee, after questioning the synod witnesses (of which I was privileged to be one) came to the conclusion that the Measure provides appropriate mechanisms for the delicate relationship between the Church Commissioners and the Archbishops' Council, especially with regard to maintaining, through the commissioners, an independent element in decision-making at the central level, subject to parliamentary accountability.
The General Synod gave final approval to the Measure with large majorities in all three Houses. The Ecclesiastical Committee has also resolved that the Measure is expedient. I trust that tonight this House will approve it. It is vital as we approach the millennium that the work and witness of the Church throughout this land should be supported by effective and accountable national institutions. In my submission, this Measure assists us in achieving that goal. I commend the Measure to the House.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Blackburn.)
7.3 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I believe that I can speak in this debate from a unique vantage point. Yesterday my wife was ordained as a deacon in the Church of England and I have spent the past two years living during the week in London, where I have had the benefit of hearing the wisdom of the right reverend Prelates, and my weekends at the theological college in Oxford where I have heard the concerns of students who have been extremely anxious about how their bishops view them. That has been a somewhat eccentric, if not bizarre, view of the Church of England which I am relieved to say now comes to the end as my wife has taken up a curacy in the Southwark diocese.
The Church, like every other national institution, is faced with huge challenges and pressure for change. Everyone must realise that change in the Church is peculiarly difficult, often, but not always, for very good reasons. Having been present at an exceptionally impressive ordination service yesterday in Southwark Cathedral, I know only too well how the Church, in many cases, is able to marry what in that case was an essentially unchanged ceremony with the, for many people, difficult relative innovation of women priests.
On these Benches, we take extremely seriously the concept of subsidiarity. But it seems to me, from my somewhat bizarre vantage point, that the Church of England has sometimes taken that principle so far as

497
to make effective decision-making and review almost impossible. This Measure clearly aims to deal with that problem and also the particular issues raised by the events as regards the Church Commissioners over the past decade. I know that this Measure is the culmination of a huge amount of work and debate within the Church and I am therefore sure that it deserves the support of the House.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish me to express on its behalf congratulations to the noble Lord and his wife on her ordination to the diaconate.
The basic reason for this Measure is the Church Commissioners' losses on the Stock Exchange. That has not been in any way concealed. There are other better reasons for such a reorganisation but it is extremely doubtful whether they would have come into play without that particular trigger. As one of the young rebels in the Church of England in the early 1960s, I know how difficult it is to get the Church to move without a small explosive charge to set it off. I believe that those losses on the Stock Exchange were the same explosive charge which was necessary. It has set it off and we have had the Turnbull report.
I am rather dubious about some aspects of the report, in particular the playing down of the rural deanery and the Rural Deanery Synod. I remember that the right reverend Prelate the present Lord Bishop of Chichester wrote a paper which I published in those days of the 1960s in which he urged that the rural deanery was in fact the right size both historically and pastorally for the diocese. That is a case that I should be quite prepared to argue in your Lordships' House or elsewhere but I admit that it would be a red herring.
But what is not a red herring, which came out in the meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee, when it considered the Measure, is the need to see that such losses do not occur again, at least for the same reasons. A lot of nonsense has been talked about Church Commissioners having now restored the losses that were made. They have done nothing of the sort. They have made gains during one period which they can offset against the losses they made in another. But they cannot bring the funds up to the level at which they could have been today if those losses had not been made. I have every confidence in them and in particular in my old friend, schoolfellow and colleague, Sir Michael Coleman, in his difficult task.
But the Church must have its safeguards. That point arose in the Ecclesiastical Committee on a question from the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on page 21 of the 211th report when the right reverend Prelate commented on the way money might have been diverted at a later stage when the Church Commissioners had handed it over to the Archbishops' Council.
I have some experience of that. The first bishop under whom I served as a clergyman was a great man and a saint. I say that not just because he ordained me, which is obviously proof of it; not just because when I was
498
sacked by my first vicar, instead of sending me home from Hong Kong in disgrace he promoted me to being a vicar in my own right; not just because he ordained the first woman priest in the Anglican Communion only to be disowned by the next Lambeth Conference; and not just because he revolutionised race relations in Hong Kong—until he arrived, Chinese archdeacons used the tradesman's entrance of the Bishop's House. I say that because he clearly was a great man and a saint and because, when he saw a need and he could find the money to fill it, he found that money where he could. The good causes in the diocese prospered but it was said that it took 10 years after his departure to get the accounts in order.
His actions clearly were in the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth. But they were not the way in which you can organise an institution like the Church, which must try to do the impossible: to serve God and Mammon. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, who, I am sorry to say, is not taking part in the debate tonight, summed it up in the Ecclesiastical Committee when he said:
"This is a classic Anglican measure and we ought to support it. It is because of measures like this that the Church of England survives at all".
The noble Lord is not here to comment on my suspicion that there was a touch of irony in that remark. I personally hope that there was, but I also think that it was the right verdict. It is one to which I certainly give my assent.
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It is a great pleasure to think of the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, being ordained deacon in the cathedral where I was ordained deacon 36 years ago this month. I also ask the noble Lord to convey my congratulations to her. I hope that she will be as happy in ministry as I have been.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised a number of points. We could go on for a very long time talking about the Church Commissioners and how there is a rolling cycle of good and bad and profit and loss. However, the fact remains that the commissioners have acted most responsibly during the past few years. Indeed, they are showing considerable confidence at the present time and we hope that that will continue.
I am sorry to have to correct the noble Lord, but the reference to "rural deaneries" and "deanery synods" is to be found in the report of the working party of the Bridge Committee of which I happen to be the vice-chairman. I should like to stress in your Lordships' House that it did not propose the abolition of rural deaneries. It sought to give dioceses the opportunity to decide if that was the kind of infrastructure that they wished to have as far as concerns the deanery synod. However, as the noble Lord hinted, that is a matter for another day and another place.
I turn now to the point about the use of the money, the noble Lord's suspicions and, indeed, the irony about the Anglican Measure, and so on. As a result of the

499
scrutiny of the proposals by parliamentarians and others, we believe that we now have in place safeguards which will prevent what the noble Lord fears will happen. There is a right balance between what the Archbishops' Council would like to propose and the safeguards and checks and balances which will ensure that money which was properly given in the past for the cure of souls in the poorer parishes and benefices will be used for that purpose.
However, only time will tell. I am grateful for the support that the Measure has received from the two noble Lords who have spoken. I commend the Measure to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Interest Disclosure Bill
7.12 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 1998
7.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th June be approved [37th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government came to power with a mandate to reform social security. One of the key principles guiding reform is that the system should support families and children and tackle child poverty. We are committed to supporting all families with children. All families have extra costs as a result of bringing up children. That is why we are committed to retaining child benefit as a universal benefit and why we are increasing the standard rate of child benefit for the first child by £2.50 a week.
We believe that support for families should be based on the needs of children, not on family structure. We also believe that the benefit system should recognise specifically identified costs that any family may face. That is why we have increased benefit allowances in respect of children under 11 years of age and why we revolutionised the support that parents can receive towards the cost of childcare.
Within that context, we do not believe it is right to pay a higher fixed rate of child benefit to lone parent families. Direct help with the cost of childcare addresses the in-work costs of lone parents much more effectively. Many lone parents will be able to receive substantially more in-work help. These regulations implement the measures of Clause 72 of the Social Security Act. We debated those measures at some length on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill and I do not intend to detain your Lordships by repeating those arguments now.
Instead, I thought it might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to outline what the regulations are designed to achieve. Regulation 1 covers citation, commencement and interpretation provisions. Regulation 2 amends Regulation 2 of the 1976 regulations by revoking the provision for a higher rate of child benefit to be paid in respect of the elder or eldest child of a lone parent. However, the Government's intention is to ensure that existing lone parents are protected. Regulations 3 and 4 set out the details of that protection.
Regulation 3 provides protection for existing lone parents who are not currently entitled to receive the lone parent rate of child benefit because they are receiving what is described in the 1976 regulations as a "specified benefit". These specified benefits, such as invalid care allowance, overlap with the lone parent rate of child benefit. So, if a lone parent is receiving one of these benefits, she will be able to receive the standard rate of child benefit only for her only or eldest child. Regulation 3 provides for such a lone parent to be able to receive the lone-parent rate of child benefit after these regulations come into force if she ceases to receive the specified benefit, as long as she applies for it within one month of the award of the specified benefit ending.
Regulation 4 provides transitional protection for existing lone parents in other circumstances. It includes protection for lone parents who are already receiving the lone-parent rate of child benefit at 5th July 1998—this will ensure that there are no cash losers; for some lone parents who are not already receiving the lone-parent rate of child benefit at 5th July 1998; and for those who have entitlement at 5th July but have not yet claimed it, as long as they claim it within a specified period. So, if a woman without a partner gives birth shortly before the regulations come into force, she will not be penalised if she is unable to get her claim to the child benefit centre before 6th July. Moreover, if a mother leaves her partner shortly before these regulations come into force, she will not be penalised if she is unable to get her claim to the child benefit centre before 6th July.
The regulations will also protect existing lone parents who move off benefit into work. Many lone parents do not take up their entitlement to the lone-parent rate of child benefit when they are receiving income support or jobseeker's allowance. That is because it is deducted from their benefit entitlement. Such a lone parent will still be able to claim the lone-parent rate of child benefit after these regulations come into force provided that she leaves income support or jobseeker's allowance for work and was receiving the lone-parent rate of family premium or, in some cases, a higher overlapping premium when her benefit award ended, as long as she claims it within a month of leaving benefit. This will preserve work incentives for existing lone parents.
The regulations deliver our commitment to protect existing recipients and preserve work incentives for existing lone parents. They also give all existing lone parents ample time to claim the higher rate even beyond the 6th July period.
The electorate have made it clear that they expect more from social policy than the previous administration delivered. They told us that they want an active

501
approach to welfare so that everyone can take part in society and work for their living if they can. That is what we have promised to do; and that is what we are doing.
The combination of the national childcare strategy and the New Deal for lone parents, together with a working families tax credit, a childcare tax credit and a national minimum wage, will help make the transition to work much more attractive to the thousands of lone parents who currently feel trapped on benefits. However, at the same time, we are protecting vulnerable families through increases in child benefit and in the family premium in the income-related benefits and by providing extra help for families with young children. We promised to provide help to lone parents in moving into work. We promised to protect vulnerable families who are unable to work. That is what we are delivering. I commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th June be approved [37th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the Minister for that explanation, not least because in another place on 25th June the Minister in that House failed almost entirely to explain what the provision was about—I notice the expression on the noble Baroness's face!—and spent most of his time being called to order by the Chairman. No one could accuse the noble Baroness of being in that situation this evening. Therefore we are much clearer about the provision than was previously the case. However, there are one or two points which could reasonably be clarified.
On 25th June, when he finally got around to it, the Minister assured honourable Members that existing recipients would continue to receive the higher rate of child benefit as long as they continued to satisfy the entitlement conditions. He said the Government are protecting work incentives for lone parents who are on income support and receive the job seeker's allowance with the lone parent rate of family premium or higher overlapping premiums. He said they would be able to claim the lone parent rate of child benefit when they leave benefit for work. I was slightly puzzled by that. I am not at all clear what the situation is if they then go back on to benefit, and whether they are still protected in that regard. That may be the case. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain that point.
As the noble Baroness said, we debated a number of these matters at considerable length on the recent Social Security Bill, which is now an Act. Of course it is the case that what the Government are doing here is completely contrary to what they said when they were in opposition. However, we understand the other points that the noble Baroness has made and I do not want to go over that ground again any more than the Minister does. However, the situation with regard to child benefit has become a little less clear than it was, in particular the situation with regard to taxation of child benefit. It would be helpful if we could be told whether the
502
situation with regard to taxation of child benefit is a matter on which the Government have taken a permanent decision—if I may put it that way—or whether it is still under review.
I referred to the debate in the House of Commons last week. As the noble Baroness will know, we have already had a Statutory Instrument—I believe that is No. 766—which deals with the question of the so-called linking arrangement. We debated at length whether that should be 12 weeks or, for example, a year. That is why I am not at all clear as to whether what the Minister said in another place is correct. The Minister laid great stress on the welfare-to-work programme for lone parents. It is certainly common ground between both sides of the House that people are better off in work than on benefit. I believe there is no dispute about that. However, there is now considerable confusion as to the extent to which the welfare-to-work programme is working. Last Wednesday the Prime Minister asserted at Question Time that,
"30,000 young people have got jobs as a result of the new deal".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/98: col. 1041.]
My understanding is that even if one were to include the lone parents who are covered by the New Deal and the welfare-to-work programme, the figure is substantially lower than 30,000, as mentioned by the Prime Minister. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us the figure.
Another reason there has been some confusion about the welfare-to-work programme is because we seem to be short on figures of those who have taken up a job as against the number of people who have come off income support. The two figures are evidently not the same because a number of people who have come off income support may have got married and their partner may now earn more and therefore they have come off income support. As regards the welfare-to-work programme, what figures do we have of the number of people who have gone into work as against those who have simply come off income support? As regards that programme, it would appear that a considerable percentage go back on to income support after going into work. As we all know from previous discussions, that is related to the linking period. But my understanding is that about one in five go back on to income support within that three month period. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us whether that is the case.
The other matter on which the statistics are obscure is the extent to which the welfare-to-work programme—which is in effect designed to offset what these regulations seek to achieve—has helped people to obtain jobs. There seems to be a number of different estimates as to how many lone parents have taken part in the programme and how many have obtained jobs as a result. The costs of the programme are substantial. Therefore it would be helpful for the House to be given an estimate of the cost per job. As I understand it, few people have obtained permanent jobs as a result of participating in the programme. However, given the present state of the economy, it would not be surprising if a considerable number did obtain jobs. I believe that about 80 per cent. of young people—as opposed to lone parents—who have been unemployed for six months

503
find a job within the following year. In reflecting on the so-called success of the welfare-to-work programme, one has to allow for that point.
We are all in favour of people going from welfare into work. However, the extent to which jobs are being obtained as a result of this substantial outlay is doubtful. I hope that the noble Baroness can give us an up-to-date appraisal of the extent to which the programme is working, particularly as regards lone parents, and the extent to which that is reflected in the cost per job with regard to the departmental budget. Again I thank the noble Baroness for the explanation which she has given. As I said, the measure is wholly inconsistent with what the Government said when in opposition. However, we have to consider it in the present day context. I believe that is what the House would wish to do.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the clarity with which she has expounded these regulations, especially the helpful exposition of Regulation 3. I agree with her that we have debated these matters many times. In fact I think she and I know each other's arguments well enough to be able to argue in our sleep. However, I shall not attempt to force the Minister to do so. I do not intend to make a meal of this.
I shall touch briefly on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the taxation of child benefit. It is my understanding that whatever one may feel about it in principle—the question of principle is not an absolute one—the technical difficulties in the way of taxation of child benefit to get any substantial amount of money out of it are difficult indeed, especially if one wishes (as I am sure the noble Baroness and I both do) to preserve the separate taxation of married women's incomes because a vital principle is at stake there. I do not see how to get round that difficulty. But that is a practical point. I am most grateful to the Minister for her remarks about the treatment of claims presently in the pipeline. That is a point of substance and I welcome it.
For the record, I wish to touch on the main points on which we agree and disagree. I do not invite an answer; the Minister will agree which they are. We agree quite strongly that single parents should be helped to work wherever they want to. We agree strongly that help with childcare for that purpose was badly needed and is in principle to be welcomed. We agree that the situation was ameliorated by the measures in the Budget; and we agree that the new linking rule is to be welcomed—though on that point I am tempted to play Oliver Twist and wish that it had been a little more.
Turning to where we disagree, we on these Benches believe that there is a substantial gap between the cut in benefits brought in by these regulations and others and the effect of the measures in the Budget, some of which do not come into effect until October 1999. We disagree profoundly about the issue of single-parent costs. I think we understand each other's arguments perfectly well on the matter; we are simply not convinced by them. That issue will continue and I am sure the noble Baroness and her party will expect to hear more of it in future.
504
We also disagree about the financing of the help with childcare. Welcome though it is, we on these Benches feel very strongly that it should not have been financed in part by these cuts. There is also to some extent an issue of choice—though here I remain grateful for what the Minister said on 3rd June last year about the right of single parents not to go to work if they so choose.
I gave notice earlier this afternoon—I do not know whether the notice has reached the Minister—of a point I wished to take up in relation to her letter of 26th June. If the notice has not reached the Minister, I shall leave the matter and deal with it by letter. It had to do with freedom of choice in relation of childcare and whether mothers will remain free to decide for themselves whether the childcare on offer is sufficient and suitable for their children. That is not the same as whether it is in general of good quality. I shall leave the matter now and return to the point later. The Minister may expect a letter.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords, I think, for their contributions. Like them, I am sorely tempted to stray into wider debates about lone parents, work, opportunity and so on. However, I shall resist the temptation and do my best to answer the points raised. If I miss any, as usual I will write to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked: if a lone parent who is on benefit and receiving the higher rate moves into work, the job ends for her and she comes back on to benefit, will she continue to receive the higher rate? Yes, the child benefit goes with the birth of that child and is therefore with the parent while she is a lone parent for the rest of her life, whether she is in work or on benefit. That is good news and addresses the noble Lord's point.
Secondly, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a point about the taxation of child benefit. There is not a Labour Party view on this matter at present. It is an issue that is under review. There are clearly arguments for and against the taxation of child benefit. It may in time be introduced. It is a matter for the Chancellor to decide on its relative merits against other issues. The Chancellor has made clear that he would in no way seek to compromise the well-established principle of independent and separate taxation. That takes us into the territory identified by the noble Earl. I think we all understand the issues; namely, whether child benefit is independent of income level or whether, given finite resources, we should seek to target what help there is on those who are poorer off through the principle of taxation or means testing. It is an honourable debate and one that we shall no doubt explore in the future, particularly should the Chancellor be minded to propose such changes for the future. At present, there is no specific commitment either way on this issue.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a question on welfare-to-work and the statistics associated with the new deal. If there is any additional statistical information, I will write to the noble Lord; however, it is my understanding that some I to 2 per cent. of lone

505
parents in control group areas have come off benefit and, we understand, taken up work beyond what would be expected by comparison with the control groups. That represents some 800 lone parents. We cannot guarantee that all of those have gone into work. Some may have re-partnered, as the noble Lord said. The comparison is, after all, with a control group. Most lone parents who come off benefit will either go into work or re-partner, or possibly receive a higher or different benefit. Those are the three exit strategies. The point for us is that the eight new deal lone-parent pilot areas are carefully controlled. We can therefore see the difference, taking all those factors into account. Our information is that some 800 parents have left income support over and beyond the figure that would have been expected in those same pilot groups but for the intervention of the new deal.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I understand what she says; namely, there is a pilot group and a group not included in the scheme. She refers to 700 or 800 people. What is the difference in percentage terms between one group and the other as regards the number who appear to have gone into work? The figure 800 does not mean a thing. What is the differential between the group who are coming off benefit and those who are assumed as the result of the calculation to have gone into work?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought I had given that figure. We understand the difference to be between 1 and 2 per cent. That is what the figure 800 represents. That is the extra effect, as it were, of the intervention of the new deal: 1 to 2 per cent. more lone parents have come off benefit in the pilot areas than their equivalents in the control group. That is the differential between the two. The noble Lord looks puzzled. It seems very clear to me, but I have obviously not made myself clear. The 800 represents the I to 2 per cent.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am indeed somewhat puzzled by that figure, since it would seem to suggest that the whole scheme is a complete failure, which I presume is not what the noble Baroness seeks to indicate. Perhaps it would be better to pursue the matter outside the Chamber.
Perhaps I may return to the consequence of what the noble Baroness just said; namely, what does she think the cost is per job for the people who have gone into work as a result of the scheme in the period up to now rather than simply going off benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as I say, the 1 to 2 per cent. represents lone parents in the population. I was about to refer to the setting-up costs. Perhaps I may first return to the statistical point. Nobody is trying to suggest—certainly I am not—that the new deal is the answer to all the problems of overcoming the hurdles or barriers to lone parents entering work. What the pilot areas are beginning to indicate is that there is a useful contribution and a statistically significant effect
506
as a result of the intervention of the new deal. The impact on a lone parent clearly varies according to the age of the child, the state of the local economy and the adequacy in her judgment of available childcare. I do not for a moment suggest that this is "success in capital letters". What it does indicate is a useful statistical improvement in the opportunities for lone parents to move into work as a result of the intervention of the new deal. That is all I am claiming. I suspect that the effects may well be down the line—that is, when a child who is now three years old is five, six or seven. That is when we shall begin to see the opportunities come through. I do not want to over-claim for the scheme. But the fact that it is showing some of the results that it is is distinctly encouraging and should be welcomed by all Members of this House.
As to the costs on which the noble Lord pressed me, the setting-up costs were £6 million. But these are front-end loaded costs. These are gross costs. They do not include the reduction in benefits paid to parents who would otherwise have remained on benefit, which work out at about £42 per person saved.
More broadly, it is about changing the culture and expectations of lone parents. I hope we shall see more and more lone parents coming into work as the cultural effects, the halo effects, of the New Deal spread, and as lone parents realise just how much better they and their children are once they believe that it is appropriate for them to move into work.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Earl. With his usual laser accuracy he identified the points of agreement and disagreement between us. We all accept that help for lone parents to work and have childcare is vital, particularly for children under five. I emphasise that the Government stand at the shoulder of the lone parent, helping her to be able to make choices as to what she thinks is the best strategy for herself and her family. Those choices were not realistic before the New Deal because the things necessary to facilitate them, such as childcare, were not in place. That is what the Government see themselves doing.
Therefore, in terms of childcare, as in terms of opportunities for jobs, of course lone parents have the right and freedom of choice. We are trying to take steps to ensure that information on childcare provision is available. For example, we are having audits of local childcare facilities to identify what facilities are available. We encourage the use of IT to ensure that information is widely available.
The scheme funds registered childcare only, which is an assurance of quality. In that way no lone parent need feel pressured into using childcare of inadequate quality if she does not believe that it is a reasonable option.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for that reply. However, does she take the point that childcare may in general be adequate but not adequate for a particular child? Will the parent remain the judge of whether it is adequate for the particular child?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wonder whether we are at cross-purposes. The New Deal is a

507
voluntary activity. If the lone parent believes that the child has special needs, has a disability, a learning impairment or whatever or is perhaps vulnerable because of the recent break-up of a relationship, that lone parent will make the judgment as to whether it is appropriate for her to go to work. If she seeks to go to work, she will decide the appropriate quality of childcare. I am sure that if a responsible lone parent did not believe that the available childcare was suitable, of sufficient quality and appropriate for her child, she would decide to delay going to work. That would be a judgment for her; no one makes her do any of it.
As a result of the childcare strategy, we expect to see a strengthening of both the quality and the quantity of childcare available which will give lone parents a real choice as to how they think it most appropriate for their children to be looked after. It is not just an under-fives problem; it is a before and after-school problem for children from the age of five to 12 or 13. As the noble Earl knows, much of the activity of the childcare strategy has been directed at after-school clubs as well as direct nursery care and the like.
I emphasise that we seek to work with the grain of what lone parents themselves want to do. That is clear from the research reports which the noble Earl and I have swapped and bantered over through many a happy evening in this Chamber, as we went through the DLA legislation. The research consistently shows that lone parents want the opportunity to work when they feel their child is of sufficient age and if the childcare is in place and they think the work is suitable to them—that is, as regards access and so on.
The Government are saying: "We are on your side, we are standing shoulder to shoulder with you on this. We will try to help you overcome the hurdles which in the past stopped you exercising the choice that married women have". As part of a couple, they have the childcare help, they have the work knowledge at hand that they get from their marriage. That is our strategy. I am confident that no one in this Chamber will disagree with it.
Finally, although I promised myself that I would not make too obvious a party point, I cannot let the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, go by when he said that this was directly opposed to what we said in opposition. Rubbish, my Lords. We made it very clear—I have now said it three times. If the noble Lord reads a copy of The Guardian four times, on the fourth time he may believe that what it says is true. So I shall try again. In opposition we said that it was unreasonable to change lone parent benefits in isolation. However, we now have in place a new deal for lone parents: a childcare strategy, the proposed new tax credit and the minimum wage. Shortly, I hope we shall have a reform of maintenance arrangements. In that system, lone parents have all the opportunities that we seek to offer them which they were denied under the previous administration. Had the noble Lord offered those opportunities then, he would have had our wholehearted support.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Baroness sits down. I very much hope
508
never to mention the matter again and look forward to the noble Baroness never again mentioning anything that the previous government did.
Be that as it may, perhaps I may clarify the point about start-up costs. Was she referring to the start-up costs of the scheme for the entire country or only for the pilot areas? Do we know what she expects the costs per job to be at the end of the day?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord, but my understanding is that the start-up cost is for the pilot schemes. It works out at £6,000 or £7,000 per job. We do not think that that is an appropriate way to do it because start-up costs are, by definition, front-end loaded. What really matters is the average recurrent revenue costs, once the scheme is unrolled. I cannot give figures for the country as a whole and I shall write to the noble Lord if we have the information to hand.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 1998
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [37th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
The draft order before your Lordships increases the amount of payment under Section 1 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to £40,000 for claims made on or after it has been cleared by both Houses. The intention to make this increase was announced on 19th May by John Denham, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security in answer to a parliamentary Question. It is a matter of considerable interest to many honourable Members of Parliament, and I know to many noble Lords, who have pressed us on the scheme since our return to office. The proposed increase does not represent a changed judgment about the safety of vaccination, but simply our view that it is appropriate and decent to increase the payment.
I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to the other part of the announcement about the vaccine damage payment scheme being considered as part of the welfare review which includes disability benefits. This will be in consultation with the Department of Health. I am now very happy to bring forward the necessary order to give effect to that announcement. Noble Lords may find it helpful if I first say something about the history of the payment and its purpose.
The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 is, as the draft order makes clear in its heading, a public health measure. It covers not only England and Wales but also Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

509
The separation of health from social security in 1988 put the administration of the scheme clearly into the custody of the Department of Social Security.
The scheme was introduced in 1979 and aims to provide a payment of a lump sum in respect of those severely damaged as a result of a vaccination under a routine public vaccination programme. The scheme was introduced by the then Secretary of State for Social Services, the late Lord Ennals, who reminded the House that it is not concerned with compensation but with payments. It was designed to provide, reasonably quickly, a lump sum payment of £10,000 to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from severe vaccine damage.
Fixing the extent of disablement at 80 per cent. or more was based on well-established social security principles assessed as for the purposes of Section 57 of the Social Security Act 1975. In fact, it is the same basis as the industrial injuries benefits scheme and the 80 per cent. threshold reads across into the severe disablement allowance. So it is a fairly standard measurement of severe disability.
On initial claims under the scheme where the Secretary of State's medical advisers are satisfied for the purposes of the scheme that severe disability is the result of vaccination, awards are made within three to six months. A claim can be made at any time within six years of the relevant vaccination or the child's second birthday, whichever is later.
The department's medical advisers consider all aspects of each individual claim, including the nature of the damage, the time relationship between its onset and vaccination, before advising, on balance of probabilities, whether brain damage in that individual case is due to vaccination.
The diseases currently covered in the scheme are diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, measles, rubella, tuberculosis, mumps and Haemophilus influenza type b. Those diseases can lead to serious illness and can be life threatening. For example, between 1951 and 1955 there were 1,103 deaths from whooping cough in England and Wales. Between 1991 and 1995, there were only five.
Vaccines save lives. Each year nearly 2 million children are immunised and approximately 6 million doses of vaccine are given as part of the childhood programme. The continued success of the immunisation programme is of enormous importance to individuals, their families and the country as a whole in reducing the incidence and the effect of serious communicable diseases. Where, rarely, on the balance of probability it does sadly result in severe damage the vaccine damage payments scheme provides a measure of financial help.
I apologise for so much detail but I think your Lordships will agree that it all points to the fact that the scheme does permit a payment to be made quickly in the trying circumstances of a family coping with a severely disabled young child. Even if a payment is not made at the outset the door is not closed. There is a comprehensive review system which allows time, if necessary, for the full extent of disability to become
510
apparent. All that is available outside the process of the courts where proceedings are very often protracted and costly.
The vaccine damage payment scheme provides a substantial measure of preference for those severely disabled as a result of vaccination over those equally severely disabled from some other source. For example, in addition to the payment a wide range of benefits and services may be available. The main benefits specifically for disabled people include DLA, DWA, JDA, and invalid care allowance for those who provide a substantial amount of care for the disabled person.
I should also point out that the value of a vaccine damage payment held in a trust fund is ignored for the purposes of income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, family credit, disability working allowance, council tax benefit and housing benefit. In addition, local authorities may be able to provide a variety of services as well as help from the independent living fund. Services may include practical help in the home; adaptations to the home, such as a ramp, lift or special equipment; and holidays and recreational facilities outside the home.
The amount we are proposing more than restores the value of the original payment. Based on the retail prices index, the original £30,000 awarded in 1991 would have given us £38,000 rather than the £40,000 that we are proposing. We expect to review that figure periodically though the £40,000 figure gives a degree of head space which will alow us to keep it in force for some time.
The second part of our commitment relates to the future of the scheme which, as I said, will be part of the welfare review. We set up and I chair a Disability Benefits Forum which is limited to some 20 members to discuss complex issues, including all areas of disability, with representatives from local government, medical professionals and other academics. We are looking at possible options for changes in the gateways to benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and carers and how to ensure that help is directed to those who need it.
The vaccine damage scheme will therefore come within the purview of the Disability Benefits Forum for it to make recommendations to us as part of our general review.
With those remarks, trying to set the vaccine damage payment scheme in context and emphasising both the value of the uprating and the fact that it is incorporated in the wider review of disability benefits, I hope your Lordships will approve the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [37th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is certainly a Motion which we welcome. I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House would wish to do otherwise; indeed, we do so enthusiastically.
Secondly, we agree with the points made by the noble Baroness in relation to the importance of vaccination. It would be extremely unfortunate if the effect on a small number of people were in any way to deter people from

511
taking such precautions. We realise that this is not a change of policy on the part of the Government, the Opposition or, indeed, the House as a whole.
Having said that, it is the case that in the rare instances where an individual suffers as a result of vaccination, that is a great tragedy. I have very much in mind two constituency cases where that is so. In that context, perhaps I might raise one point with the Minister. She spoke exclusively of children whereas one of my constituency cases is not a child; it is a person of mature years who had a vaccination and the result was that he was severely disabled. Perhaps the Minister will confirm—it will not incur any great cost to the Treasury—that, should such a case arise and come forward for payment, it will not be ruled out on grounds of age.
I turn also to the point made by the noble Baroness in relation to the fact that the payment is not taken into account with regard to various income-related payments to which she referred, provided it is held in a trust. Generally speaking, such trusts are considerably restricted as to which investments can be purchased with the payments made by the Government to help the person who has been tragically affected by damage as a result of vaccination.
If we look at cases from the past, which are far more numerous than those of the future, the fact that the money is being held in a trust and therefore has not been invested in a wide range of assets, as would normally be the case, and the effect of inflation on the previous recipients—perhaps when the figure was much smaller than it is now, even allowing for inflation—can be unduly restrictive. Perhaps the Minister will take that into account when the matter is reviewed. Also, if the money is to be invested in a trust under restrictive arrangements with regard to the scope of investments which can be used, perhaps some form of updating can be introduced for those who are already in that position.
I wish to make two further points. The Minister stressed that the late Lord Ennals, when he introduced this measure, said that it was a payment and not compensation. That will have gladdened the heart of the Treasury at the time because there has always been great debate and anxiety about the whole question of no-fault compensation. I remember in the last two Parliaments going to Ministers with deputations with regard to people who had been affected by contaminated blood when having a transfusion.
The reality is that that distinction is one which may gladden the heart of the Treasury. But the distinction between a payment and compensation in this context is a fine line. The reality is that it is compensation. The problem is that if we open that door, then a large number of other people may seek to come in because of various acts which would be covered if we were to have no-fault compensation. The cost to the Treasury may then be very great.
I make one final point. The noble Baroness referred explicitly to brain damage and, generally speaking, that has been the problem in relation to vaccinations. But there has been a great deal of debate recently in relation to the use of Lariam as a prophylactic in relation to
512
malaria. Mr. Matthew Parris, a little while ago, wrote a terrifying article in that regard and there was an adjournment debate at the end of the last Parliament, just before the election, on the same issue. Again, while not wishing to open the matter of no-fault compensation, I gather that some people have suffered severe disabilities as a result of the use of Lariam and perhaps the Minister will take that into account in her review.
8 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is not often that House of Lords' Ministers find themselves praised in another place. Let me put it on the record that when these regulations were before another place the Minister's work on this subject was praised in strong terms by Mr. Ross Cranston. It is to the honour of our House as a whole that that should be recorded.
These regulations make a small but extremely welcome change. They are an overdue uprating. They uprate at slightly above the rate of inflation. I am sure that the whole House will welcome that.
The questions that arise concerning the vaccination damage scheme range a great deal wider. I appreciate the Minister's point that these are questions for the review. Since the review is in progress, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House to raise some of them now.
I take the point that this is a payment and not compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, may say that this is a fine line—clearly it is—but it is a part of that line that these payments do not actually meet the cost of bringing up a child damaged as a result of vaccination.
It was foreseen by the late Lord Ennals that there would be court cases and further compensation through the court system. That has happened in a very small proportion of cases. Payments have been made in a very small proportion of claims. Clearly there is something of a problem and we may debate where it resides.
Firstly, there is a problem about legal aid. The Minister will say that that is not the responsibility of her department. Indeed it is not. It may be relevant to record that in all legal aid discussions it has been clearly agreed that the conditional fee agreement is least suitable in medical liability cases. That might be borne in mind in deciding what the state will do about that.
I hope that the 80 per cent. disability threshold will be reconsidered. It is a fairly severe threshold and there could be a fair amount of damage short of that threshold. I have looked at papers on this scheme and it seems that medical research on this subject is still very much in its infancy. There is still a general lack of agreement about the causation of some of the conditions for which claims are made. I can remember as a young parent having earnest discussions about which vaccinations the children should have and which they should not have. I do not now remember in which cases we decided yes and in which cases we decided no. Whichever it was we seem by the grace of God to have struck lucky. It could so easily have been otherwise.

513
One particular type of case that I want to raise is that of autism and bowel damage found in the Royal Free study by Dr. Wakefield, which was dealt with in the February 1998 edition of the Lancet. I understand that that study is disputed. That does not mean that it is necessarily false. We are dealing with a subject on which research is in its infancy. The main study which disputes that study is the Finnish study, about which there are a certain number of questions. That study is funded by the manufacturer of the vaccine, which might possibly create a conflict of interests. The report also covers only children who developed the damage within three weeks of vaccination whereas in a large number of the cases studied by the Royal Free the damage appeared a good deal later. The research is carried out on hospital in-patients whereas many of those suffering from this condition are not hospital in-patients. It is not something which normally arises as a result of autism. There is room for a certain amount of doubt about that study and for a good deal of attention still to be paid to the Royal Free study.
That is one case among many areas where the causation of damage ascribed to the vaccine is disputed. The mere fact that there is so much dispute about what is caused by vaccination and what is not makes a case for arguing that medical research on this subject is still needed. There may be a case in disputed areas for occasionally erring on the side of generosity.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am especially grateful for the generosity of the noble Earl—it was a point very kindly taken—and for the enthusiastic endorsement of the noble Lord opposite. If I detect a touch of irony there, that is fine too.
As to the points raised by noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked what happens to an adult who had a vaccination in adulthood which then gave rise to vaccine damage. Would he or she be ruled out of the scheme? The scheme applies to vaccinations which are part of the recommended childhood vaccination programme. It would also apply to adults in the case of an outbreak of disease such as an epidemic and to polio contact cases. If the noble Lord wishes to give me—in confidence obviously as it is a private matter—further details of his former constituent I would be happy to obtain more specific guidance as to whether his constituent came within those categories.
The second point raised by the noble Lord concerned the trust fund and income related benefits. It is entirely sensible to look at the covenants or the restrictions associated with the trust to see whether they in any sense restrict the value that can accrue to the fund for the support and health of a child. Almost all lump sum payments are put into trust in this way and it may be wise for us to review whether they are unduly restricted and what avenues are open to us if that should be the case. I will take this up with our lawyers and see whether they are of the same mind as the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also raised a point, that was in part answered for me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the difference between payment and
514
compensation. The noble Earl was right to say that my noble friend—and he was my friend—the late Lord Ennals was careful to make it a lump sum payment and not compensation. It was a lump sum payment to help with some of the costs. It in no way restricts people's access to the courts where they can seek further compensation. We all accept that there are very few cases that do so, let alone that are successful.
As to the issue of Larium, raised by the noble Lord, the Disability Benefits Forum will be looking at the support of all disabled people, especially those who are brain damaged, from whatever cause. So Larium, as such, is not ruled out of any review of disability benefits. That is not to say—unless I was guided to so do—that it will come within a vaccination scheme. A lot of medication can have unfortunate side effects for a limited number of people if they present symptoms of whatever sort. Clearly to do that would expand the vaccine damage scheme well beyond the intentions of its original founders.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the point about the severity of the 80 per cent. threshold. I repeat that this is analogous to the industrial injuries and the severe disablement thresholds. Someone may not qualify for a compensation sum because they are below that threshold, but they would still be eligible for the other disability benefits such as DLA, whether middle rate or high rate care, mobility and income support with a disability premium. It in no way rules out the access of disabled people to other and related benefits.
The noble Earl also raised the interesting question, which has been widely debated in the media, about the connection between the triple vaccine and, in particular, Crohn's disease and autism, and the controversy raised, perfectly properly, by Dr. Wakefield in his article in the Lancet a few months ago. There have been two Finnish studies, five research reports that I am aware of and a lot of letters and correspondence and small items in the Lancet. As far as I am aware, not one of them supports Dr. Wakefield's conclusions.
The first Finnish study reported in 1994. It was a 12 year study of adverse reactions in 1.5 million children in Finland who had received MMR vaccine between 1982 and 1994, that is 3 million injections. There were no deaths or long-term consequences in the vaccinated children.
A further study reported in 1998 specifically in relation to the suggestion by Dr. Wakefield and others that MMR, Crohn's disease and autism may be causally related. This further study, following the Wakefield article in the Lancet, of all children in whom gastro-intestinal symptoms were reported following MMR has identified no cases of Crohn's disease or autism in this group. The study, which reported in May 1998 specifically in response to Dr. Wakefield's research, showed that between 1982 and 1984 just 31 children out of the Finnish cohort developed gastro-intestinal symptoms, the most commonly reported being diarrhoea and vomiting, the symptoms' onset being between 15 and 20 days after vaccination, and for all but one child, who had diarrhoea for six weeks, the symptoms were short-lived. All the children

515
eventually made a complete recovery. None of the children with those symptoms subsequently developed autism or Crohn's disease in a period ranging from 14 months to 15 years after vaccination.
Further research papers since then—five of them more generally and two specifically—have shown that the incidence of Crohn's disease is increasing but that it had already been increasing some 20 years before the introduction of MMR and that the introduction of MMR has not resulted in any acceleration in the rate of increase. As for autism, there have been no statistics to show any increase in the prevalence of autism in the past decade.
There have been numerous letters and editorials. Virtually all of them have been severely critical of Dr. Wakefield's methodology and have challenged his conclusions. That is not to say—I emphasise this—that Dr. Wakefield's hypothesis or thesis has been irrefutably contradicted. That cannot be the case because majority opinions very often start off as a minority dissenting opinion. However, because the impact of his article has such potentially devastating implications were it to be correct, the medical profession and scientific advisers and indeed the Chief Medical Officer to the DoH have taken special care with this research.
516
Based on the two Finnish studies and the five subsequent research reports, as well as many articles and much literature, we have no evidence that there is any causal connection between MMR and Crohn's disease or autism.
That evidence may subsequently be found to exist. I am not saying that it could never exist. But, on a study of 1.5 million children over a period of around 14 years, not a single case of autism or Crohn's disease could be attributed to MMR by any scientific methodology. So, while being respectful of what scientific research may throw up, I hope the noble Earl will accept that this is not being taken lightly by the department. We have reviewed it. I have specifically asked for briefing on this matter because we all have friends and relatives with young children and we are asked constantly for advice as to whether they should or should not be vaccinated. We want to give them the best possible information for that.
I hope I have answered the questions raised by your Lordships and, as a result, that the House will be minded to accept this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Chequers Meeting
  Chequers Meeting
  Honours: Advisory Committees
  Honours: Advisory Committees
  Values of the Left
  Values of the Left
  River Maine
  River Maine
  Handguns: Northern Ireland
  Handguns: Northern Ireland
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Al Fayed
  Mr. Al Fayed
  Criminal Cases Review Commission: Case Review Managers
  Criminal Cases Review Commission: Case Review Managers
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Prisons: Communicable Diseases
  Prisons: Communicable Diseases