Sitting of 21 May 1998

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 4 June.

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

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: What was the average central Government public sector borrowing requirement per household in the United Kingdom per year for (a) 1992 to 1997 and (b) 1997–98. [41672]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Over the years 1992–93 to 1996–97, the previous Government's borrowing averaged £1,500 per household. In 1997–98, under this Government, borrowing has averaged just £50 per household.
    Mr. Bayley: May I remind the Chief Secretary of the pledge card, which promised that a Labour Government would set tough rules for Government borrowing and spending, and congratulate the Treasury on a pledge well kept? Borrowing at £1,500 per household per year over five years goes way beyond that necessary for the financial cycle. Does he agree that such borrowing under the Conservatives was deferred taxation, so when they were in power we had not only higher taxes, but higher deferred taxation?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government made a catastrophic misjudgment in the late 1980s when they misread the economic signals, and the economic miracle about which they used to boast became an economic disaster only two years later. That is a reason why borrowing averaged £1,500 per household in the previous Parliament.
    In contrast, as my hon. Friend said, we made it clear that we would run public finances prudently. We have reduced borrowing, which now averages about £50 per household and, at the same time, have been able to redirect resources, because of tight control of public spending, into our priority areas—education and health.
    1086
    He is right to draw attention to the promises that we made at the last election, and we shall deliver each and every one by the end of this Parliament.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If in, say, two years, the right hon. Gentleman perchance found that revenue exceeded expenditure, which was the case in two successive years under the previous Conservative Government, would he use the surplus to increase public expenditure or to reduce the PSBR?
    Mr. Darling: What matters is what happens over the economic cycle, as the hon. Gentleman should know. We have made it clear that we are conducting economic affairs in such a way as to achieve long-term economic stability—something which the previous Government were, unfortunately, never able to deliver.
    Mr. Derek Foster: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting borrowing and spending under control? However, I invite him to look again at the PSBR regulations, especially to allow the Post Office to borrow to invest, to enhance its competitiveness. At the same time, he may consider Newcastle airport, which also longs to borrow to invest, to enhance its competitiveness in the northern region.
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Although the Government always keep the PSBR under review—indeed, we consider it almost every day, for various reasons—people must bear in mind the fact that borrowing is still borrowing and has to be paid for, no matter how it is classified. There is no easy solution to the problems to which he refers. Borrowing has to be serviced, and the Government must have regard to public exposure to borrowing, whether it is directly under the control of the Government or incurred by bodies over which we have less direct control, but for which we are, none the less, responsible.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does not the improved borrowing over which the Chief Secretary has presided make it rather absurd for the Government to continue to maintain under-investment in public services, and does it not place them in the embarrassing position of not fulfilling their pledges and causing the situation to deteriorate? When the right hon. Gentleman completes the comprehensive spending review, will he accept that, to deal with the crisis in the public services, he will have to find money for the current year as well as for the three following years?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, we are moving towards the conclusion of our spending review. The hon. Gentleman should review his policies on taxation and spending. I have noticed over the past week that he is in favour of as much spending as possible on just about everything that he can get round to naming, but against any measure of taxation to pay for that spending. A policy of tax and spend is a statable case, but a policy of spend and spend without any means to pay for it is incredible. That is why the hon. Gentleman's party has no credibility whatever on those matters. I remind him that, this year, because we have strictly controlled public spending, we are not only reducing borrowing, but have been able to make £2.5 billion available for education and more than

    1087
    £2 billion available for the health service. Those amounts would not have been available but for the change of Government. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, in the nicest possible way, that he reflects on his own policies rather than complaining about ours, which are doing what the country wants to get sustainable long-term stability and good public services that we can afford.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What representations he has received on the working families tax credit. [41673]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The working families tax credit has been welcomed by a wide range of individuals and organisations. It guarantees every working family an income for full-time work of at least £180 a week. No family with earnings below £220 a week will pay income tax.
    Dr. Starkey: May I pass on to my right hon. Friend the positive feedback that I have received from families in my constituency about the working families tax credit proposals? I should like to share with him the situation of a constituent. The lady's husband had been unemployed for some time and decided to try to improve his work prospects by going to university. She went back to work as soon as her son was born, and she and her husband were caught in such a poverty trap that the stress contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. She is currently £4.50 a week worse off in work than she would be if she were on benefit. As a result of the Budget proposals, and especially the working families tax credit, she would be £21.75 a week better off in work than on benefit. She certainly values the Government's measures to help people such as her who are trying to improve the lives of their families through their own efforts. [Interruption.] That is in marked contrast to her experience under the previous Government.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is amazing that Opposition Members do not like hearing about people being better off as a result of changes to help working people. The working families tax credit reduces the number of people who are on the high marginal tax rate and eliminates the 100 per cent. plus marginal tax rate, which was so damaging to work incentives and created a poverty trap. At the same time, it will end the situation in which 500,000 people were receiving benefits and paying tax at the same time. That did nothing for the relief of poverty. The minimum wage that the Government will introduce, the child care tax credit, which will accompany the working families tax credit, and the reduction in national insurance will mean that many people such as my hon. Friend's constituent will be better off. That will be the result of the Budget and the Government's other measures.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Chancellor speaks as though those tax changes are here now. Will he tell the House and the country when they are to be introduced? When is the child care tax credit to come in?
    1088
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has been out launching that yet again, and my constituents think they can claim it now.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will be able to write to his constituents and tell them that the child care disregard is being improved this year and that the full child care tax credit will be introduced next year. Child benefit will rise next April, which is the time at which the minimum wage will be introduced. The combination of those measures will mean that people such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) will be up to £20 a week better off.
    Ms Patricia Hewitt (Leicester, West): Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the barriers that many of my constituents face in trying to move into employment is the fear that an increase in in-work benefits will be cancelled out by a reduction in other benefits, particularly housing benefit? Will he ensure that the welcome introduction of the working families tax credit is accompanied by very close working between the Inland Revenue, the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and local authorities, so that claimants get a seamless service that ensures that they really are better off as they move into work?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Systematically, this Government intend to remove every barrier that prevents people who want to work from getting the benefit and opportunity of work. That is why we have our welfare-to-work programme, why we have abolished—housing benefit is affected by this—the 100 per cent. plus marginal tax rate that many poor people face, and why, at the same time, we shall continue to examine, including in our review of public expenditure and housing benefit, every barrier that prevents people from getting the benefit of work. Our aim is to make people better off for working and to ensure that everyone who wants to work has a contribution to make and is rewarded for it.

    Exchange Rate Policy
    Mr. Damian Green: What plans he has to stabilise the rate of sterling against the euro. [41674]
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on his policy on the exchange rate. [41675]
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on his exchange rate policy following the launch of the euro. [41679]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government's aim is for a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. The best contribution that the Government can make is to create the right conditions for economic stability. The Government have put in place policies to deliver that objective and are determined to avoid a return to boom and bust.
    Mr. Green: I am sure that the Chancellor will have seen an excellent document from the European

    1089
    Commission, which makes it clear that those countries that do not join economic and monetary union on 1 January next year will have to fulfil various criteria to qualify. One of them is
    "the observance of the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the Exchange Rate Mechanism … for at least two years, without devaluing against the currency of any other Member State".
    When does the Chancellor plan for that two-year period to start for this country? Will it be in the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should rejoin the exchange rate mechanism, which his friends took us into in 1990, that is not the Government's intention—I make that absolutely clear. If he is suggesting that our policy should be for exchange rate stability, let me say that our aim is a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. That is the policy which we are pursuing and that is right for the British economic interest.
    Mr. Syms: Given the recent economic report that 400,000 jobs may be lost in manufacturing over the next few years, the deterioration in the balance of payments, and the fact that, earlier this week, Nissan Europe said that it would not consider investing in Britain unless the value of sterling was between 10 and 20 per cent. lower, has not the Chancellor got the balance of his policies wrong, and is not new Labour bad for manufacturing, for exporters and for people with jobs in those industries?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman did not say that Nissan wants the Government to join the European currency, which is exactly the opposite of the policy of Conservative Members. He may have thought of his question when the pound was at DM3.10. Today, it is at DM2.86 and I remind the House that, when we came into power, it was at DM2.81. The rise in the pound over the past two years was almost entirely under the last Conservative Government.
    Mr. Waterson: With a higher pound, higher interest rates and £20 billion worth of extra taxes, is the right hon. Gentleman at all surprised that manufacturing industry is in recession? Has he seen the Confederation of British Industry regional survey, which suggests that manufacturing output is falling in six regions and rising only in three?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems determined to avoid asking a question about Europe. It may be because the Conservative party is in such disarray on the matter after this week's speech by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman knows that, over the past few months, manufacturing employment has been rising, not falling, that the CBI, which he quotes, predicts that manufacturing output will rise this year and that that is in line with independent forecasts. He knows also that this Government's policy is to avoid a return to the situation that was created by the previous Government, when 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost as a result of the failure of economic policy and of the creation of stop-go and boom-bust in the late 1980s. We are determined to avoid a return to that situation and to have a sensible policy on Europe. That cannot be said of Conservative Members.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Would not my right hon. Friend's task in managing the economy be
    1090
    made much easier if he were to announce his intention to join economic and monetary union—without setting a date? Would that not lead to a reduction in interest rates, a more competitive pound and greater investment—all achievable almost at a stroke?
    Mr. Brown: The one thing on which my right hon. Friend and I agree is that we need clarity of policy—something which the Opposition do not have. Our policy is very clear. We are, in principle, in favour of the single currency; we shall apply the five economic tests that are in the country's interests; and we shall make a recommendation, if we believe it right to do so, early in the next Parliament, subject to a referendum. That policy was set out in October and widely welcomed by business, and we shall continue to follow it.
    The country cannot understand how the Leader of the Opposition could announce a new policy against a single currency on Tuesday when he spoke in France, which the former Deputy Prime Minister has said is extreme and the former Chancellor has said makes the Conservatives unelectable.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the practical consequences of the start of the euro next year is likely to be that some smaller firms down the supply chain of multinationals that settle in euros will be required to bill in euros? Will he give assurances that the preparations that he and his colleagues have made, which have been so welcome compared to the previous Government's irresponsible approach, will continue, in order to ensure that all sectors of the economy, including the smaller firms, are fully prepared for the introduction of the euro?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We discussed exactly that issue with business at the meeting of the standing committee on preparations in the Treasury yesterday. The president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the president of the CBI, as well as the secretary of the British Bankers Association, were represented at that meeting to put exactly my hon. Friend's views about the need to help small and medium businesses make proper preparations. I should have thought that it would be agreed across the Floor of the House that business should be prepared for the advent of the euro.
    We have decided on a course of action that will provide information and an opportunity for businesses' questions to be answered. A campaign of information will begin in June. We are determined that every business, large, medium and small, is properly informed about the implications of the euro. We are determined to do what we can to ensure that banks and other financial organisations are in a position to help. Preparations have been behind because the previous Government refused to take the necessary steps.
    Ms Claire Ward: Do not the Opposition have a cheek, showing concern about manufacturing industry jobs, given the number that were lost when they were in government? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although we believe that there should be a sustainable and stable economy, manufacturing industry in my constituency is facing difficulties as a result of the high rate of sterling? One company, which conducts a large

    1091
    amount of its work in exporting manufacturing components, is finding it particularly difficult to make ends meet. Will he assure companies in my constituency that undertake a great deal of exporting that we are considering the problems that they face, will be ensuring a stable economy and will be attempting to achieve some stability in sterling?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend that stability is what matters to industry. Creating a stable foundation and a platform of monetary and fiscal stability from which industry can build is an absolute pre-condition for this Government. That is why we made the Bank of England independent, have set a five-year deficit reduction plan and, for the first time, have a proper long-term fiscal and monetary framework. We are determined to avoid a return to the boom-bust, stop-go conditions of the late 1980s that lost 1 million manufacturing jobs. I should remind the House that, when the previous Conservative Government came to power, there were 7 million manufacturing jobs. When they left power, there were only 4 million. That is what they thought of manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman was an unqualified supporter of Britain's previous membership of the exchange rate mechanism. Can he explain to the House why he is now so opposed to Britain rejoining or shadowing the ERM?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek to blame membership of the exchange rate membership—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] They do not like it. The previous Government took us into the exchange rate mechanism, chose the rate that became unsustainable and caused our exit from the ERM in 1992. As for our policy on exchange rate stability, we are committed to a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. We believe that the basis of achieving that is sound economic policies and the avoidance of a return to the stop-go policies of the past. We shall not join the exchange rate mechanism—we have no intention of doing so. We shall make the decisions that are right for Britain.
    Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor should realise that, every time he goes off into auto-rant instead of answering the question, he alienates thousands of people who listen to these exchanges. We should still like to know why he is opposed to membership of the ERM or shadowing of it, whereas he was an unconditional supporter of the ERM. Does not that reluctance to rejoin the ERM sit rather oddly beside his enthusiasm for the euro? Is it not a bit like being unwilling to paddle in the shallow end but willing to throw the pound in the deep end?
    Does the Chancellor realise that the words quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) were taken from the treaty of Maastricht? They are a clear obligation to rejoin the ERM. The Chancellor's own supporters recognise that obligation. Mr. Duisenberg says that we have to join; the Bundesbank says that we have to join; Commissioner de Silguy says that we have to join; and the Commission says that we have to join. Are they all wrong?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has reminded me not only that his Government took us into the ERM, and that he was Trade Secretary at the time—he was
    1092
    supposed to be reporting to the Cabinet on its effect on manufacturing industry—but that his Government signed the Maastricht treaty. As for lectures on European economic policy from Conservative Members, it would be better if they were to tell us their real position. The Leader of the Opposition made a statement on Tuesday, saying that he would never join the euro or economic and monetary union. The next minute, we had a statement from the former Deputy Prime Minister, saying that that was an extreme position. We were then told by the former Chancellor that the position makes the Conservative party unelectable. May we be told the true position of the Conservative party? Is it in favour of a single currency, or is it against it?
    The Government will pursue a stable and competitive exchange rate. That is the policy which we established when we came into power, and that is the policy which we shall pursue. Italy and Finland were not members of the exchange rate mechanism for two years, but have been accepted for membership of the euro. As for the Government's policy: we shall not join the ERM. I have made it absolutely clear.
    Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor has still not answered the question of why he is opposed to renewed membership or shadowing of the ERM. Has he no reasons for his own policy?
    Mr. Brown: We are pursuing the policy that is right for Britain. The policy that is right for Britain is a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know whether Conservative Members think that it is wrong to pursue a policy of a stable and competitive exchange rate, or whether they merely do not like such a policy being pursued—successfully—by a Labour Government. We shall succeed in the policy because we are determined to eliminate the stop-go policies and the instability that has caused so much damage in the past—the very instability that caused ERM membership under the Conservatives to be such a disaster for Britain.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: I hope that the Chancellor will acknowledge that a pattern is developing in the Conservative party's attacks on the single currency, all in an attempt to undermine the launch of the euro. The shadow President of the Board of Trade has been saying that the Government should go out of their way to destabilise the euro. The Leader of the Opposition has been comparing the creation of the single currency to the creation of a Bosnia-style situation throughout Europe. Is it not crucial, whether we are in or out, that the euro is launched successfully? That is in our economic self-interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the wholly exaggerated and unjustified attacks by the Conservative party could undermine to Britain's economic self-interest?
    Mr. Brown: The first point that the Conservatives should explain is why their policy on the euro is disliked by almost all this country's major business leaders. Secondly, they should explain why even if the economic benefits of a single currency were proved to be clear and unambiguous, they would oppose it for ideological and doctrinal reasons. It is the Conservatives who must now explain, particularly after the remarks of the former

    1093
    Deputy Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, their real policy on the euro and their economic policy for this country.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Richard Spring: If he will make a statement on future trends in the balance of payments. [41676]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): The balance of payments is forecast to record a deficit of 0.75 per cent. over the next two years.
    Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we have just had the largest quarterly trade deficit for many years? Is not the turnaround in our current account in two years—a deterioration of £11 billion—a shocking indictment of the Government and their policies?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that a deficit of 0.75 per cent. of gross domestic product is, historically, a low level. We need no lectures from the Opposition on that level—under their mismanagement of the economy, it rose to 4 per cent. of GDP, which is five times higher than the level that we are forecasting.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Are not the economic difficulties that our trading partners in Japan and south-east Asia experiencing bound to have an impact on the British balance of payments? If our reaction to that were to damage trade even further, and if similar actions were taken by our partners in the United States and Europe, would not the result be a downward spiral of economic activity that could affect the whole world, not least the economy of north-east England, which is so heavily dependent on the continuation of that trade?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is correct. What would most damage trade is the adoption of Opposition policies, particularly on economic and monetary union. Our policies are for long-term stability and steady growth. Manufacturing is forecast to grow—I point out to Conservative Members that these are the CBI's figures—from 1.3 to 2.5 per cent. and exports are forecast to grow from 3.5 to 4.5 per cent., which is healthy growth.

    Tax and Mortgage Rate Changes
    Mr. David Ruffley: If he will estimate the financial impact on a family on average earnings of tax and mortgage rate changes since 1 May 1997. [41678]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): As a result of the Budgets in July last year and in March, a family with two children on median income of £17,500 will see an increase in their disposable income, excluding housing costs, of about £260 a year from October 1999.
    The impact on any family's housing costs would depend not only on interest rates, but on their accommodation, on the size of their mortgage and on other factors.
    Mr. Ruffley: When will the Chief Secretary stop fiddling those figures and accept the calculations
    1094
    independently arrived at by the House of Commons Library, which demonstrate that the average family is £1,000 a year worse off after the mortgage and tax rises under this Government?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should face the fact that interest rates went up because of the previous Government's failure to take appropriate action when they knew that inflationary pressures were building in the economy. If he looks back over the 18 years of the Government that he supported, he will see that interest rates were in double figures for much of that time and mortgage rates were extremely high—far higher than under this Government.
    We are determined to ensure stable economic conditions so that all families can have the long-term prosperity that they want. When the hon. Gentleman criticises us, he should reflect that, for much of the past 18 years, instability and high interest rates led to a record number of repossessions and we did not hear a single word of complaint from him then.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the EU proposals for the harmonisation of tax rates on income from savings, and the effect that they could have on families in this country, especially those paying lower rates of income tax?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware that proposals have been published, but we have no intention of going down that road. For obvious reasons, we certainly would not do anything to disadvantage this country.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Does anybody seriously believe that the official family tax burden figures would have been suppressed if they had shown a fall since 1 May last year? Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the poorest households have been the hardest hit by the tax rises so far? Will he now guarantee that, by the next general election, the average family will face no higher a tax burden than they had on 1 May last year—yes or no?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is certainly trying to wear new clothes in expressing concern about poor people. He was one of those who fervently espoused the poll tax, which must have hit poor people more than any other measure introduced by the previous Government. I remind him that, as a result of Budget measures introduced by my right hon. Friend, including the working families tax credit, every working family will be guaranteed an income of at least £180 a week, no family earning less than £220 a week—half average earnings—will pay net income tax, and child benefit is being increased from next year by a record amount. We also reduced VAT on fuel, which helped poor people, as it helped everyone else.
    All the measures that the Government have introduced have been geared not only to increasing work opportunities, especially for those who are either unemployed or on low incomes, but to ensuring that families, especially those on lower incomes, are helped. Not only did the Conservative Government do nothing about that, but, during their entire period in office, they could not have cared less about the plight of poor people.

    Charities
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What changes he proposes to introduce in taxation policies in relation to charities. [41680]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): A review of charities taxation was announced in the July 1997 Budget. The contributions to the first phase of the review are currently being analysed and we expect to publish a consultation document in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that, at times, charities feel that they are raising money for taxation? The Government's response to the sale of the new version of "Candle in the Wind" and the Princess Di memorial fund showed that that they could respond positively. Does my hon. Friend agree that people want to see the money that they give to charity sales go to the charities and not to the Government?
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government's decision to donate the VAT paid on the purchase of "Candle in the Wind" to the Princess Diana memorial fund was a unique gesture. However, he should also be aware of how much the Government value the contribution that charities make to our society. More than 3,500 submissions have been made to the review discussing the future tax relationship between charities and the Government, and the Government will ensure that it is a positive relationship, which is recognised in the contributions made.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: What is the scale of concern in the Inland Revenue about loopholes in charities taxation?
    Dawn Primarolo: The purpose of the review was to consider how to simplify the regime, and to provide a fairer and easier relationship between charities and the Government. It is considering both direct and indirect tax. VAT was of particular concern to charities, as were some of the reliefs on the borderline that cause problems and loopholes for others to exploit. Those are all very much part of the discussion, and will be included in the consultation document shortly to be published.

    Single Currency
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the constitutional issues raised by possible British entry to a European single currency. [41681]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Sharing a common monetary policy with other member states represents a pooling of economic sovereignty, so we accept that there are important constitutional considerations. That is why the Government are intent on holding a referendum before Britain joins the single currency.
    As the Chancellor pointed out on 27 October last year, the constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but not an overriding one—rather, it signifies that, for monetary union to be right for Britain, the economic benefits should
    1096
    be clear and unambiguous. If a single currency would be good for British jobs, business and future prosperity, it is right in principle to join. Given the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday, it seems that, even if it were right for the British people for us to be part of a single currency, a future Conservative Government would not join it.
    Mr. Bercow: Is the Economic Secretary aware of the statement made by the president of the Bundesbank, Hans Tietmeyer, that within a single currency
    "it is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policies"?
    If that statement is vindicated by events, does the hon. Lady believe that the cession of sovereignty would represent a constitutional bar to Britain' s joining such a currency—yes or no?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman—if I may borrow a phrase from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—is getting rather excitable. Many people in different organisations make a variety of statements. Indeed, some Conservative Members have referred to other Conservative Members as dinosaurs who are out of date. The key element relating to fiscal policy is the principle in the treaty of co-ordination among national Governments, not the transfer of responsibilities to the centre. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should stop these parrot-like cries.
    Mr. Tony McNulty: Does my hon. Friend believe that Britain's preparations for economic and monetary union were helped or hindered by crass and irresponsible speeches that referred to public disorder and civic unrest, or does she agree with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that, happily for Britain, such comments are speeches without audiences?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend make a valid point. It is notable that some Conservative Members have referred to the intemperate remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. Ironically, the confident attack on the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), as being unwilling to listen and hopelessly out of touch, came from a party which currently enjoys only 28 per cent. support in the opinion polls.
    Mr. Eric Forth: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Economic Secretary for verifying the fact that there is, indeed, an important constitutional element to the question whether we should join the European single currency. Will she ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer includes that statement in any further comments that he may make on the matter, and that he does not continue to confine his criteria to economics?
    Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was off choosing a new tie on 27 October, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his statement to the House that, although he recognised the constitutional issue, he did not regard it as an overriding objection to our joining a single currency.

    Tax Rates
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will assess the advantages of introducing lower taxation rates for those on lower incomes. [41682]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The introduction of lower tax rates will make those on lower incomes better off. The working families tax credit, together with the introduction—when it is economically right—of the 10p tax rate, will help those on lower incomes by allowing them to keep more of what they earn.
    Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend share my view that one of the most depressing features of our society is that some unemployed people with families want to work, but cannot afford to, because they would take home less than they receive on benefits? That is depressing not only for those people, but for the people who foot the benefits bill. Does she agree that the combination of the 10p tax rate, the new working families tax credit, changes to national insurance contributions and a national minimum wage will tackle the iniquitous poverty trap that was devised by the previous Government, and redress the situation whereby those on the lowest incomes pay a higher marginal rate of tax than those on the highest incomes?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. To the list of excellent policies that he identified, I would add the increase in child benefit, which is particularly helpful to families. As he knows, we inherited from the previous Government a situation whereby more than 500,000 families paid tax to the Inland Revenue while receiving family credit. The Labour Government's policy of reforming tax and benefits, as part of our welfare reform programme, is designed to ensure that people keep more of what they earn, have the chance to be lifted out of the poverty trap and can participate in the world of work on a decent wage.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Financial Secretary aware that she has the right to apply for a discretion under European law to levy reduced VAT rates on labour-intensive industries? That could be used to reduce VAT on repair and restoration work on churches and other historic buildings. Why has she decided not to apply for and exercise that discretion? Perhaps she can also explain why she does not sign her letters to parliamentary colleagues.
    Dawn Primarolo: That is the first pro-European comment that we have heard from a Conservative Member, even if the assertion is incorrect. The Government are not pursuing the reduced rate on VAT, which was presented to Governments as an option to assist employment, because we believe that our welfare-to-work programme, the new deal, working families tax credit and the reforms that we are undertaking are the positive route to creating more jobs.
    The hon. Lady does get her letters answered. Ministers give replies in exactly the way that Conservative Members did when they were in government. Perhaps she should concentrate a little more on dealing with those who
    1098
    are unemployed and welcome the Government's new deal, instead of making silly points on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To return to the original question, might not lower taxes for those on lower incomes be assisted by higher taxes for those on higher incomes, in extra national insurance contributions if not in income tax? That may be felt to be a problem because of electoral pledges on income tax, but it is possible for Governments to be persuaded to change their position in line with public opinion, and it might be time for a "can pay, want to pay" campaign.
    Dawn Primarolo: We must have fair taxes, and the high marginal rates on those on lower incomes that we inherited from the previous Government need to be tackled, to ensure that people make a contribution to public services through their taxes on a fair basis.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Financial Secretary accept that the combined effect of the tax changes of the past two Budgets has been to make the tax system as a whole more rather than less regressive? If she disputes that proposition, will she agree to publish promptly the Treasury statistical series, which has been discontinued, and which enabled us to see the combined effect of direct and indirect tax burdens?
    Dawn Primarolo: I do not accept that proposition. The Government cut VAT on fuel, raised child benefit, introduced a windfall tax to help the unemployed and are introducing working families tax credit, with an element to assist child care. All those measures are helping precisely the households to which the question refers.

    Capital Gains Tax
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What representations he has received on the impact of his proposals for ending retirement relief from capital gains tax. [41683]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): Treasury Ministers have received 40 such representations, most of which ask for retirement relief to be retained or to be phased out over a longer period. Many business people have warmly welcomed the introduction of the new business assets taper relief, which takes over from retirement relief.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the Financial Secretary confirm that the measure is regressive and amounts to a significant redistribution of income from the modestly-off to the wealthy, and that its effects are harshest on small business people who live above the shop and are approaching retirement—precisely the sort of people for whom Labour used to care? What will she do for those people, particularly in respect of the retrospective aspects of the tax?
    Dawn Primarolo: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. What a surprise! Taper relief is fairer. It will encourage long-term investment and reward entrepreneur investment. That is the Government's intention.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Financial Secretary confirm what is in her Finance Bill—

    1099
    that the capital gains tax system announced in the Budget is more generous to those selling very large business assets after 10 years, and less generous to entrepreneurs who sell their small businesses because of the loss of retirement relief? It is a fat cat charter in line with the Labour party's new priorities. It is in the Bill now, but will she confirm our suspicion that a U-turn is in prospect? As the Finance Bill unravels in Standing Committee, the capital gains tax system is being shown to be unworkable, impractical and perverse. Will she confirm that this generosity to fat cats at the expense of small entrepreneurs is wrong and will be reversed?
    Dawn Primarolo: What is perverse is that Conservative Members welcomed the announcement of capital gains tax reform in the Budget and now seek to reinterpret their words. The reform encourages long-term investment and rewards entrepreneurs, something which the right hon. Gentleman's Government failed to do in office and which this Government intend to deliver.

    Household Incomes (Statistics)
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If he will review the quality of statistics relating to household incomes available in regions of low population density; and if he will make a statement. [41684]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government statistical service collects a wide range of statistics on household incomes, which are regularly kept under review.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Economic Secretary consider the difficulty of getting robust statistical data for constituencies such as mine in south-east Scotland? Sampling errors are significant in less populous areas. She follows these things carefully, so she will know that textiles, electronics and farming are all in decline in south-east Scotland. It is difficult to get a focus on what is happening because expenditure survey results are published only on a Scotland-wide basis. Some sub-regional statistics are susceptible to sampling errors. With the Office for National Statistics, will she consider doing finely targeted statistical surveys, even down to travel-to-work areas, so that policymakers trying to respond to the difficulties can be better informed?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. In recognition of the need for better statistical data to support the Scottish Parliament, plans have been announced for a new Scottish household survey. It will be designed to provide a range of information on households in Scotland, including information on their incomes. Over two years, it will give estimates for each local authority area in Scotland. That may meet his point.
    Sir Michael Spicer: If there is to be a review of sparsity data, will the hon. Lady ensure that there is fairness between England and Scotland? Will she take into account the fact that on most items of public spending, almost twice as much is spent per capita in Scotland as in England?
    Mrs. Liddell: The job of the Office for National Statistics is to ensure that valid statistics of high integrity
    1100
    are available for policymakers and others to reach decisions. As part of that, the ONS has recently published a Green Paper to ensure the integrity of the statistical service in response to our manifesto commitment during the general election. The hon. Gentleman may want to argue about the various levels of expenditure throughout the United Kingdom, but those levels are based on need.

    Comprehensive Spending Review
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What plans he has to ensure that there can be parliamentary scrutiny of his comprehensive spending review before the final results are published. [41685]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The results of the comprehensive spending review will be announced to Parliament for scrutiny and examination in the normal way. It will be for the usual channels to discuss the way in which the House debates those proposals at some point after the initial statement.
    Mr. Robathan: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has suggested that pledges are not necessarily binding. Does the Chief Secretary recall his right hon. Friend the Chancellor making a pledge when in opposition that he had no spending plans that would require extra taxation? Yet since the election, there have been at least 17 tax rises based, presumably, on spending, so that is one broken pledge. After the comprehensive spending review is revealed, how many new tax rises will there be?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see what the Government propose after their spending review. I remind him that, unlike the previous Government, every promise that we made at the election has been kept and will be delivered on by the end of this Parliament. That is something which the Opposition could never claim because they misled people on tax and just about everything else, which is why they are sitting on the Opposition Benches in such reduced numbers.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will my right hon. Friend consider making Treasury economists available to the Opposition so that they can conduct their own comprehensive spending review? He may well have noticed that during the past month alone, amendments have been tabled to the Finance Bill and the Social Security Bill totalling more than £6 billion—a massive hole in public finances. Perhaps the Conservatives have been infected by the financial recklessness of their Liberal Democrat colleagues on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Darling: I am not sure that it is just economic advice that the Conservative party is in need of. It is perfectly obvious that the Opposition—at least, the main Opposition party at present—are increasingly giving up any prospects for the future. Not only have they adopted a policy on Europe that many people, in particular business people, find absolutely incredible, but they have already demonstrated that they would be prepared to spend huge sums without giving us any indication about how they might finance that spending. Their antics and their policies are becoming more incredible by the day.
    Mr. John Swinney: When the Chief Secretary contributes to the usual channels' discussion of

    1101
    how the comprehensive spending review is to be considered by Parliament, will he support an initiative to give the departmental Select Committees the opportunity to look in detail at the Government's proposals, to ensure that any potential damage to existing public services from the review is aired in the full light of day before Parliament, through scrutiny in those Committees?
    Mr. Darling: Select Committees are entirely independent of the Government, and it is up to them what they scrutinise and when. As always, the Government are happy to co-operate with anything that they want to do. I am not part of the usual channels, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I am sure that his representative in that department will ensure that whatever the Committees want to do to ensure that our spending plans and policy proposals are properly scrutinised is taken on board. The Government are moving towards the concluding stages of the review and, because we are determined to deliver our manifesto promises, we are happy to justify those promises to anyone, inside or outside this House, whenever they want.

    Pensioners' Fuel Bills
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What representations he has received on his tax and benefit changes to reduce pensioners' fuel bills. [41687]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): My hon. Friend will be interested to know that we have received 1,000 representations on pensioners' winter fuel bills. He will be aware that there has been widespread acceptance and endorsement of the measures that we have taken on that matter, which include the abolition of the gas levy, the reduction in value added tax to 5 per cent. for energy-saving materials and the reductions in other areas. Taken together with the £20 and £50 announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for winter fuel bills last winter, that means that pensioners will be better off on their winter fuel bills alone by between £100 and £130.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate the Government on their measures so far to help pensioners with their fuel bills, in marked contrast to the policies of the previous Government. However, does he agree that it is important not only to help pensioners pay their bills, but to ensure that those bills are as small as possible in the first place? We need the Government to do as much as possible to keep those bills small through various measures. Will he join me in congratulating my authority, Gedling borough council, which recently launched a wide range of energy-saving initiatives to help pensioners in particular to stay in their own homes and keep their fuel bills low?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both counts. I would add that local authorities throughout the country are taking up the opportunity offered by the
    1102
    reduction in VAT on energy-saving materials to do precisely what he said; I compliment Gedling local authority on doing so.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What is the Government's latest estimate of the cost of the tens of thousands of £10 and £20 cheques sent out in error, which will not be refunded to the Treasury?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to zero in on a narrow and irrelevant point—he should consider that there were 6 million communications, of which a small proportion fell into that category. Why does he not think of the 6 million pensioners who got the benefit, instead of trying to narrow in on a small and incidental administrative point?

    Bank of England Reserve Requirements
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What plans his Department has to extend the use of Bank of England reserve requirements as an instrument of monetary policy. [41688]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): None.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: The rate of inflation last May was 2.5 per cent., which was exactly in line with the previous Government's target; the rate of inflation today is 4 per cent., which is 1.5 percentage points above this Government's target. Do Treasury Ministers accept that it is their failure of fiscal policy, in particular increasing taxes twice in one year, which has caused the increase in inflation? Will they, instead of asking the Bank of England to write to them explaining the failure of monetary policy, write a letter to the Bank to explain their deeply flawed judgment on fiscal policy?
    Mr. Robinson: None of that arises from the question, but I am quite happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman. We need no lectures from the Conservative party, whose Government saw inflation rise to 21 per cent. in 1980. Inflation will come down as our long-term policies for stability and growth prove to be correct, and we avoid the boom-and-bust economic policies that the previous Government went in for. We go for long-term policies because there is no quick fix. For the hon. Gentleman's information, the Bank of England has expressly ruled out using the reserve ratios as an instrument of monetary policy; it did so last August, as recorded in the report of that date at paragraph 63.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  Animal Health (Amendment) Act 1998
  Social Security Act 1998
  Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act 1998
  Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Act 1998

Fairness at Work
3.31 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government have published today the White Paper "Fairness at Work", which is a further landmark in our drive to create both a more prosperous and a fairer Britain.
Let no one doubt that, in the modern world, those two ambitions go hand in hand. Companies and organisations that succeed in today's and tomorrow's world need to address and to anticipate the needs of their customers. To do so, they must draw out, and draw on, the native ingenuity, the innovative ability and the creativity of every one of their work force. The prosperity and opportunity of each are bound up with the prosperity and opportunity of all.
Some of the issues that we address in the White Paper relate simply to human dignity and enshrine simple individual rights. To assure them is simple justice, but it is also good hard economic and industrial sense.
Our industrial policy rests on the three pillars of strong markets, underpinned by our Competition Bill, modern companies, promoted by the White Paper, and building an enterprising nation, which requires those steps among others.
The White Paper is set in the context of action that the Government have already taken to create a fresh balance of rights and responsibilities at work, including signing the social chapter, bringing in, for the first time, a national minimum wage, implementing the working time directive, simplifying procedures for check-off and restoring trade union membership rights at GCHQ. Those were all necessary steps, but they are not sufficient to create a new and better balance in the fast-changing world of work.
The White Paper looks to the future, not the past. There will be no going back to the days of strikes without ballots, mass picketing and the closed shop. We are setting out to foster and support a new culture in the workplace—a culture of partnership. That culture is already evident in many of our most successful and modern companies, but the framework of our existing law all too often undermines or runs clean counter to it.
We expect and anticipate that many of the matters that we address, where differences of interest or of emphasis may genuinely arise, will be settled voluntarily and without recourse to the law, but, if required, the law must be able practically and sensibly to provide peaceful means to resolve disputes if they arise.
The proposals we make fall broadly into three areas: rights for the individual, collective rights and the development of policies that are family friendly. We also propose further consultation on many issues relevant to changing patterns of work. Those changing patterns can underpin flexibility and competitiveness, but they are undermined by a lack either of security or of confidence. So, in a world of far more frequent job changes, employees who have qualified for protection are reluctant to lose it by changing jobs.
Therefore, we propose, first, to reduce the qualifying time for protection against unfair dismissal from two years to one. We also propose to remove the limit on compensation for unfair dismissal, so that people who are
1104
unfairly dismissed can recover their full loss. That will end the anomaly whereby there is no limit on compensation for those unfairly dismissed on grounds of sex or race, but those dismissed for other reasons can at present be awarded only a maximum of £12,000. We also intend to index link other statutory employment awards and payments in future.
We propose, too, to consult business and others on whether—and, if so, what—changes are needed to the law on short-term and zero-hours contracts. Contract work can provide useful flexibility to both employers and employees, and the Government would not wish to lose that flexibility, but poor employment practices discredit such arrangements and deter people from taking advantage of the flexibilities offered by contract work in other organisations.
Secondly, we also need to establish a framework that promotes constructive dialogue between employers and employees. That will include implementing the European works council directive on consultation arrangements at work by the end of next year. In many cases, such dialogue is best established by collective arrangements, which are often the preferred option of both employers and employees. In other cases, more informal consultative arrangements can be suitable.
I shall not attempt in this short statement to detail all the changes we propose, but central to the White Paper is the promise in our manifesto to legislate to enable employees to have a trade union recognised by their employer where the majority of the work force want it. The Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress have worked together, and with the Government, to create as much common ground as possible on the practical issues surrounding such legislation.
The Government believe that mutually agreed arrangements for representation are the best way to proceed; but there are occasions when employees want to be represented by a trade union, but their employer will not agree. The Government believe that better and more effective relationships at work are fostered by having a clear procedure for the resolution of such disagreements, which is itself based on the starting point of voluntary agreement.
The Government propose that the law should require employers to recognise a union where the majority of those voting, and at least 40 per cent. of the eligible work force, are in favour of recognition. That will make it crystal clear that a vote for recognition enjoys genuine and widespread support among employees, and provides a sustainable basis for collective bargaining.
If there are issues on which the parties cannot agree, a restructured and reinforced Central Arbitration Committee will play a supervisory role—judging, for instance, whether the union has proposed a suitable bargaining unit, whether it has reasonable support within it, and whether a sufficient majority of employees support recognition.
When more than 50 per cent. of employees are union members, thus clearly demonstrating that they want to be represented by a union for collective bargaining, recognition will be automatic. There will be a similar procedure for derecognition, and the Government invite views on its operation. No new applications for recognition or derecognition will be considered until three years after a previous application.

1105
The Government recognise that these arrangements may not suit the circumstances of small firms. The statutory procedures will not therefore apply to firms with 20 or fewer employees, although many small firms will no doubt recognise unions, as they do now.
Let me reiterate one vital point. The legal framework that we have proposed will come into play only when employers and employees cannot reach agreement on recognition; but, by ensuring that a clear procedure is in place and known from the outset of discussions, we believe that voluntary agreement is more likely to be achieved and industrial action to be avoided. Neither employers nor employees gain from the present arrangements, and the protracted disagreements that can occur only damage future relationships, whether a union is recognised or not.
The Government intend to take other collective measures—for instance, giving employees greater rights to complain of unfair dismissal if they are dismissed while on official strike, and a right for anyone to be accompanied by someone of their choice, who may be a trade union official, at grievance or disciplinary procedures.
Thirdly, we must recognise the special responsibilities of parents. We place great demands on them. Most need to work to give their children a secure life, but children need their parents' time, too, if family life and society are to be cohesive. The White Paper sets out policies that will enhance family life while making it easier for both men and women who work to avoid conflicts between their responsibilities at home and at work.
The Government will, for example, ensure that employees can take parental leave and reasonable time off for family emergencies, and will clarify the law on maternity rights, extending maternity leave to 18 weeks to match maternity pay, and provide new rights for adoptive parents. A number of those measures will flow from our implementing the European directive on parental rights, giving employees in Britain the same rights as their counterparts in the rest of Europe.
The White Paper sets out a broad agenda for legislative reform. The Government intend to proceed to implement these changes—in some cases after further consultation—at the earliest opportunity. The White Paper sets out the principles that the Government will follow in reforming employment law. It provides a comprehensive package of constructive change. It will take time to implement, and will undoubtedly require time and stability to settle into place. The Government regard the White Paper as a settlement for this full Parliament and do not propose further legislative changes in this area.
The White Paper will support the strong and evolving partnerships at work—partnerships that are needed to give British enterprise and the British economy a clear competitive edge. That edge comes from fulfilling the potential of our people and our country, and it is the only basis on which we can deliver prosperity and justice to all.
Mr. John Redwood: Once again, all the main measures in a Government White Paper were given to the press long before they were given to the House. Everyone knew what would be in the statement before the Secretary of State rose to her feet. I hope that she will explain how that happened, and why the press knew the detail—the exact detail—of what was in the White Paper.
1106
The White Paper is a down payment on the bill the country will pay for trade union support of the Labour party. The unions gave more than £100 million to the Labour party during its Opposition years. Understandably, they now seek a return on their investment.
The right hon. Lady says that the White Paper is a final settlement for this Parliament, but the document makes it clear that even the crucial 40 per cent. threshold for ballots is subject to review. Will she tell us which of the following is true: will she give hope to Labour Members who do not think that the White Paper goes nearly far enough in helping the union cause, or will she tack back towards the Prime Minister and a little more towards industry by reassuring us that there will be no further significant changes after these measures have been put to the House?
I am sure that some Ministers will be grateful for the provisions on unfair dismissal. Many of them, facing dismissal in a few weeks—I am glad to see that one or two Ministers are laughing—will be pleased to find that they no longer have to serve two years before qualifying; there is some good news for them in the White Paper.
However, there is no good news in the measure for manufacturing industry. The last thing that manufacturing industry needs, as it grapples with the recession that this Government have created, is more costly regulation. The last thing that manufacturers need is more Government intervention to damage labour relations. The last thing that they need is the cost of a ballot on statutory recognition, half-charged to themselves.
The Institute of Directors commented today:
"The idea that we have a business-friendly Government is rapidly going sour."
Meanwhile, Mr. Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union has threatened:
"You cannot compromise on fundamental principles."
No amount of platitudes from the President of the Board of Trade can bridge that divide.
Why did the Government not let sleeping laws lie? Why have they not protected the fine inheritance of good labour relations—the best in western Europe—that we gave to them when we left office? It has taken Labour only one short year to set unions against business, and business against unions. The Government's very idea of partnership is phoney. They are not leaving the partners to come to voluntary agreements through free negotiation. They are forcing both sides to accept a deal that neither likes. That is not a partnership. It cannot bring peace and stability in the workplace.
The Opposition support freedom, choice and fairness for employees in the workplace. We will judge the detail of the proposals by their impact on good labour relations and the creation of more jobs. Our fear is that they will damage both.
Will the President of the Board of Trade tell us today what will be the total cost of these measures to business? How many jobs will be lost? Does she know that business organisations are already predicting job losses on the back of these measures and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why cannot more small firms be exempted from what will prove to be very onerous provisions?
The proposals begin a journey back to strife. They begin a journey back to the bad old days and back to the bad old ways. They will do further damage to

1107
manufacturing, which is already damaged by high sterling and the recession that the Government have created. They demonstrate, if more demonstration were needed, that Labour is bad for business.
Mrs. Beckett: Not for the first time, I suppose that we could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to confuse himself or his colleagues with the facts. He demanded that I explain why there had been speculation in the press about some aspects of the package. No such speculation was in any way fostered or contributed to by myself or my right hon. and hon. Friends. The press will inevitably make guesses, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is much in the White Paper that the press did not foreshadow or get right. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the right hon. Gentleman himself demanded at the last DTI Question Time that I anticipate the White Paper by saying what was in it, so he does not have much right to complain about that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give an assurance that when I say that the White Paper is the full settlement for this Parliament, that does not include the prospect of review. I made it plain in the statement, as the White Paper makes it plain, that it sets out clear principles, but we have also made clear our determination that legislation should be workable and practical. If it becomes apparent over time that elements of the legislation are impeding the resolution of disputes, the Government will be prepared to look again at those elements.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party stands for freedom and choice, but it is clear from what he said that even if 100 per cent. of employees in a workplace wished to be represented by a trade union and to have that trade union recognised, he would not support them. I do not call that supporting freedom and choice.
The conflict that the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed in such apocalyptic terms is all too plainly just what he and his colleagues would like to see. Of course, as in so many other things, they are out of date and out of touch. The new culture in the workplace is a culture of constructive partnership, because employees and employers recognise that their interests demand that they work together. The Government's goal is to make the best practice in the best companies normal practice throughout the economy. That is what the White Paper sets out to do.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the President for her statement and congratulate her on introducing the 50 per cent. plus one automatic recognition rule. It will mean that a number of trade unionists across the country will immediately get the recognition to which they are entitled.
However, some of us are a little worried about 40 per cent. rules being applied anywhere. We have experience of that in Scotland, and we have had troubles as a consequence. We are heartened by the fact that the President has said that she is prepared to look at the operation of the 40 per cent. rule. Will she confirm when such a review will be put in place following the passage of legislation? Some hon. Members might be prepared to
1108
give a fair wind to the 40 per cent. rule on the basis that there would be a review at an early date. Will the President help us in that regard?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He asks me to look some distance into the future. We are today at the White Paper stage. The legislation is not yet before the House, but my hon. Friend asks me to suggest when the Government might be prepared to review and, if there are problems, change it.
The Government are determined to introduce a framework of law in case disputes require to be taken to law—we hope and believe that that will be a rare occurrence. My hon. Friend will see that the White Paper's procedures for enforcing recognition, if a majority want it, always take us back to the voluntary agreement. Voluntary agreements are the whole thrust of the White Paper. However, if it becomes apparent—after some time and experience—that there is an impediment in some of the proceedings in the White Paper, we shall re-examine the matter. I fear that I cannot give my hon. Friend a clearer idea of the time scale.
Mr. David Chidgey: Liberal Democrat Members broadly welcome the President's proposals—particularly the fact that the emphasis is placed on looking forward rather than back to the past. She will know that the Liberal Democrats have long argued the case for treating the workplace as part of a stakeholder society.
Does the President agree that, in the context of developing her proposals for legislation, it is vital that all parties—the suppliers, manufacturers, customers, investors, employees and the local communities where the businesses are located—are persuaded to take ownership of the legislation?
I press the President a little further about individual rights, which are featured in her statement. Does she recognise the paramountcy of the individual in the proposals and their right to join or not to join a trade union? How will her proposals deal with the huge increase in the flexibility of labour, which is now a fact in our working society, with more and more workers finding that the key to their employability is their individual transportable intellectual skills? That is their property, which they take with them. How will her proposals marry those individual characteristics with modernising the traditional collective representation approach which has pervaded for so many years?
While I agree with the President that most claims for union recognition and collective representation are settled amicably—we should be pleased about that—does she agree that when recourse to law is required, that law must first establish a procedure that is not rigged or cumbersome, which, in itself, could only exacerbate a dispute?
Finally—[Interruption.] In response to the President's statement—which I think deserves a proper response—does she accept that, while we broadly welcome her proposals, which provide a platform for developing a package of measures that recognise the need for a more forward-looking approach to new partnerships with all stakeholders in the workplace, it is now important to discuss and scrutinise those proposals in order to develop legislation that actually works?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall pick up first the last point made by the hon. Gentleman. He is entirely right, and that is

1109
absolutely the Government's wish. When he studies the White Paper at length, he will see that we refer throughout to our wish to consult and to take advice, especially on the specific detail of how the legislation will be implemented. It has long seemed to me that a major problem into which the Conservative party got itself in government was that it ceased, over a long period, to listen to the views of those outside the Government. We do not intend to repeat that mistake, especially in the legislation.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we could develop the partnership at work and make it responsive in different circumstances. A Government proposal that I did not flag up in the statement is that we shall make funds available to contribute to the training of managers and employee representatives, precisely to assist and develop partnerships at work.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it is clear in the White Paper that the Government recognise the rights of individuals to join or not to join a trade union. Of course we do, and we make that explicit. A difficulty in constructing the White Paper was achieving the balance of the sections on individual and collective rights, because some rights that come under the broad heading of collective rights are rights for individuals. We very much recognise the role of the individual and of an individual's skills.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about procedures not being cumbersome. We have sought to avoid that and have put in place clear time limits on procedures so that they cannot be dragged out unduly, to everyone's disadvantage. I repeat that the thrust of the White Paper is to drive back towards voluntary agreement, at every step.
Ms Ruth Kelly: May I warmly welcome the solid family-friendly policies in the White Paper, especially the three-month parental leave, for men and for women, whether they have a child or whether they choose to adopt a baby? I also welcome the protection from unfair dismissal, should people choose to exercise that right.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the latest count, more than 14,000 women were on maternity leave in the north-west of England? Will she join me in asking the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) whether he is prepared to tell any of those women whether that new right would be repealed under a Tory Government?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The right hon. Member for Wokingham and his colleagues are clearly opposed to many of the measures in the White Paper; what is not clear is whether they would abolish the right to parental leave and whether they would go back on the reduction of the qualification period for unfair dismissal. It is far from clear to what extent the Conservative party would drive back the agreements that we propose to enshrine in law, but, as the right hon. Gentleman identified any change as being disadvantageous, my hon. Friend is entirely right to fear for our proposals, should the Conservative party be returned to power.
Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that I particularly appreciate her statement that
1110
there will be no going back to the days of strikes without ballot, mass picketing and the closed shop? Does she recall the particular pleasure that I had of taking through the legislation that gave people the right to ballots before strikes? I have a good enough memory to remember that she and a considerable number of Labour Members voted strongly against it. May I say how pleased I am that there is to be no going back on that, and ask her whether she can give a clear assurance that recognition ballots will at all times be postal?
Mrs. Beckett: No. It would be possible for such a ballot to be conducted on the basis of a ballot at the place of work, if that is what is sought. [Interruption.] If there is a feeling that that would not be desirable and that there would be, for one reason or another, a desire for a postal ballot—obviously, all ballots would be secret—that, too, could be assured. We have allowed for either a workplace or a postal ballot, depending on choice and what is thought to be right.
Mr. King indicated dissent.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that brings me to my second point to him. He was careful to say that he welcomes our recognition that some of the changes in law that he made do not require to be changed in future. I hope that he will give us the assurance that he recognises that the pattern of change that the Government propose is right for today's and tomorrow's workplace and that he will support it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nature of the trade union laws passed by the previous Government is such that it has resulted in, for example, the National Union of Mineworkers not only not being recognised by private owners but not being able, in the industrial climate in many workplaces where the bosses rule, to have a basic pay increase throughout the 1990s? The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is totally out of touch with the present climate of opinion in which people recognise that those who work and provide the country's wealth have a right to proper trade union recognition.
Two or three areas in the White Paper are a bit dodgy, to say the least. First, we think that the 40 per cent. should not have been applied. If it had been applied in the referendum on a mayor for London it would not have passed the test. Secondly, the limit of 20 employees will mean that about 5 million workers will not be included in the measures. The measures on unfair dismissal should have taken us back to the pre-1979 position or to day one from work.
Mrs. Beckett: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He has a long history of fighting on behalf of workers who face difficulties and, sometimes, exploitative and unfair employers. The 40 per cent. is a balanced judgment. There was certainly mutual agreement between the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress that it would not be right for recognition to be granted unless there was a serious body of support in the workplace for it—unless there was, in the phrase that is enshrined in industrial relations law and which has been practised for some time "sustainable support" for collective bargaining in the place of work.

1111
It is generally and widely accepted that collective bargaining requires to be sustained by considerable support, and it becomes a matter of balancing that judgment. It seemed to the Government that the balance should be 40 per cent. One of the features of the Government's proposal on that judgment is that it is in everyone's interest to maximise turnout and the vote in the ballot. If an employer does not wish a union to be recognised it is in his interests to get as many employees as possible to vote. Similarly, it is in the interests of the trade union to get as many employees as possible to vote if it wishes for recognition. That seems to be the right balance. We are encouraging a genuine and as large as possible turnout of people expressing their view and that, after all, is the issue on which the legislation will be based. [Interruption.] I am reminded of the point that my hon. Friend made about small firms. Current employment legislation contains a criterion for small firms to be excluded on the ground that such legislation might have a particular impact on them. The definition has been set at the level of 20 employees or fewer, and it has been repeated in the legislation.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady accept that one of the most important reasons for the improvement in our industrial relations during the 1980s and 1990s was the decline in the number, influence and power of trade unions? Anything that reverses that is a step back to the anarchy and strife of the 1970s. Does she further accept that her proposals are a serious infringement of the rights of employees who do not want union recognition in their businesses? Is that not an example of the rights of individuals being set aside at the behest of the right hon. Lady's paymasters?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a prominent member of one of the few remaining closed shops—not, I hasten to add, that I am in any way attacking lawyers—and benefits from a protection that he wishes to deny others. As for all the other rubbish that he came out with, being in government for too long has made him completely out of touch with the modern workplace.
In today's workplace, people fear not the overweening power of trade unions, but having no rights, no security and no confidence either that they can be sustained fairly in their place of work, or that they can find fresh employment, should they be unfortunate enough, for whatever reason, to lose their job. Those are the concerns which, in a variety of arenas, and including the White Paper, the Government are endeavouring to address.
As for all that stuff about how people will have things forced on them that they do not want, it will be a matter of choice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends are saying that even if 100 per cent. of employees in a place of work wish their trade union to be recognised, they would deny it to them. That is not freedom of choice.
Mr. Alex Salmond: May I tempt the right hon. Lady away from the 40 per cent. rule and towards what I believe are her own natural instincts? For 20 years, I have watched Scottish politics being poisoned as a result of a fundamentally undemocratic 40 per cent. rule, where
1112
those who did not vote were deemed to have voted in, or supported, one direction. It would give employers an incentive not to get people out to vote, but to let people stay at home. The Government did not ask for it in Scotland last year, they would not have dreamed of asking for it in Northern Ireland and they allowed a mayor of London to be created on 25 per cent. of the total electorate. How can it be that some of the largest, most progressive and successful companies in Scotland have made it clear that they would be happy with the principle of "One vote is enough in a democracy," but the Government have kowtowed to a few last ditchers in the CBI?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that there are many large and successful companies throughout the United Kingdom that believe that it is right and in their interests, as well as in those of their employees, to recognise trade unions. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so; indeed, this legislation encourages and supports them in that wish. The hon. Gentleman is simply mistaken in saying that this legislation contains incentives for people not to vote. That is not true.
The Government are clear, as are both the CBI and the TUC, what people want. I emphasise again that if it is not possible for voluntary agreement to be reached and if people are forced to fall back on the law—although we believe that, in the vast bulk of cases, they will not be—there will be every incentive for all the people involved to create the maximum interest in the ballot and to get the maximum expression of opinion among the work force. If that expression of opinion does result in a majority, with 40 per cent. of those who vote in that ballot being in favour, recognition will undoubtedly be secured. That is an important change.
It is crystal clear that we would not have got anything in this package from the Conservative party. Frankly, we would not have got it from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) either, as he would never be in a position to deliver it.
Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we had only to listen to the litany of out-of-date, out-of-touch attitudes from the Conservative party to be reminded of what the voters rescued us from on 1 May last year? Nevertheless, she will be aware of the widespread unease among trade unionists that the formula for recognition seems to be markedly different from what we believed the manifesto said. Even so, the White Paper represents a major step forward in enhancing fairness at work. What is required now is an enthusiastic response from the business community in pursuing partnership to deal with the productivity gap that the Government have identified.
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government are seeking to foster such constructive partnership. In fact, one of the reasons for strongly promoting an atmosphere of voluntary partnership is precisely that it is the only way to secure productivity improvement. Indeed, it is the only way to secure economic prosperity.
On my right hon. Friend's first point, I can only repeat that the matter remains one of balance and judgment. I believe that no one thinks that a very small minority of people in a place of work voting in a ballot for recognition means that collective bargaining in that place of work

1113
could be sustained. Owing to his long experience and expertise in these matters, my right hon. Friend will know that, when informal procedures operated in this area, there was a general broad judgment of custom and practice on the level of involvement in the union required to sustain collective bargaining. The Government are giving that statutory recognition.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much in the White Paper will be welcomed by the vast majority of people? It contains many great advances in family-friendly policy and other matters, but, as Mr. Eric Heffer, the former Member for Liverpool, Walton, once said over a document called "In Place of Strife", it is a barrel of honey spoilt by a ha'porth of tar.
This ha'porth of tar comprises two things. First, if 39 per cent. of employees in a firm of 100 employees vote for recognition, two vote against and the rest do not vote, there would be no recognition.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend spoke about simple justice and human dignity, but if one works in a firm of 21 people, the union is recognised, whereas if one works in a firm of 19, the union is not. My right hon. Friend has striven very hard, but even her figure of 40 per cent. does not meet the 33.33 per cent. that ACAS and others recognised in the past—and that was too high.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for some of his supportive words. All I can say to him is that, of course, whatever the threshold or the ballot result, a result will not be reached when a firm comes in at one below or two below. That would apply whatever the test or the nature of the test. The matter is one of balance and of judgment. In the overall framework of the package that the Government have proposed and in considering how such issues will be decided, we have tried to set the balance where we think it is right, workable and demonstrates serious and substantial support for collective bargaining.
The level of 20 employees has been enshrined in legislation as a point at which there is a difference in the structure of the workplace and the ease with which these matters can be decided. However, if some dispute or difficulty should arise in workplaces with fewer than 20 employees, particularly if a person is a trade union member—this is partly what I meant when I said to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that, although some of the provisions are in the context of collective rights, they are rights for the individual—that individual trade union member will have the right to be accompanied by a trade union official should he or she wish to be so. I know that, from his experience, my hon. Friend recognises how important that is—perhaps far more than the threshold for very many employees of small companies.
Sir David Madel: In its 23 years of existence, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—ACAS—has made an enormous contribution to the improvement of industrial relations. Was it pressing for any or all of the reforms in the White Paper? Will the White Paper encourage more single-union
1114
recognition agreements in manufacturing industry, since such agreements have also done much to improve industrial relations?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we have recently supported legislation from another place strengthening ACAS's roles and responsibilities. However, ACAS's responsibility is not to advise the Government on how we should develop policy but to help to administrate. The context of the work done by ACAS is to encourage voluntary resolution of difficulties and disputes, which is the exact context and thrust of the White Paper.
It is for employees to decide whether they wish to work in a single union. I do not think that it would be possible to say whether the legislation specifically promotes single or multi-union workplaces. Quite simply, it provides a framework within which decisions can be reached when a majority of employees, or a substantial number of employees, seek union recognition.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives lost the general election because they created a climate of fear in every workplace across the country, which cost them hundreds of thousands of votes? Despite the change of Government, there is still a great deal of fear in the workplace about sticking one's neck out, to try to form a union.
Although the White Paper states that it will be an offence to blacklist anyone who tries to join a union, is my right hon. Friend aware that—in these days of the Data Protection Bill, and the widespread use of computers networked across the country—it will be very difficult to prove blacklisting? Is she aware that people who stick out their neck in trying to go for the 40 per cent., and fail, can easily be made redundant, placed permanently on night shifts, moved to another part of the country, or have other sanctions, which can be very difficult to prove, used against them? Will she show some flexibility on the 40 per cent., and on the blacklisting provisions—to make them watertight?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has great experience in these matters. With great respect, I tell him that, although blacklisting is not always easy to prove, the fact that it is now an offence to promote blacklisting will certainly make a substantial difference. It will also, correctly, be an offence to penalise anyone who campaigns either for or against union recognition. People will have the right to be protected against ill-treatment because of their actions either in their own cause or in advancing the cause of others.
As the legislation is considered, its detail will have to be explored to determine how effectively those rights can be protected. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government's enshrining of those protections in the law, for the first time, is an important step.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Secretary of State aware that she has taken a huge gamble with industrial relations, and therefore with prosperity in this country? Against the background of a secular and very welcome long-term fall in unemployment and an all-time low in industrial strife, does she not think that there is at least a strong risk that many of the measures

1115
that she is proposing in the White Paper could jeopardise both of those positive factors, and therefore operate against prosperity in the medium to long term?
Mrs. Beckett: I recognise the concerns identified by the right hon. Gentleman. I simply tell him that I am not a gambler. The only thing that I ever gamble with is my life and my livelihood, by standing to be a Member of this place. He is profoundly mistaken in thinking that our package of measures represents a gamble. As I said earlier and now repeat: the Government are attempting to spread best practice in the workplace, so that it is normal practice.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find—as he has more freedom now to go about the countryside, inquiring about what is happening in the modern workplace—that all the most successful companies will be able very easily and very freely to operate within the framework of the law. The type of practices that we encourage and enshrine are those that they now pursue—which is partly why they are successful.
Mr. John McAllion: I warmly welcome most of what my right hon. Friend had to say today, but, as she has heard from other hon. Members, a 40 per cent. threshold denied Scotland a Parliament, which a majority voted for in 1979. Is she aware that, had such a threshold been applied in the Government's referendum in Scotland last year, our new Parliament would have been denied the right to vary the income tax rate, which was supported by 65 per cent. of voters? Does she understand that, in the vast majority of cases, 40 per cent. thresholds are designed specifically to create an insurmountable obstacle to those trying to achieve whatever they are trying to achieve?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of a Labour Government is to provide not balance between the CBI and the TUC, but justice between the CBI and the TUC? The TUC has called the 40 per cent. threshold unreasonable and unworkable; I believe that it is also unjust and so do many of my hon. Friends. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that before she makes the mistake of writing that threshold into legislation.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I always take seriously my hon. Friend's observations. I share his view that the Government's role is to provide justice, not between the CBI and the TUC, but in setting the framework of law for rights in the place of work. The Government do not believe that setting the threshold for those voting in favour at 40 per cent. creates an insurmountable obstacle. As I have said to other colleagues, we must consider the balance of the whole package. After all, that threshold is part of the final stage in procedures that will come into play only if voluntary agreement is not possible. I repeat that, at every step, the White Paper encourages and supports a move towards voluntary agreement.
The assessment of the bargaining unit in which the judgment is made, and the procedures to be followed for discussions and negotiations between employers and employees will focus on, support and encourage partnership.
1116
My hon. Friend should take into account the fact that the Government recognise that there are occasions when the voice of employees is irrefutable, and there will be automatic representation where more than 50 per cent. of employees in a place of work are members. The overall balance of the package must be assessed. The Government believe that the balance is the right one to sustain collective bargaining, make practical and workable law and encourage the partnership to deliver competitiveness that we all want.
Mr. David Prior: In the Prime Minister's recent presidential tour of Japan, he drew attention to this country's excellent industrial relations and flexible labour market. Given the very high level of unemployment in most European economies, why is the President of the Board of Trade so slavishly following continental practice?
Mrs. Beckett: Oh, dear. The hon. Gentleman does not know much about continental practice if he thinks that all our actions slavishly follow it. We are setting a fresh balance for the framework of industrial relations law—where it is necessary to resort to law—that reflects the modern workplace and partnership that so many of our most successful companies advocate and practise.
Mr. Ian Pearson: May I tell my right hon. Friend that good employers will welcome today's proposals on employee rights and have no problems with them? Does she agree that beating up on one's work force is not good management and is not good for Britain's economy? Will she assure the House that in the consultation process that follows, she will consult widely with small companies employing between 20 and 100 people to ensure that their interests are fully taken into account?
Mrs. Beckett: Apart from encouraging the use of voluntary measures to resolve difficulties, the White Paper throughout places emphasis on consultation, and I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. I am now closing the exchanges on the statement.
As there are a number of hon. Members in the Chamber, may I make it clear that I have always believed, and acted according to the belief, that when Members wish to question a ministerial statement, they must remain in the Chamber to hear it. If they leave, they have not heard the full statement and it is a discourtesy to the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box.
I noticed today that Members on both sides rushed out to the Vote Office to get the statement and the White Paper. It is not the White Paper that is being questioned, but the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. The time will come to debate the White Paper. I shall not call Members who go out to the Vote Office and seek papers. I have their names, so they need not bother to stand, if that is their intention. We shall now have the business statement.
Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I take points of order after all statements.
Mr. Marshall rose—
Madam Speaker: After we have finished the business statement.
Mr. Marshall: It is relevant, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: They are always relevant, but I am afraid that I am now taking the statement by the Leader of the House.

Business of the House
4.24 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the business of the House. The House is, of course, in recess next week, but I should like to inform hon. Members of the business for the first week back after Whitsun.
MONDAY 1 JUNE—Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures:
The Petroleum Bill [Lords].
The Audit Commission Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the National Lottery Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 2 JUNE—Opposition Day (12th allotted day).
There will be a debate entitled "The dangers of changing Britain's successful and fair electoral system" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 3 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (second day).
THURSDAY 4 JUNE—Until about 7 pm, Second Reading of the Registration of Political Parties Bill.
Debate and motions on modernisation of the House of Commons.
FRIDAY 5 JUNE—Debate on Government support for sport on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 9 JUNE—For three hours, conclusion of remaining stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (third day).
THURSDAY 11 JUNE—Debate on the prospects for the Cardiff European Council on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I am glad to hear that the House will have the opportunity on its return from the recess to debate the Registration of Political Parties Bill, and also that we shall have the opportunity to debate European matters, albeit on a motion for the Adjournment. It is especially welcome that the issues considered by the Modernisation Committee are to be debated, when we will have the benefit of hearing views on them expressed by all hon. Members.

1119
The right hon. Lady has announced debates on the national lottery and sport for all. Will she arrange for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, before those debates take place, to make a statement to the House on his plans for the television coverage of major sporting events and to give his response to the views on listed sporting events of his own advisory panel?
No doubt the right hon. Lady will be hoping that I do not ask again for a debate in Government time on the national health service—but I intend to do so. I, in turn, hope that she will not reply that the Conservative Government held only one such debate during the previous Parliament. As she must know, that count omits all the debates on health legislation under the Conservative Government. That is a nice little argument thought up by researchers, but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
The Leader of the House knows that yesterday the Prime Minister was finally forced to admit that he had broken an early election pledge, as hospital waiting lists have gone up—not down, as he promised this time last year they would. Will she therefore arrange for a debate in Government time on the national health service, so that Ministers can come to the Dispatch Box to explain that they have broken their own election promises—it is not something which they can blame on previous Governments—and that, despite the extra panic injections of cash into the NHS, their spending in the past year falls well short of the annual percentage increases achieved by successive Conservative Governments? Ministers may also want to say what they plan to do about the National Audit Office's alarming report on the difficulties that the health service is having in coping with the millennium bug.
I feel sure that the right hon. Lady will be aware that, as a result of the Foreign Secretary's refusal to respect the Standing Orders of the House on the powers of Select Committees to send for departmental papers, the Foreign Affairs Committee, with the support of hon. Members from all three main political parties, has today taken the unprecedented step of making a special report to the House—I have a copy here—enclosing its correspondence with the Foreign Secretary and asking for the views of the House. The Foreign Secretary's unacceptable behaviour towards the Foreign Affairs Committee raises profound issues concerning the conduct of all Select Committees and, indeed, of the House. What arrangements will the right hon. Lady make so that the House can give its views on the matter, as the Foreign Affairs Committee requested?
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has welcomed some of the debates that I have announced. Listed sporting events can be discussed during debates on the remaining stages of the National Lottery Bill, which she mentioned, at Question Time to the relevant Minister on Monday 1 June and during the specific debate. We must rely on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to choose when to make an announcement on the matter. He has certainly gone out of his way to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible have been consulted; their views will be taken into account before decisions are made.
1120
The right hon. Lady asked me not to remind her that, under the Conservative Government, there was only one Government debate on the health service in so many years. Tuesday 2 June will be an Opposition day—if the Opposition felt that the issue was sufficiently important, they could have chosen to debate it then. The right hon. Lady accused the Government of panicking, but the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday, in reiterating our election pledge, that waiting lists would be reduced in the lifetime of this Government. He cited significant figures showing the extra money—£5 million every day—that the Government are spending over and above what the Conservative Government would have been spending had they remained in power.
On the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee that was issued today, the right hon. Lady is wrong to say that the Government are not respecting the Standing Orders of the House. She will know that, in writing to the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that it was a long-standing practice of all parties in government that telegrams should not be made public, as telegrams, like other classified documents, frequently contained frank and other sensitive reports of exchanges with other Governments, or with individuals, who expected their confidences to be respected. There is no point in the House pre-empting the independent inquiry that has been announced and whose findings will be made public.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House reflect further on the request that has been made to her about the Foreign Affairs Committee? Does she recognise that the opinions of hon. Members from all parties are represented in the Committee's majority view?
Will she also reflect on the general concern, which touches not only on Sierra Leone, but on the unfinished business in the wake of the Scott report? Is it not now clear, particularly in the light of the revelations about Mr. Jonathan Aitken in the press this morning, that the House must get to the bottom of a great deal more murky business relating to arms sales under the previous Government and, I regret to say, under the current Government, to Indonesia? Does it not now seem amazing that the former Prime Minister should have appointed Mr. Aitken as Minister for Defence Procurement, and is it not extraordinary that neither the former Prime Minister nor any of his associates have made a statement about this morning's revelations? Should we not recognise that, despite the valiant efforts of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the House needs a special mechanism to monitor the sensitive question of arms sales?
We have for many years been able to have full confidence in the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) deal with sensitive issues relating to Government communications headquarters, MI5 and MI6. Surely we can develop a system whereby the House can have full confidence that these sensitive matters are under full parliamentary control.
Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said about the report. Former Ministers and the revelations in the newspapers this morning are fortunately not matters for me.
Mr. Jim Marshall: It is not my intention to raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, since I believe that you are aware that, in a blink of one of your eyelids, an hon. Member scurried out and scurried in with copies of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade.
Madam Speaker: For which he is now terribly sad.
Mr. Marshall: I can see the sadness in his face, Madam Speaker.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware of the wide interest in the statement on the Government's White Paper "Fairness at Work". Will that be debated in the very near future? Looking further ahead, when the detailed legislation is introduced, will the two figures, dealing with the 40 per cent. threshold and the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees, be presented in such a way as to be debatable and amendable either in Committee or on Report?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that hon. Members are called entirely at your discretion, Madam Speaker, and I know that you exercise that discretion extremely well.
The White Paper was generally extremely well received in the House a few minutes ago. I understand how much interest there is, and that hon. Members will want to debate the proposals. My hon. Friend knows how crowded the parliamentary timetable is at the moment, and I do not expect he believes I can provide a time in the immediate or near future for a debate, but, of course, I will bear it in mind. When the legislation comes to be discussed, the selection of amendments is a matter for Madam Speaker, and that selection will determine what items are debated. I cannot pre-empt a decision on when the legislation will be introduced, because we do not say in advance what will be in any Queen's Speech.
Sir John Stanley: Is the Leader of the House aware that her answer on the Foreign Affairs Committee report completely missed the central point? Is she further aware that the Foreign Secretary's comment about the publication of telegrams is a red herring, as the central issue is the power of Select Committees to send for papers, which most certainly do not have to be published?
Mrs. Taylor: There are long-established practices in the House, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is suggesting that they should be changed.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Can we have a debate on the closure of jobcentres? There are two answers that I am not looking for: first, that I should apply for an Adjournment debate, because I fully intend to ask for such a debate on the threatened closure of jobcentres at Dronfield and Eckington in my constituency; and, secondly, that I should table a question for Employment questions on 11 June, because I intend to do that as well. We need a fully fledged debate on the problem of jobcentre closures and the apparent policy of what is known as rationalisation.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend anticipates my advice, but I can tell him that no decisions have been made. There
1122
have been exhaustive consultations on the issue in his locality, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and I know of his concerns. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is reminded of the keen interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters.
Mr. David Maclean: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1356?
[That this House notes with dismay reports that Sir Thomas Legg was forced to admit to the Committee of Public Accounts in 1993 that he had given an incorrect answer to the Committee when he stated that no judges had complained about cuts in legal aid when in fact such complaints had been received from both the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, and suggested to the Committee that he did not see these protests as 'very germane'; believes he is therefore a wholly inappropriate person to hold the inquiry into the Arms to Sierra Leone fiasco; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to replace Sir Thomas Legg with a High Court Judge and to hold the inquiry in public.]
Will the right hon. Lady now acknowledge that the Government are steeped in hypocrisy, as is apparent when one contrasts their handling the BSE inquiry and the Cookie cover-up inquiry? Has she noticed that the BSE inquiry has an independent judge and meets in public, hearing evidence from all sides designed to get at the facts, while the Thomas Legg inquiry involves a Whitehall insider meeting in private and is designed to cover up the truth?
Mrs. Taylor: I totally reject what the right hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, Sir Thomas Legg is heading the inquiry. The shadow Foreign Secretary has acknowledged his qualities. When the report is published, we will see just how shallow some of the allegations are. Conservative Members seem to forget that it is allegations that are spoken of, not facts. The inquiry is the best way forward.
Mr. John McDonnell: If there is not to be an early debate on the White Paper, may we have an early debate on industrial relations? That would enable us to highlight the concerns, particularly in west London, about the bitter dispute at the factory owned by Mr. G. K. Noon. My right hon. Friend may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and I raised the issue of the dispute several weeks ago. There was cross-party agreement that management and unions should come together. I facilitated such a meeting and Mr. Noon agreed to give the union the right of representation. Unfortunately, yesterday he resiled from that agreement and has disciplined a senior shop steward. We would like to expose such mendacity and intimidation in a debate on industrial relations.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but I am afraid that I cannot find Government time in the near future to explore the issue that concerns him and, no doubt, his constituents. His best course may be to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Sir Sydney Chapman: As Britain is a signatory to the Ottawa treaty, which, as the right hon.

1123
Lady knows, contains provisions on banning of land mines, land mine clearance and the rehabilitation of land mine victims, does she think that legislation is necessary in the UK Parliament to give effect to its provisions? If so, may we have her assurance that such legislation will be introduced sooner rather than later—if possible, before the end of this parliamentary Session, given that its provisions are presumably uncontentious?
Mrs. Taylor: I have previously said at business questions that I am very sympathetic to the Ottawa convention and understand the need to ratify it as soon as possible. We signed it in December and want to ratify it as quickly as possible, but we have to do so when there is parliamentary time. I hope that there will be much support for such a move. Such measures can never be guaranteed an easy passage, but we are looking to make progress on the issue.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1237 on motor neurone disease?
[That this House welcomes the launch of Motor Neurone Disease Awareness Week on 25th April and congratulates the Motor Neurone Disease Association and its 94 branches throughout the UK for its work in caring for people affected by this uniquely rapid terminal disease; notes that there is no cure and no known cause of the disease, from which one person dies in the UK every eight hours; further notes that the association has chosen the theme of Racing Against Time for Awareness Week to reflect the fact that the speed of progression of the disease from diagnosis to death poses a major challenge to health, social service and social security providers; further notes that because of a failure by statutory providers to prioritise MND adequately, people with MND often do not access appropriate support and services rapidly enough; and further calls on Her Majesty's Government to take into account the unique nature of motor neurone disease in its health, social service and social security policy reforms and specifically to ensure that MND sufferers in receipt of lifetime awards are not subjected to detailed interview under the Benefit Integrity Project.]
The motion has been signed by 69 Members, and states, in essence, that three people a day die from the disease and that not enough of the sufferers get the care that they need quickly enough.
I received a faxed statement today from the Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust which states that funding for its motor neurone care facility is being withdrawn. The facility has operated since 1993, is internationally renowned and gives care and support to the people who are suffering most. Could the right hon. Lady bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health? On a day when we have had appalling news about the national health service, to think that a care facility that is doing so much good work for so many people in the Preston area could be withdrawn is a scandal. I have written to the Prime Minister to ask him to intervene. Will she do all that she can to bring it to the attention of her colleagues?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know about the circumstances that apply in Preston, but I know of the good work of the
1124
Motor Neurone Disease Association in supporting sufferers and in research. The hon. Gentleman asked me to bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I am certainly willing to do so. I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate, but he may wish to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Christopher Chope: When we discuss modernisation of the House, will the right hon. Lady have regard to the need for the Government to modernise their approach to treating Members? Is it not unacceptable that the Secretary of State for Social Security, having received a letter from me on behalf of a constituent in desperate financial difficulties back in December, responded only today, some five months later, despite numerous reminders? Is it not also unacceptable that, on two separate occasions in recent weeks, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has promised to deliver documents to the House within a specified time scale and failed to deliver them? Only today has she produced the final national road traffic forecasts background papers that were originally promised last October. When will we get the much-delayed White Paper on integrated transport?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises a series of issues. I was not aware of any of the problems on documents to which he referred, because he has not mentioned them to me. I hope that we will see the transport White Paper in the not-too-distant future. On answers to questions and letters, he may not have been here yesterday when I informed the House of the action that the Cabinet Secretary and I have taken on the matter.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My question follows that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). The right hon. Lady told the House on Monday that she had written to her colleagues at the end of March about their appalling service to Members of Parliament in responding to letters. What response has she had—or is she, like us, still waiting for a reply?
Mrs. Taylor: I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman where he was on Monday when he missed a question to me on this issue. As one who has followed the issue, he knows that we are monitoring the situation. Some Departments have had a vast increase in the number of letters that they receive. We are taking steps to ensure that full replies are given as soon as possible.
Mr. John Swinney: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the nuclear tests carried out by the Government of India, to give the House the opportunity to express its views in the strongest way possible about the further proliferation of nuclear tests?
Mrs. Taylor: We had a statement on that. I think that there is much concern among all hon. Members about the action that India took. I understand why hon. Members would like time to debate it further. I am afraid that I cannot see the prospect in Government time in the near future. That does not mean that all hon. Members are not very concerned about what has happened.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can we have a debate on the relationship between the House of

1125
Commons and the Administration? I ask because there is an increasing perception that Ministers are completely failing even to attempt to answer questions, oral or written. I cannot judge whether it is a case of idleness or of evasiveness, but, whatever the reason, it is becoming a serious problem. I hope that the you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker will take an interest in it. The matter must be dealt with openly because it is becoming a scandal. Perhaps the answer is to set up a traditionalisation committee to get back to old standards instead of inventing new ones.
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is so concerned because he does not like the fact that it is Labour Members who are answering the questions. He had many years in government and was an expert at deciding what information he would give. He is suffering from selective amnesia.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I press again for a debate on how magistrates courts are organised, following the growing concern in Derbyshire about the proposed closure of Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock magistrates courts? That will mean long journeys for my constituents to get access to local courts. If local papers cannot report what is going on in the courts, justice will suffer.
Mrs. Taylor: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about those issues, which is shared by other hon. Members who represent that part of the country. He will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) raised that matter in the spring Adjournment debate yesterday morning. I promised then to draw Ministers' attention to the remarks, and will add the hon. Gentleman's remarks this afternoon.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the Leader of the House is unwilling to have a debate on the health service in general, will she at least arrange for a debate on the national health service White Paper, as more than five months have gone by since it was published and there have been no opportunities to debate it? The widespread concern among general practitioners about the Government's proposals for primary care groups could then be aired in the House. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the habit of presenting health service policies without providing an opportunity for debate is becoming chronic?
Mrs. Taylor: The White Paper made clear our commitment to putting family doctors and community nurses in the driving seat in shaping local health services in the future. There is a general welcome for our approach. I certainly do not rule out a debate on the health service. Indeed, I told my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that I would very much like to be able to find time for such a debate around the 50th anniversary. At the moment, the timetable is extremely congested and there simply is not time for it. If the Opposition thought that the matter was of sufficiently high priority, they would have opted for a debate on it the Tuesday after we come back, which is an Opposition day.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady find time for an early statement by the President of
1126
the Board of Trade on a subject that was not significantly covered in her remarks this afternoon, the European Commission's proposal for works councils in Britain and elsewhere in the European Union? Is the right hon. Lady aware that on 9 November, on the BBC's "On the Record", when asked what she would do if the European Commission persisted with proposals for works councils in Britain in companies with as few as 50 employees, the President of the Board of Trade limply replied, "Well …. er … we shall see how things go." Are we not owed a statement of intent by the President of the Board of Trade or a simple admission of impotence?
Mrs. Taylor: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is frustrated that he could not ask a question of the President of the Board of Trade earlier. My right hon. Friend dealt with the issue extremely well, and I see no need for another statement.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, when a decision is reached on the channel tunnel rail link, the announcement will be made to the House and there will be a statement? I understand that a conclusion has almost been reached on what is a matter of great importance to my constituents and those of many other hon. Members—and particularly to those of us who feel that the link should either be completed in its entirety or not at all.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand the concern of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members about that issue. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has kept the House informed of developments. London and Continental Railways has given him its revised proposals, and discussions between the company and Government are continuing. My right hon. Friend will make a statement in due course.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her curtly dismissive replies to questions on the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Committee? May I remind her that it is, indeed, a first special report? Is she aware that the Clerk's letter to the Foreign Secretary pointed out that there is a precedent for making the documents requested available? It dates from 1982 when another party was in office—I will not remind her which. Also, there was no request for the documents to be made public; the request was that they be made available to the Committee. Does she really think it appropriate that Sir Thomas Legg should be able to see documents to which Privy Councillors sitting in this House are denied access? Will she please reconsider her answer and also address herself to the final question of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), which referred to the final sentence of the report:
"The views of the House are sought."
What arrangements does she propose to take to ascertain the views of the House?
Mrs. Taylor: The usual arrangements will apply. The Foreign Secretary has pointed out the difficulties that could arise if the long-standing practice was not applied.

1127
Also, we are in an unusual situation in that an independent inquiry is being conducted into these matters. We should not try to second-guess the outcome of that inquiry.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order
4.56 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you or Madam Speaker could make a statement to remind the House of the rules about whether hon. Members are allowed to ask particular questions if they have registered an interest. Anyone reading today's Hansard and the Register of Members' Interest will see the link between trade union sponsorship and questions asked, very much off message, by Labour Members—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a procedure for dealing with such complaints, and at this time the Floor of the House is not the place to do it.
Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the reports in today's newspapers about the crisis in the nation's blood supply, the financial crisis within the National Blood Authority, and the news of the sacking of that authority's chief executive—which I heard this morning and which was not conveyed, to me at least, by ministerial letter—have you had a request from a Minister to make a statement to the House about that serious matter affecting the nation's blood supply and its management?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of any statements to be made on that subject.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could explain what are the usual arrangements when the views of the House are sought by a Select Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Leader of the House to respond in the way that she thinks fit.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the Leader of the House tell us—in what I thought was a spirit of helpfulness—that the usual arrangements would apply. It is not unreasonable to ask for the House, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be given guidance by the right hon. Lady as to what those arrangements are.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot believe that right hon. and hon. Members with experience of government do not know that the Government always respond to Select Committee reports.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order, and right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches have heard what has been said. This is becoming an extension of business questions.
Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Sir Patrick Cormack: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been a confusion between a Government's

1129
response to a Select Committee report, which we all know about, and the Select Committee's opportunity to report. The Select Committee is a Committee of this House, set up by this House with a duty to report to it. When that Committee asks that this House advise it of its views, what opportunity has the House to do precisely that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have already made clear, those are simply requests for debates framed in different ways. It is for the Leader of the House to respond to those requests in the way that she deems fit. Now, perhaps, we can move to the main business.

Common Agricultural Policy
[Relevant documents: ECD No. 10934/97 relating to the common organisation in the market in beef and veal; ECD No. 13380/97 relating to agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the countryside; ECD No. 13111/97 relating to a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture; ECD No. 5102/98 relating to the second Commission report on the functioning of the ewe premium; ECD No. 5733/98 relating to the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco; ECD No. 5939/98 ADD 1, 2 and 3 relating to the prices for agricultural products ( 1998/99); ECD No. 6752/98 relating to measures and compensation relating to appreciable revaluations that affect farm incomes; and ECD No. 7072/98 relating to the granting of aid for the production of olive oil.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Also, Back-Bench Members' speeches will be limited to 10 minutes for this debate.
4.58 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7073/98 relating to reform of the Common Market Organisations for beef, cereals and milk and for the development of rural development policy in the European Union, and the Second Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997–98, 'CAP Reform: Agenda 2000' (HC 311) and the Government response thereto (HC 719); and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of the interests of UK producers, consumers and taxpayers alike and of developing countries and to press for a reformed Common Agricultural Policy with substantially reduced overall costs, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which provides a better framework for targeted environmental and rural development support, which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the UK's farm and food industries can exploit their competitive advantage in European and world markets, which facilitates the accession of associated countries and which offers the medium-term prospect of benefits to developing countries.
The debate is about Agenda 2000 reform of the common agricultural policy and related matters, but no doubt other issues will arise during our exchanges. Reform of the CAP is an important issue, not only for farmers, but for consumers, taxpayers and the environment. The Government are determined to see progress in these matters—indeed, enlargement of the European Union to the east, and the next round of World Trade Organisation negotiations make change essential, even inevitable. The Government's stance is generally shared by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Liberal Democrats, many consumer and environmental organisations, and, in some respects, I am pleased to say, by Her Majesty's official Opposition.
During our presidency, we have given the reform negotiations a powerful start. A special Agriculture Council in March launched the debate. The presidency then initiated intensive technical examination of the proposals in Brussels, which continues. In Newcastle upon Tyne last week, Agriculture Ministers from all member states held a thorough debate on the subject of livestock farming in environmentally fragile areas, such as our own less-favoured areas.
The Labour Government continue to take a lead in Europe, unlike the Conservatives, whose posturing while they were in government did untold damage to British

1131
interests and to our farmers' interests. Judging by the speech by the Leader of the Opposition this week, they still have not learnt any lessons on Europe. We believe that it is better to influence the debate while it is happening, rather than stand on the sidelines sniping; only then can we ensure that the views of our country and of our farmers and rural communities are effectively represented.
A further discussion of the Commission's proposals at the Agriculture Council next week will enable initial conclusions to be drawn and impetus given to the continuing negotiating process. Our work provides a sound basis for agreement to be reached, probably in the first part of 1999. The Government have argued for reforms that will be less costly overall, which encourage a more competitive, sustainable agriculture, and which are fair to British farmers and enhance the rural environment and rural economy.
We have welcomed the Commission's general proposals. The proposed substantial cuts in support prices will save British consumers some £1 billion a year. They will encourage a more market-focused response from farmers and improve competitiveness on world markets. The proposed rural development regulation will create a welcome new framework for promoting agri-environmental measures and rural development. Farmers will receive compensation for the price cuts, and will benefit from the effective ending of compulsory set-aside.
However, the proposals do not meet all our concerns; nor do they go as far in some respects as we would wish. The initial costs of compensation payments are high, and the Commission has made no proposal for those payments to be time-limited, degressive and decoupled from production, as we believe they should be. It is also by no means clear that the proposals are sufficiently radical to permit successful enlargement of the European Union; nor might they be sufficient for the Union to avoid challenge in the forthcoming round of negotiations within the World Trade Organisation.
Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that it was Government policy not to stand on the sidelines but to be part of the debate while it was happening, but it was reported this morning that the Prime Minister told Mr. Rupert Murdoch that the Labour party would not commit itself either way to the single currency at the next general election. Is that true, and, if so, is that being part of the debate or standing on the sidelines?
Dr. Cunningham: I do not believe that that newspaper report is true; nor is it relevant to what I was saying. However, let me say that both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made the Government's position on the single currency absolutely clear. Incidentally, our position on that matter is supported by the National Farmers Union, unlike that of the Conservative party.
To return to the subject of reform of the CAP, the proposed dairy price cuts are insufficient to enable milk quotas eventually to be abolished. We shall press hard for arrangements permitting a quota-free regime after 2006, although that is a desperately late time for the changes to
1132
be made. In the meantime, I am not prepared to accept increases in milk quotas that discriminate against our efficient, competitive British dairy farmers, as the current Commission proposals would do.
Charlotte Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the devastation caused to dairy farmers in my constituency by bovine tuberculosis? Since January, there have been 46 new outbreaks, with farms closed down. Will he tell us what progress is being made on the implementation of Krebs and the identification of new hot spots, as that is crucial to dairy farmers in my patch?
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend raises a matter which is important to dairy farmers and to the nation generally. We are aware of the outbreaks in dairy herds, although, fortunately, they remain at a relatively low level. We have given a clear statement of our acceptance of the principles of the Krebs report—an investigation quite properly set up by the previous Administration; and we have set up an expert group under Professor John Bourne to advise how matters may be taken forward in that respect. We shall move with all possible speed consistent with accepting and having available to us the best scientific advice, but we know that the problem is an urgent and serious one which affects many dairy farmers, and we shall act as quickly as possible.
Mr. Michael Jack: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of milk quotas, will he tell the House, in the light of his request to the Agriculture Council in respect of the 30 per cent. cut in intervention prices, what increase in milk quotas he will now press for in order to compensate our farmers?
Dr. Cunningham: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission proposals envisage a 2 per cent. across-the-board increase in milk quotas for those member states which "have mountainous areas". With that very phrase, six member states, including the United Kingdom, are totally excluded from the proposals, and I regard that as arbitrary and unacceptable. We have made our position absolutely clear and shall continue to oppose the proposal on that as well as other grounds.
We will not accept a ceiling on farmers' payments which is applied at EU level and therefore takes no account of this country's larger and more efficient farm structure. If there are to be ceilings, they must be a matter for member states and member states alone to decide. In that event, it would be logical for any savings to remain available to the member state to finance agri-environmental and rural development measures, and not, as is envisaged, for savings to be returned to the CAP general fund for redistribution.
Improving the rural environment is an important component of the reforms. Cutting support prices should bring environmental benefits in many areas—for example, where it leads to reduced use of agro-chemicals. The rural development regulation will form an important new environmental pillar of the CAP. It will be important to ensure that measures under that regulation are not limited to farm-based activities, but can be used to foster a wide range of rural development activities to enable rural communities to prosper.
Mr. Tim Collins: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the idea of reforming

1133
the CAP in the direction of transferring subsidies towards rural development. In that context, can he say anything about the proposals, which we believe are being discussed in Whitehall, to restructure the Ministry of Agriculture to become a rural affairs Ministry of the sort that the Select Committee on Agriculture recommended?
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but the answer is no; I cannot say more than I have said—that matters are being considered. However, ultimately, decisions on reorganisation of Whitehall responsibilities are determined by the Prime Minister. No such decision is about to be announced.
I return to changes in the CAP. The Government's policy is ultimately to phase out direct production-linked support, and use some of the savings to reinforce the new rural development pillar. We believe that that is the best, most cost-effective, way to secure further environmental benefits.
The negotiations on CAP reform will inevitably continue for some months before they reach conclusions. Throughout those negotiations, I shall press for reform in the interests of farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment. They are, of course—
Mr. William Cash: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Cunningham: No; I shall not give way at the moment.
There are many other important issues confronting British agriculture, both in Brussels and at home.
As everyone recognises, British farmers have been going through an especially difficult time, due principally to the strength of sterling and the continuing ban on the export of British beef. While acting within necessarily tight budgetary constraints, we continue to discuss these issues in partnership with farmers and their representatives, to ensure that the Government, wherever possible, can provide the best possible framework of policies to assist our farmers.
Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Dr. Cunningham: No; I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
I shall say something about changes that we can make while discussion about CAP reform continues.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the subject of exchange rates?
Dr. Cunningham: No; I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman at the moment.
I know that specified risk material controls have had an especially heavy impact on the returns of our sheep farmers, and have caused them difficulties in the sale of cull ewes. Those difficulties have been brought to my attention by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and I undertook to inquire into how we might help. As a result of the requirement for ewe carcases to be split
1134
in abattoirs or cutting plants, and the spinal cord removed, French demand for whole carcases has been taken up by producers in other countries.
Following those representations from Liberal Democrat Members and other individual Members of Parliament, I and my officials have discussed with the French authorities whether they would agree to changes in that trade, and I have decided, since they have agreed, to amend our SRM regulations so that our producers may regain a share of that market. It will be necessary to continue to ensure that spinal cord is removed from the carcases before the meat is sold, but, by agreement and negotiation, we have reached a deal whereby that can be done in designated French abattoirs.
Depending on the outcome of the statutory consultation, which I am obliged to undertake, with interested organisations on our proposals to amend SRM rules, it should be possible for exports of whole ewe carcases—by which I mean ewe carcases from which the head has been removed—to resume this summer. I know that that will be welcome news to sheep farmers throughout the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I now discuss another aspect of negotiations, on an important measure—agrimonetary reform. An important negotiation we face now, and throughout the remainder of the year, concerns the new agrimonetary system needed to take account of the single currency. That will provide an opportunity to secure a more transparent system, less costly to taxpayers and consumers, and less complicated for business. At the same time, it will be important that the new arrangements are fair to all parties, whether or not their country is part of the single currency. We shall also want to ensure that the transition to the new arrangements avoids excessive shocks for farmers and others in related businesses.
In the meantime, at the April Agriculture Council meeting, we secured a continuation of the freeze, so that CAP payments will not, in the main, be affected by currency movements until the end of the year. I believe that that, too, is good news for our farmers, but, of course, there are difficult negotiations to conclude.
Mr. Leigh: Representations have been made to me, as a rural Member, about the strength of the pound, which is costing farmers £300 million a year. They have asked me to urge the Minister to press Brussels for the introduction of transitional compensation arrangements. Will he comment on that and reply to the National Farmers Union case on that point?
Dr. Cunningham: In so far as the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the transition to new agrimonetary arrangements, I have just mentioned them. I understand the justified concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and farmers. It is important that we get this matter right. As I have just assured the House, we shall do everything we possibly can in the negotiations to achieve that objective.
I shall now focus on the continuing problems caused to our livestock producers as a consequence of the BSE crisis and the beef ban. As we all know, that is a major issue for all our beef farmers, throughout the United Kingdom.
We have made an important breakthrough with the decision enabling beef to be exported from Northern Ireland under the export certified herds scheme. During

1135
April, the European Commission's inspectors visited Northern Ireland. Earlier this week, they informed the Standing Veterinary Committee that they were largely content with the arrangements that they had seen were in place in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Commission intends next Wednesday, 27 May, to adopt a decision that would allow exports of beef from the Province to resume from 1 June. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is excellent news for Northern Ireland farmers, and for the Northern Irish economy as a whole.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I wonder whether, in that context, the right hon. Gentleman would comment on his progress on the date-based scheme for beef cattle to be exported.
Dr. Cunningham: The next paragraph of my speech deals with that. The hon. Gentleman obviously has a reasonable crystal ball, as well as farm management expertise.
We have made good progress on negotiations on the date-based export scheme, which I recognise is of far greater significance to our farmers than the progress made in relation to Northern Ireland. However important it was to solve the Northern Ireland problem, the date-based scheme will apply to all animals born after 1 August 1996, and apply throughout the United Kingdom. The scheme would permit the export of meat from animals born after that date—the date from which we believe there was no risk from contaminated feed.
The scheme that we have proposed has strict rules, designed to take account of the only known source of infection after that date—maternal transmission—and we have proposed an offspring cull as part of the proposals. My officials and I have been working very, very closely with the Commission on this. As a result of our most recent negotiations, we expect a proposal on the lines that we have suggested to be tabled for discussion by the Commission very soon.
I would not want to mislead the House: subsequent negotiations on that proposal will not be easy—I have no illusions about that. We finally secured support for the Northern Ireland scheme by 11 votes to two, with two abstentions. I should be happy if we could repeat that outcome, but I believe that, this time, it may be more difficult. Nevertheless, we shall use all our endeavours to secure a positive result.
The scheme is soundly based and robust. It can be effectively managed. Our beef is more rigorously safeguarded than that produced anywhere else in the world. I am sure that our industrialists and farmers, and our meat industry, will do everything possible to comply with the scheme. They have suffered long and hard as a result of the BSE crisis and the export ban. I hope that the Government can count on the support of everyone in the beef industry, and in the House, in reaching the next important milestone in the lifting of the ban.
Mr. James Paice: I am sure that we all wish the Minister well in his efforts to get the date-based scheme into operation. On the assumption that he will sooner or later be successful, many farmers
1136
are asking whether it will lead to an unwinding of the over-30-months scheme as new cattle come into the frame.
Dr. Cunningham: The OTMS is an important safeguard, and is strongly supported by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. One can see that, if the date-based scheme is accepted, it would seem logical that animals born after 1 August 1996 may not have to go into the OTMS. We may therefore see the beginning of the end of that scheme, but I stress "beginning". With the livestock sector as it is, animals will go into the OTMS for some considerable number of years.
Mr. David Maclean: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
I want to make it clear that I would have to secure the agreement of the Commission and of SEAC before I could make any such change to the scheme.
Mr. John Swinney: I want to go back to the Minister's point about securing agreement on the date-based scheme among our European partners. What will be the principal obstacles to persuading representatives of other countries that the features of the scheme are as strong as possible?
Dr. Cunningham: I can answer the hon. Gentleman with a single word—politics. There is no valid case on the basis of medical or veterinary science for preventing support for the scheme. I have said that repeatedly, not only in the House, but in the Council of Ministers. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to fulfil our obligations under the Florence terms and to ensure that our beef is safe to eat. I reiterate my firm belief that there are no safety, health or veterinary science grounds on which the scheme should not be accepted.
Mr. Maclean rose—
Mr. Cash rose—
Dr. Cunningham: I will give way once more, to the right hon. Gentleman who is my constituency neighbour, but that is the lot.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
I listened carefully when the Minister said that there might be circumstances once the date-based scheme is up and running in which it might be possible to eat away at the OTMS. Will he consider specialist beef herds, such as dexters, Galloways and others, in which there have been no—or very few—cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy? Perhaps they might be first in line.
Dr. Cunningham: The special arrangements of the beef assurance scheme are already there if producers want to take advantage of them. It was introduced by the previous Administration, and I am disappointed that there has not been a better take-up. I emphasise what I have

1137
already said: the ending of the OTMS is not something I can simply do with a stroke of a pen, and I have properly qualified our ability to move forward on that.
We have made good progress in creating a computerised cattle tracing system for Great Britain. It will become operational in September and will record the birth, movements and death of all cattle moving into the national herd from late September. Holding details on cattle on a central database will provide swift and accurate information to help trace animals easily if there is a disease outbreak and it will give greater assurance to buyers and consumers about an animal's history.
The new system is an essential part of rebuilding confidence in British cattle and British beef, at home and abroad. We recognised that and began implementation as soon as we came to office. We took an early decision about the site for the new service that will run the cattle tracing system. That site is ready and the equipment has been delivered and installed. Some staff are engaged in test runs and more are being recruited, including a number of Welsh-speaking staff so that farmers from Wales may communicate effectively in their own language with the centre at Workington.
Over the next few months, there will be intensive testing of the new system before it is launched. We have already demonstrated the scheme with an audiovisual presentation to other European Agriculture Ministers at the recent informal Council in Northumberland. We were fortunate to host the Council and to be able to make the presentation.
The audiovisual presentation was followed by a practical demonstration at Park farm, Alnwick, of live animals being electronically tagged; then the food chain was followed right through to a meat counter that we had installed with the help of the Meat and Livestock Commission. That showed the absolute traceability of beef that was bar-coded, down to portions for sale in a butcher's shop or on supermarket shelves. It was an excellent bit of work, and I congratulate all involved, including staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Don Curry, the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission, and, last but by no means least, Tim Mallen of Park farm, who showed unfailing courtesy and patience over months of visits from my staff and me to ensure that everything possible was being done to convince our European colleagues of the scheme's effectiveness.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome, as I am sure we all do, the fact that the headquarters at Workington will have Welsh-speaking staff to assist Welsh farmers. Will it also have Gaelic speakers to assist Gaelic-speaking farmers?
Dr. Cunningham: We will probably have a few Geordie speakers, too. I shall look into the possibility. In the interests of efficiency, of course, we would much prefer electronic communication with the centre, but we recognise that that is not yet possible for all farmers.
Let me turn to a more difficult issue, which, although not strictly speaking directly to do with CAP reform, has to do with management of MAFF. It relates to the Central Science Laboratory at York and Norwich.
The health and well-being of consumers and the protection of the environment are, as everyone knows, at the top of our agenda domestically, in the CAP reform
1138
negotiations and elsewhere. In Britain, the Central Science Laboratory, which is an integral part of MAFF, provides essential scientific and technical services in support of those objectives.
However, I inherited a very unsatisfactory financial situation. As the design of the CSL's new laboratory at York was approved, the Department's research and development budget has been reduced. The budget has also been subject to heavy and increasing demands from BSE-related research, an area in which the Central Science Laboratory is not involved. As a result, the modern facilities at York have been under-utilised. That was the set of circumstances which I inherited from the previous Government.
Against that difficult background, I have been reviewing the previous Government's decision that the CSL should continue to operate on two sites—principally the York site, but also a smaller presence at Norwich. In order to ensure a more secure future for the agency and a better return from the investment in the excellent facilities at York, I have decided, after long and detailed consideration, that the work done at CSL Norwich should be relocated to the York laboratory. The relocation will be completed during 1999.
Consolidation of the Central Science Laboratory at York will produce a unique and financially robust centre, with strengths throughout the food chain. It will improve the CSL' s ability to compete for public and private sector work, and will strengthen its position as a world-class scientific facility. I know that this announcement will be as welcome in York as it will be unwelcome in Norwich.
Dr. Liam Fox: The Minister is making a statement.
Dr. Cunningham: If I did not announce the decision to the House, I would be criticised and there would be points of order because I had not faced hon. Members and made the announcement in the Chamber. I advise the Opposition to keep quiet and stop whingeing.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: No. I am not giving way.
Mr. Cash rose—
Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way.
Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is perfectly clear that the Minister is refusing to take any intervention from me. Is it not—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely a matter for the Minister from whom he takes interventions.
Dr. Cunningham: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining that I have not given way sufficiently during the debate.
I understand and respect the vigorous, sustained and continuing campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on behalf of his constituents, and I pay full tribute to him for that. I have met him

1139
several times on the subject, we have corresponded regularly, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has answered innumerable questions from our hon. Friend.
I also understand the consequences of the decision—the upheaval for staff and their families. More welcome news was announced yesterday by the Government: the Institute for Food Research will relocate to Norwich, so that will be some compensation.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. I pay tribute to the way in which he and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have tried to deal with the matter in an open way. However, the entire food science community will regret that shoddy decision, which will damage food science research in this country.
I acknowledge that it was an extremely difficult decision for the Minister, but I believe that it would have been better to wait for the establishment of the Food Standards Agency before taking such a destructive decision, particularly as it was taken for the bureaucratic reasons that he set out, to fill a laboratory that is a white elephant. As he said, it was an inherited—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is far too long an intervention.
Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman should leave it there.
Dr. Cunningham: I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on the subject, but it is certainly not a shoddy decision. It is a decision in the best interests of the long-term viability of the Central Science Laboratory, although I understand that it is controversial.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: The decision will be warmly welcomed in York. We already have a community of 1,500 bioscientists, who have a combined research spend of £80 million a year. Although the decision was difficult, it was the right decision for British science, MAFF and the farming community.
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for the careful and patient way in which he has listened to arguments from me and from other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I hope that he will continue to listen carefully to the York case for building on the Sand Hutton site to allow additional work on novel foods, and a seedbed for small bioscience businesses.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have three hours to debate the reform of the CAP, which is a matter of great interest to the constituents of Conservative Members, but the debate has degenerated into a private discussion among Labour Members about where a quango should be located.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This afternoon's debate can cover a wide range of topics, and that is exactly what the Minister is doing. Points of order only take time out of the debate.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
1140
The distinguished scientists at York, in a leading institution established by the previous Government, will take careful note of the derogatory description of them and their institution by the rather foolish and ill-informed hon. Gentleman who just introduced a bogus point of order.
I want to move on quickly—
Mr. John MacGregor rose—
Mr. Cash rose—
Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way any more. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have just complained about shortage of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has clearly said that he will not give way.
Dr. Cunningham: I shall move on quickly to farm health and safety issues, which I raise in discussions in Brussels as well as in the United Kingdom
Health and safety on the farm is an area where we must all work for major improvements. Everyone has a right to a safe working environment. We should devote more time to discussion of these matters, whether in the context of CAP reform or elsewhere, because of the appalling record.
I recently asked the Health and Safety Executive to brief me on the agricultural industry's safety record. I am deeply concerned that agriculture has one of the worst health and safety records—
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been speaking for some 40 minutes, and is moving on to a new subject that has nothing whatever to do with the subject that we are supposed to be debating.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have explained that the debate can range widely. I have also explained to hon. Members that points of order take time out of the debate. We have had far too many points of order.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The record shows that, since 1986, 620 people have been killed in farming, and thousands more have been seriously injured. I have made it clear that that is unacceptable and I welcomed the Health and Safety Executive's confirmation that safety in agriculture is now one of its highest priorities. The HSE outlined a range of measures that it is taking, which I welcomed. The Government have allocated the HSE an extra £4.5 million for 1998–99. The money is being targeted on inspection and enforcement, with agricultural safety a key priority.
I shall deal briefly with the amendments on the Order Paper, starting with that in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
My first observation is that the amendment is twice as long as the motion tabled by the Government. That tells us something about the verbosity of the Opposition. Secondly, it refers to farm incomes and the difficulties faced by farmers. We know that those difficulties did not

1141
start on 1 May last year. We have no better authority for that statement than the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who stated in his election address:
"I have fought for Fylde farmers during a very difficult time"—
the very difficult time being 18 years of Conservative government.
The amendment goes on to refer to rising unemployment in rural areas, when in fact unemployment is falling in rural areas, including the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. According to the Rural Development Commission figures, rural unemployment as a whole has fallen by almost 4 per cent. since July last year.
In the amendment, the Conservatives—as ever—complain about CAP reforms costing more money, yet they call for British taxpayers to pay more agrimonetary compensation. They call for reform of the CAP, yet oppose the extra short-term costs that that entails. They call for the Government to get the best from the reforms in European negotiations, yet the Conservative party is increasingly dominated by Eurosceptics who refuse to deal with anyone in Europe.
In view of the time, I can be much kinder about the amendment standing in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
We shall lead the debate in Europe through the Agenda 2000 reforms, so that our farmers are well placed to take advantage of the changes. Reform of the CAP to bring about a more market-oriented and environmentally positive policy is widely recognised by farmers as being in the industry's long-term interests. It is also in the interests of our rural communities and of the economy more widely. My aim is to help bring about such reform. It is the way to secure profitable, competitive and sustainable farming in the United Kingdom. I urge the House to support the Government motion, and to reject the Opposition amendment.
5.40 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out from '(HC 719);' to end and add:
'albeit against the background of the Government's failed stewardship of British agriculture which has seen farm incomes plummet by 45 per cent, a rise in rural job losses, and a failure to utilise fully all the resources available to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the benefit of farmers; urges the Government to negotiate an outcome that works to the advantage of Britain's efficient farming industry as well as to the interests of United Kingdom producers, consumers and taxpayers, and of developing countries and to press for a reformed Common Agricultural Policy with substantially reduced overall costs, which does not act against farms larger than the European average, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which provides a better framework for targeted environmental and rural development support, which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the United Kingdom's farm and food industries can exploit their competitive advantage in European and world markets, which facilitates the accession of associated countries and which offers the medium term prospect of benefits to developing countries; but regrets the fact that, so far in the discussions on Agenda 2000, the United Kingdom Government has not advanced proposals designed to allow Britain's farming industry to realize its full potential under the revised arrangements.'.
Hearing the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food come to life is a bit like watching his beloved Newcastle United: they only show any fire in the last five minutes of a game. I wish that the Minister's presentation had been
1142
a bit more lively at the beginning, because there are many issues that we wanted to raise with him. I welcome the Minister's opening remarks, particularly his comments about cull ewes which will be widely welcomed by those in the sheep trade. It is a matter of concern, and I congratulate the Minister on making a breakthrough in that area. I thank him also for at last having the candour to admit what the real timetable is likely to be for lifting the beef ban. I recall Labour's rhetoric during last year's election campaign about how it would lift the beef ban. Judging from the Minister's comments, that will take about two years—but at least farmers now know the true situation.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jack: No, not at this stage. I must make progress, because, unlike the Minister, I do not want to speak for 40 or 50 minutes.
The Minister's careful and measured tones throughout the majority of his speech could not hide the real crisis in British farming. We have seen a textbook exhibition of complacency on the part of the Minister in responding to the real concerns of farmers and growers in this country. I am delighted that the Minister has found time to come to the House after a year in office at least to discuss agriculture. It is a pity that some of his Ministers cannot find time to join me when I meet real farmers at the Devon county show tomorrow. Lord Donoughue is in Devon, but he refuses to meet farmers. We shall hear the true and authentic voice of British farming when we are out and about at the agricultural shows.
This debate will enable us to see in stark terms how hard the shoe is pinching in rural Britain as a result of the way in which the Government have conducted their stewardship of their farming responsibilities. The rural economy in this country is really suffering. For some who are listening to the debate, Agenda 2000 will seem a distant prospect because farmers and agribusinesses are going to the wall now. We shall say more about that later in the debate.
The debate will also give the House an opportunity to assess whether the Agenda 2000 proposals will allow Britain's efficient farmers to prosper in an ever more competitive world or merely do the minimum required to get the World Trade Organisation off our backs. As I said a moment ago, the harsh reality of farming today in this country—which the Minister did not want to talk about—is illustrated by the Ministry's own figures. Farm incomes fell last year by 45 per cent. and the value of farming output fell by £1.9 billion. The value of subsidies was down by £322 million, including the hill livestock compensatory allowances which are so vital to the Minister's farming constituents, and which were cut by £35 million. Farmers also know that price fixing for next year—consideration of which is part of the debate—offers them little prospect of additional help or relief.
Mrs. Campbell: Is it not true that current farm incomes are at about the same level as they were more than a decade ago in 1985–86? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm those figures?
Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady should try convincing real farmers that that kind of retrospective analysis has any

1143
relevance to their current situation. That is typical of Labour's lack of understanding, lack of sympathy and lack of appreciation of the real problems facing farmers. In any event, I think that the hon. Lady has cited cash figures rather than real figures.
As if that is not enough, farmers have had to face the endless uncertainty surrounding the lifting of the beef ban. The Minister has today removed a little of that uncertainty, but we clearly do not know what other member states will say. I have received letters from the Danish and German Ministers asking questions about the procedures that we have in place. I hope that they were convinced by the Minister's display. If it was as good as he says, let us hope that they will stop prevaricating, agree that we have met the Florence agreement terms and lift the beef ban once and for all.
Farmers have also faced the beef-on-the-bone ban this year. Perhaps the Minister should spend a little time reading Farmers Weekly. If he did, he would read how Rev. Ian Hall, the vicar of Eskdale in the Minister's constituency, describes that policy as a "pig's ear" and as "draconian". The Minister is condemned out of the mouths of his own constituents. What was his response?
Mr. Charles Kennedy rose—
Mr. Eric Martlew rose—
Mr. Jack: I will not give way at the moment. The Minister's response to the problems of agriculture was to spend the equivalent of half the annual income of a Cumbrian hill farmer on an antique reproduction desk for his office. It is little wonder that another of the Minister's constituents, Joss Naylor of Bowderdale, told Farmers Weekly that the Minister
"has gone very wrong, like a lot of people when they get into a job like that … his heart is set on doing away with the little farms that have made the Lake District what it is today."
I am glad that my constituents are not saying that about me or any of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to refer to the ban on beef on the bone. He will remember that when we debated that issue in the House, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats voted together. I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the initial outcome of the decision at Selkirk sheriff's court in the Scottish borders, which went against the case advanced by the Government—although the matter is still before the Court of Session in Edinburgh. If he does welcome that result, what is his view about the Scottish Tory party's claim that that case should not have gone to court in the first place?
Mr. Jack: The case did go to court, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks have shown clearly that the Minister is incapable even of doing the wrong thing correctly.
We have heard much about Labour's views on reform of the common agricultural policy. In its publication, "The CAP—Time for a Change", Labour said:
"the family farm structure of much of the industry and the role of farming in the rural areas … these factors together make farming deserving of special attention".
1144
What kind of special attention have the Government given farming? If the Minister had spoken to any of the farmers who demonstrated at our ports or who marched in London, he would know that they believe that they have received no sympathetic consideration whatsoever—and certainly no special treatment.
Anyone who heard the Minister's hard-nosed speech at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union will know exactly what I mean. It made a mockery of Labour's claim that things could only get better. The situation in farming has got considerably worse since 1 May. Family farms will be £20 a week worse off as a result of tax rises in the Budget—so much for special treatment for farmers.
Part of the crisis in British farming is a result—
Mr. Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should be patient; he is irritated because I am getting under his skin. He always interrupts me when we get to the truth of the matter.
Part of the problem is that the Government subcontracted the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England. The pound soared because rates were too high. There have been three green pound revaluations. That has cost farming £522 million, according to the NFU, and has encouraged a flood of imports that has kicked the floor out from under agricultural prices. That is what has caused the crisis in farming. What did we get from the Minister when farmers appealed for help? We got the usual mantra that no money was available because of the self-imposed public spending position and that agrimonetary compensation arrangements were not available to farmers.
Even on the last point, we found the Minister wanting. We analysed the MAFF annual report and, as verified by the Library of the House of Commons, clearly showed that he had underspent his budget last year by £139 million, and that he planned to underspend by £46 million this year. Before he gets to his feet, I should say that I accept the line of argument in his rebuttal that his Ministry is not sitting on a pile of money. In strict public expenditure terms, however, if he had had the real interests of farming at heart, in these exceptional times he would have used that as a bargaining chip in asking the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about using that money. Instead, British farmers' own money has gone back into the Treasury. The Minister does not have the courage to ask for it from the Treasury; if he had done so, he could have levered in £200 million of agrimonetary help to farmers, or provided special help schemes to see them through these difficult times.
Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman came out with that utter rubbish on 30 April during agriculture questions, and I immediately wrote to him. He is comparing estimated and forecast expenditure with outturn expenditure. He is a former Treasury Minister, so that says a lot about his failure to understand Government accounting. As he knows, there was no underspend in my departmental budget last year, and there is no planned underspend this year. His remarks are not only rubbish, but deeply misleading to farmers, and he should be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Jack: I am surprised that the Minister does not know the difference between a public spending total and

1145
outturn, because that is what my figures are based on. I have checked them with the Library and I have talked to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Dr. Cunningham: Rubbish.
Mr. Jack: It is great to hear the Minister rubbishing the Library of the House of Commons and the IFS. I am sorry that he has contradicted them; I wanted to make sure that my facts were right, and he has proved that they were.
The Minister talked about agrimonetary arrangements. When he pays attention, I shall ask him two questions—the ones that farmers want answered. Will farmers be able to receive their payments in euros after 1 January? Will the Minister be more specific about what will happen at the end of the year, because if we do not save the current 11 per cent. shield on agrimonetary arrangements, farming will lose £400 million?
I asked Farmers Weekly whether there were any questions that farmers wanted to ask the Minister at this stage in our debate. Mr. Peter Hall, of Wrexham, asked:
"Why is it that in just 12 months of a Labour government, the confidence of farmers has declined so dramatically?"
That sums up the mood of farming. Mr. Rich, of St. Buryan, asked the Minister:
"Do you want us? If so, let us know your forward planning. If not … lie low."
Mr. Leslie Foss asked:
"What is the future for … young farmers?"
Mr. Ward, of Rotherham, asked whether the Minister would do anything to help lowland suckler herds. I could go on and on, but I shall send the Minister those searching questions. If the Government are the people's Government, the people's farmers deserve a reply from him.
The rural economy is suffering as a result of the Government's policies. For example, is the Minister proud of the findings of a report by the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies in Aberystwyth, which forecasts a loss of 5,000 rural jobs in Wales over the next decade? That is a rather odd statistic to discuss when the Government's welfare-to-work scheme is coming into play, but that is the situation in Wales, a key part of the United Kingdom which is dependent on agriculture.
The situation is similar in the rest of the country, and agricultural jobs are being lost. For example, there have been 23 redundancies at Ryehill Farm Services in Malton, Carter Agricultural in Norfolk has reduced its work force by 25 per cent., and the labour force at Lumeter Ltd. in Oldbury is down by 20 per cent. There are many more examples of where the shoe is pinching tightly as a result of the Government's stewardship of agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will give more information.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Wales and has dwelt on farmers' incomes. The leading article in last week's Farmers Guardian discusses the effect of the euro and is based on Barclays bank's suggestion that farmers should ask for payments to be made in euros and open accounts so that they can borrow at European interest rates of 3 or 3.5 per cent. Where does the Conservative party stand on the euro? In view of the comments of the
1146
Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday, are the Opposition in serious danger of being overtaken by events? All farmers will want us to join the single currency.
Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had been awake a few moments ago, he would have heard my question on that point.
Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend might like to reflect on the fact that, outside the Welsh Grand Committee, farmers booed the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) when he tried to speak to them in public.
Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation; I think that I have dealt with the matter.
I put to the Minister four key points on Agenda 2000 which deserve a reply: they are the acid test for the way in which we should consider it. First, will it make British farming more competitive? Secondly, will it avoid knock-on or distortive consequences? Thirdly, will it simplify bureaucratic procedures? Fourthly, will it leave farming profitable? An inevitable consequence of it is that agricultural decision making must become ever more market based, and the cost of the CAP must be reduced for Europe's taxpayers. In the past, we supported reform of the common market agricultural policy, and we favour fundamental reform now. It is ironic, however, that the Labour party backed reduced cost for the CAP in its pre-election rhetoric; the policy before the Council of Ministers is costed at more than the CAP.
The way in which Agenda 2000 has been introduced represents a lost opportunity for Europe fundamentally to rethink its agricultural policy. If it was interested in more competitive agriculture in Europe, there would not have been a proposal to put 1 per cent. of additional milk quota—as the Minister rightly reminded us—up the mountains and in the hands of some of Europe's least efficient dairy producers. There would have been a very different regime. There is no discussion in Agenda 2000 of the new agriculture, products and crops being pioneered in this country by organisations such as Anglian Industrial Crops. The current policy is being chipped away to make it friendly in the eyes of the WTO.
We strongly back the proposals in Agenda 2000 further to decouple support from production, while recognising that farmers have wider responsibilities as strategic food producers and environmental custodians of the countryside. Where will the measures be subjected to the greatest pressure? It is a pity that Ministers are engaging in conversation while we are asking relevant questions on behalf of farmers. I repeat the question. Where does the Minister think that the measures will come under the greatest pressure, either from within the EU or from the World Trade Organisation? Does he think that the current reform package, which tries to be all things to all men, is the best way in which to approach these crucial negotiations?
I welcome the Minister's commitment to defend the interests of Britain's more efficient and larger farms. I should like to examine his language in responding to the Select Committee on this issue. He said that he would seek to avoid conclusions that discriminated against the interests of UK agriculture. Why did he not employ more

1147
vigorous language in his reply by committing the Government to negotiate with our partners to convince them that Agenda 2000 must not discriminate against efficient, larger farms, especially those in the United Kingdom?
Can the Minister give a cast-iron assurance that he will oppose ceilings that would reduce payments according to farm size? Will the continued existence of subsidies that are linked to production be acceptable to the WTO? Can he say more about his environmental requirements on cross-compliance, on the loss of income and on the factors that will have an impact on farmers who breach the cross-compliance requirements? What about national envelopes? Will he guarantee that all the money that is taken under the terms of national envelopes will be spent on United Kingdom farms, or will he do as he did with his underspend and simply return the money to the Treasury?
We need to know more about the Minister's flexibility under the new proposals. We should like to hear more about the operation of the new objective 3 rural policies. Will fewer people be covered by them? How will the Minister ensure that tenant farmers in new agri-based businesses will be able fully to take advantage of the new arrangements? Such farmers are a significant and important part of British farming, but, under the current law, their tenancy agreements prevent them from diversifying in the way that is suggested by Agenda 2000.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will highlight the problems of British agriculture and the challenges that it will face under Agenda 2000. They will highlight the fact that while the Minister has had stewardship of British agriculture, he has shown little sympathy or understanding for the real needs of Britain's farmers. It is only through the Opposition that their voice can truly be heard.
6.2 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I have spoken in many debates on agriculture but in none of them have there been more Labour Members than Conservatives. That shows the Government's interest in agriculture and suggests that Conservative Members have caught the early train home.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the excellent job he has done over the past 12 months. He had a difficult job and took over from the worst Minister this century. He has been criticised by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who was a MAFF Minister in the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the ban on beef on the bone. During the statement on that ban, the right hon. Gentleman did not criticise it, and the leader of the Conservative party supported it. It was only when Conservatives thought that they could make a party political issue out of it that they opposed the ban, and that has happened again in this debate.
I shall not spend any more time speaking about Conservatives because some local issues have worried me over the years. One of them is the sale of green-top milk, which is raw and unpasteurised. It is said that people should be given the freedom to buy it, but I worked in the dairy industry for 20 years and I do not think that it is safe. The Government are putting the facts together, and if the scientific facts show that green-top milk should be banned, they should ban it. If that happens, there will
1148
be an outcry in the press, and the Opposition and perhaps some spin doctors will say that it should not be banned. However, if we are not careful there will be an outbreak resulting in fatalities. Outbreaks from such sources often affect the young, and I should not like to be here if a Labour Government put young people at risk.
Milk quotas were introduced because of a milk surplus in Europe, but that merely swapped one problem for another. Quotas were traded and no milk was involved. I am sorry that quotas will not be phased out much faster. To do that may mean reducing milk support to world levels, but it would be worth it, especially for British farmers who are probably the most efficient in Europe. Cumbria contains many efficient farmers, but they are not producing milk on the fells. It is nonsense to give extra quota to the mountainous areas of Europe. It should be given to places such as the Eden valley, Solway plain, Cheshire and the south-west.
I visited a local farmer at the end of March towards the end of the quota term. He had to stop good milk entering the system because he was over quota. He had a major problem, but he could not pour the surplus down the drain because, if he had, the Environment Agency would have chased him. We must get rid of quotas as soon as possible. I recently spent a weekend in Buttermere, which is probably one of the world's most beautiful places. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), as is Borrowdale. I first visited the area 30 years ago as a schoolboy. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps more than 30 years ago.
In that area, I noticed a difference in the landscape that was not due to tourism, because that is controlled by the Lake District planning board. The difference was not even the yellow lines on country roads. It was the effect of overgrazing on the fells. The system encourages farmers to put too many sheep on the hills, and that is destroying the habitat. When I was there, a gale was blowing and many of the old trees were being felled. However, there is no natural regeneration of the woodlands. They have gone because Europe pays farmers to produce more, although demand for beef and sheep meat is going down. We must quickly take action on that.
When major changes in agriculture occurred in New Zealand, marginal land was abandoned, but Britain will not accept such a policy because, to many of us, such land forms the most beautiful parts of our country. Therefore, we must have a system whereby we target money to those farmers, so that they continue to farm, but at a less intensive rate and we keep them in that area. We have to do that by specifically saying to them that we will help them to maintain the countryside and give them extra money.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: In that case, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the line that is being pursued by the Government—that we need to reduce the number of people who farm in upland and mountainous areas—is exactly the wrong approach?
Mr. Martlew: That is a misinterpretation of what the Government are saying. There is a feeling that farmers who farm marginal land are not very well rewarded, which they never have been, and that we should perhaps encourage some of them to amalgamate and give them extra resources. What we should not do is force them off

1149
the land. We should have a system whereby they can stay. However, we have a difficulty in giving taxpayers' money to farmers because we appear to give the money to all farmers. That creates resentment among the general public. Often, people see that farmers live in bigger houses, drive better cars and have greater capital assets than they do, yet they are expected to subsidise them, so we must specifically target farmers who have real problems.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martlew: I am sorry. I have only 10 minutes. I am not going to give way.
Animal welfare is another issue which concerns me. As some hon. Members may remember, I introduced a Bill to ban the export of calves to Europe in veal crates. It was stopped by the previous Government, but then the trade was stopped by BSE, which was caused by them.
Animal welfare in this country is the best in Europe. I give credit to the previous Government. They brought in legislation that was far in advance of that anywhere else in Europe. We pressured Europe to improve conditions. I am sure that, under the ministry of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), that will continue, but we have to say to people that if we are paying billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to the CAP, we should make animal welfare a major priority.
I do not wish to say any more because many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I am pleased to say again that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done a very good job, under difficult circumstances.
6.12 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Obviously, it is very difficult to follow a speech as savage as the one that has just been delivered, particularly the peroration. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be—I am sure he will—robust enough to deal with constructive criticism that is not quite as overly wired-in and sycophantic as the remarks of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). It is very good that those remarks will appear in Hansard, because, if the hon. Member is seeking higher things in the Labour party, it will do him good to have that confirmation coming from occasional partners on certain constitutional issues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that that is an open secret; I do not think that there is much doubt about that.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was disappointing; in a way, the Government got rather an easy ride from the so-called official Opposition—[Interruption.] I am glad that they have come to life. They did not come to life during the right hon. Gentleman's speech; it is nice that they have come to life during this one. It is none the less an important debate and it is timely for two reasons. First, there is a genuine crisis—crisis is a word which is much overused in politics by all of us—in agriculture throughout the UK. Secondly, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Government as a whole hold the presidency of the Council of Ministers.
1150
It is a bit bizarre—it says a lot about this place—that more has not been said about the presidency. People have very short memories. When, a few months ago, the Prime Minister unveiled at Waterloo station, in all that glitzy, glamorous style of his, his headline objectives for the presidency, he singled out CAP reform as one of the principal objectives. Then, after the discussions with Chancellor Kohl and the German Government made it clear that, with the elections coming up in the autumn, which looked problematical then and look even more problematical now, they were not willing to countenance any significant or fundamental changes to the CAP before those elections, reform slipped drastically down the agenda.
That was a disappointment. We read in the newspapers about what European agriculture Ministers were eating, what they were going to see and what delights they were going to sample—I am sure that they had an excellent time when they were hosted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—but we have heard precious little during or since last week about what was achieved in practical terms. I found it telling that the Minister had nothing whatever to say about that.
One would have thought that, in a round-robin debate highlighting CAP reform, the Minister would have been able to give the House more of an indication of the progress that had been made under his chairmanship during the six months. That speaks volumes for the Government's approach. The style is good, but the substance, when we begin to look at the detail, simply is not there. It is that detail which I want to deal with in my remarks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The first detail—detail is perhaps the wrong term to use; let us say the first item—is the strength of currency. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a speech to that effect in the House earlier this week. Without going through all the details of that again, there is not a shadow of doubt that the sheer strength of sterling is placing the most profound pressure on every section of manufacturing industry, and agriculture is a primary example.
It is extremely significant—I do not blame the Conservative spokesman for not wanting to delve into the issue—and pertinent that the NFU leadership has come out as unequivocally as it has in favour of a single European currency. It recognises two things: first, the way in which events are moving; it recognises that if that famous train is departing, it is better to be coupled to it than to be left on the platform. Secondly, the leadership hears what its constituents, its fee-paying members, are telling it at the grassroots: the strength of sterling at present is a massive disincentive to their agricultural efforts.
That is why we remain not just committed to the single European currency on principle, but frustrated that the Government are not seizing the golden opportunity that the presidency has given them to drive that event forward and to be in the driving seat. That would have been a major psychological and practical boost to farming incomes. Farming incomes in Wales are, I think, worse than those in any other part of the UK, but they are by no means the exception. They have been driven down over the past 12 months.
Reading the Conservative amendment, one would think that the world suddenly started at the stroke of midnight on, or into the early hours of, 1 May last year, and that

1151
all the policy initiatives that the Conservatives suddenly seem to favour and all the things that they are against were a road to Damascus conversion that happened some time on 1 and 2 May last year. Of course, that is not the case, and farmers, perhaps more than most sections of the community, tend to have long memories. They are traditional people and, often, several generations of the same family have managed the plot of land and business. They will not forget that many of the difficulties that are highlighted in the Conservative amendment, and replicated in the Liberal Democrat amendment, did not arise in the past 12 months. The root of them lies in the difficulties that attended farming during the previous Administration.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister really understands rural parts of Wales, for example, and the highlands and islands, where crofting and family farms undoubtedly sustain the economy, the population and the environment? We are not talking about amalgamations and agribusinesses. We need to keep people in such areas, and agriculture is one of the ways of achieving that.
Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her intervention brings us to the heart of CAP reform. We should be trying to protect and promote the family farm, not just for reasons of sentiment but for reasons of sense. The Minister talks about restructuring agriculture. I remember Margaret Thatcher talking about restructuring coal, steel and various other industries in the 1980s. Restructuring is a very ominous term. My worry, which is shared widely outside the House, is that the Government's approach to Agenda 2000 and CAP reform is to restructure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) rightly acknowledged, in a way that we do not want—into agribusiness and much bigger holdings, so that the family farm will be lost.
The Government have not given nearly enough sensitive thought or attention during their presidency to the fact that if we want more sustainability, more environmental responsibility and more active husbandry of the landscape, we need people to achieve it. Mr. Fischler can come out with the most amazing ideas, the Council of Ministers can modify them in the most brilliant ways, but if, in the interim, the Government's restructuring instincts bear fruit, we will not have the personnel to deliver the desired policy.
Mr. Swinney: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there is a danger of two forms of restructuring: one due to the strength of sterling, which is forcing people out of the industry, and the other due to the fact that, potentially, we are sleepwalking into Agenda 2000, which favours larger holdings and forcing people off some of our most fragile land?
Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. His part of Perthshire, for example, is a classic example of an area that could be endangered in the longer term if we go blindly—sleepwalking is a very good way of putting it—into such a cul de sac. There is no viable option for many people in such areas short of some land-environment-
1152
conservation-husbandry role in the local community. The Government have not given sufficient sustained thought to that.
Mr. Jack rose—
Mr. Kennedy: Having been so critical of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be churlish not to give way to him.
Mr. Jack: May I ask a simple question? What is the Liberal Democrats' view of labour unit modulation?
Mr. Kennedy: That is at the heart of the matter, too. It was interesting what the Minister alluded to in his speech. If modulation is applied in the way in which it is being suggested at European level, it will be doubly damaging to UK fanning interests because of the issue of size. I hope that we might hear a little more about the matter in the Minister of State's winding-up speech.
I noted that the Minister referred to the national application of modulation. I am not quite sure what he meant by that. If he meant what I hope he means, the phrase is encouraging. I hope that, as and when modulation is introduced, the Government intend there to be repatriation—that is a dirty word to use in politics due to the late Enoch Powell, but I use it in the best sense—of degrees of decision making. As the UK is evolving, with the Welsh assembly, the Scottish Parliament and, let us hope, a Northern Ireland assembly, I hope that discretion will be devolved to this member state to apply modulation sufficiently sympathetically and sensitively to UK agricultural interests.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: No, I will not—but it is very nice to see the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the Government will take on board points made about modulation and that we are able to make common cause across the Floor of the House on it, because we recognise something of a east-west divide in Scotland, England and Wales over the issue.
We are considering a very difficult situation against the backdrop of CAP reform, and, perhaps, this debate has not so far addressed that. However, we would be wrong not to hold the Government to account or absolve them from responsibility for the extra costs that they are choosing to impose on agriculture. We know that there are already higher charges in the knackery sector. We know that there will be extra costs for pig and poultry farmers in order to comply with EU environmental and pollution legislation. Incidentally, such farmers do not receive EU support.
There are new costs for pig accommodation, new rules on calf accommodation, proposed tagging of sheep and pigs, proposed changes in standards for poultry, likely new EU groundwater directive supervision charges and unilateral rules imposed on specified risk material. Those are significant add-on costs to any business, but to impose them on agriculture during an agricultural recession is perverse.
The Government and the Liberal Democrats disagree in principle about the use of tax revenue. As they well know, we favour more largesse and, if necessary, more taxation

1153
to provide it. None the less, we argue strongly that imposing additional charges on the farming community without introducing sufficient compensatory measures makes a very bad situation even worse. We urge the Government to reconsider.
The way forward on CAP reform generally and Agenda 2000 in particular must surely be towards family-farm based agriculture that conforms with the size of local communities and places greater emphasis on husbandry of local land. The deep dilemma for so many people in agriculture is that they are listening to a Government who are paying lip service to CAP reform, but talking about restructuring British agriculture. The net effect of their policy will be not only contradictory and self-defeating but utterly disastrous for the future of family farms, particularly in marginal parts. If the Government take any message from this debate it should be that, as they approach the end of a rather dispiriting and disappointing UK presidency, they should think afresh and think again.
6.28 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the progress that he has made in having the Northern Ireland beef ban lifted, and on the database scheme for all animals born after 1996 in the United Kingdom. Those developments represent huge progress, and belie the final remark made by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on the Government's performance in the European Union presidency.
Tremendous progress has been made, and I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to make such progress. Common agricultural policy reform is one of the Government's priorities, and I am pleased that it has the Government's backing.
Agenda 2000 is preparing the European Union for enlargement to the east, and to deal with pressure in the World Trade Organisation to liberalise European agriculture. Enlargement is desirable, and it is vital that the states of central and eastern Europe are brought into the European Union. If they are not, the likely result will be economic, political and, potentially, military instability.
Enlargement will bring two problems, the first of which is institutional design. There is growing criticism of using the same institutions to govern 20 or more member states as were used in governance of the original six member states.
Although the institutional issue has never really been comprehensively addressed, I think that the budgetary implications of enlargement are more immediate and urgent. Because of the Maastricht convergence criteria, the European Union budget will not expand significantly after enlargement, thereby putting pressure on the major item of European Union expenditure—the common agricultural policy.
I do not think that anyone would quarrel with the policy goals—which I have re-examined—incorporated into the treaty of Rome: a fair standard of living for farmers, reasonable prices for consumers, and creation and fostering of stable markets for agricultural commodities. However, the mechanism by which those goals were to be achieved is ineffective. It is certainly outdated.
1154
The mechanism is essentially Commission central planning within a market structure. Wholesale price floors and ceilings have been established for a range of commodities. The European Union purchases intervention stock if the market price falls below the floor, and it pays export subsidies to producers when the market price rises above the ceiling. Although I am critical now of the mechanism, initially it was successful, and the sector moved into structural surplus in the 1970s.
The common agricultural policy transformed the European Community from a net importer to a net exporter, which was crucial to achieving the goals of European security and economic recovery. However, by the end of 1990, despite the export subsidy regime, there were 14.4 million tonnes of cereals, 600,000 tonnes of dairy produce and 530,000 tonnes of beef in public intervention storage. Spending on the CAP doubled in real terms between the mid-1970s the mid-1980s. Even the extra expenditure was not sufficient to control the overproduction that was inherent within the system.
Market price support is a highly inefficient way for Governments to give aid to a sector of the economy. Such support requires, among other things, very large and unpredictable levels of Government expenditure, while offering no way of ensuring that the most needy farmers receive the most subsidy. I hope that, in our presidency of the European Union, we will address that issue, which is one of the most important principles of social justice.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: I am not giving way, as I have only 10 minutes and should like to put as much as I can into them.
The common agricultural policy isolates producers from the market, providing a financial incentive simply to produce the maximum possible quantity, as producers know that anything that cannot be sold on the market will be purchased by the European Union. The very good brief that we have had from Compassion in World Farming states that that organisation feels that it is unacceptable to incentivise livestock overproduction, and then either to slaughter or export that livestock to limit the effect of that surplus. I could not agree more.
The CAP also raises many environmental concerns. Maximum-quantity production entails the use of large amounts of fertilisers and fungicides—chemicals to reduce plant growth, and sprays to reduce disease—which have potentially harmful effects on local water supplies and the food chain.
Soil erosion is becoming a serious problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned the problem when he was describing the overgrazing problem in high areas near his constituency. Soil erosion occurs also in lower areas. I well remember that—during the general election campaign, when I was driving to help my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—I saw soil blowing off the fields because of soil erosion caused by intensive farming practices. The soil blown off fields ends up as silt in rivers and streams, which is a major cause of flood damage—an issue to which I have drawn the House' s attention on a number of occasions.
Price support creates artificially high food prices in Europe, and depresses world food prices, as the export subsidy allows European Union produce to be sold below

1155
the world price. Price support makes life very difficult for farmers in developing countries, who cannot sell their output at a fair price.
The common agricultural policy is also deeply untransparent in its financial dealings. Through price support, it makes a large resource transfer from EU consumers to producers. If its revenue were raised through direct taxation rather than high food prices, there would be huge public dissatisfaction with current policy.
The 1992 MacSharry reforms were introduced to strengthen the European Union's hand in the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, trying to create a shift from price support to direct payments to farmers. Intervention prices were cut, and removed altogether for some commodities.
The reforms had some very minor effects. Arable farms were subjected to rotation or set-aside, for example, although we discovered subsequently that the practice may encourage more intensive farming methods on fields. That reform has not been successful in reducing production.
Labour reduction on farms was achieved by introducing favourable early retirement terms, thereby reducing the number of people working in the industry. Additionally, environmental guidance was given, although I feel sure that it could be strengthened.
The 1992 reforms had some successes. However, I think that the Agenda 2000 proposals will attempt to deal more radically with the structural problems in the European Union—although perhaps not as radically as many Labour Members would like. I certainly encourage the Government to continue to press, within the European Union, not only for more radical reform than is currently on the table but for the much-needed structural change—decried by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West—that is so badly needed if we are to provide more and better support for the most needy farmers, and not necessarily for big agribusinesses.
6.38 pm
Mr. David Curry: I am tempted to begin by recommending to the Government that they take a firm stand against any type of common agricultural policy reform, on the ground that most reformed CAP systems cost more than their predecessors. I recommended to the previous Government that they take that unique stand in their general election manifesto. Although I was not successful in getting that suggestion accepted, history may show that there may have been a grain of truth in the idea.
Even if we were to take the stand that I suggested, we would be in a wholly untenable position, as two great juggernauts are bearing down on the CAP. The first one is enlargement, with which Agenda 2000 attempts to deal. The key element in enlargement is Poland. In determining the future shape of agriculture in Europe, Poland is more important than all the other countries put together.
The second, and more important and inescapable development, is the Singapore round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, or the World Trade Organisation. It is important to realise the extent to which the decisions that we shall have to make in that round
1156
have already been conditioned by the decisions that we made in the previous round. The framework has already been set by those decisions.
If the European Union wants to attack world markets and be free to take advantage of, for example, consumer opportunities in south-east Asia and of the productivity gains that remorselessly occur in agriculture—whether or not they are convenient—it must free itself from its dependence on export subsidy. While the EU is dependent on export subsidy, it is locked into having fixed quantities to put on the world market. We effectively have no choice if we want our agriculture to look outwards, towards an international competitive environment.
Of course, farmers will react differently. There will inevitably be a generation gap in agriculture. For some in the dairy industry, particularly elderly farmers who are locked into farm tenancies in difficult areas, the milk quota is their pension. They would be reluctant for quotas to disappear because that is the only pension to which they can aspire. Their sons might well consider the milk quota an imprisonment that prevents them from getting more productivity out of their farm. They may face having to de-intensify and produce less because of the cost problems of having to hire extra staff.
An important third force, which is just as powerful and must be understood, is consumer demand and what the marketplace is asking for within our shores. The demands for traceability, farm assurance, better welfare standards, health undertakings and environmental protection and conservation represent, initially, costs to the farmer; but they are also conditions that he must meet so that the marketplace is willing to take, and will be satisfied with, his product.
Farmers may rail, as I know they do from time to time, at what they see as the iniquities of Tesco and Sainsbury's, but that is futile because the supermarkets are at the cutting edge of consumer demand. They provide one of the major outlets for farmers, and it is in farmers' long-term interests to work alongside the supermarkets and produce what they require.
It is interesting that, in the present circumstances, those pressures come together in a series of outcomes to reform. A move to direct aid divorced from production is, first, the essential policy underlying Agenda 2000. Secondly, it is the key formulation required to achieve a successful outcome in the World Trade Organisation. Thirdly, it is the outcome which most commends itself to environmental and consumer interests. For once, we have the opportunity to square the circle—or, at least, the triangle—by having a method of sustaining agriculture that meets with the approval of consumers and taxpayers, conforms with the requirements of GATT and opens the way for the enlargement of the Community and the eastward extension of the liberal society, which is what almost every hon. Member desires.
We need to work out the scenarios by which we can achieve an effective construct of non-production aids. We have a great deal of experience with relatively small-scale schemes, such as the environmentally sensitive areas and countryside stewardship. I know that in Wales there are schemes that work very effectively. We need a codification or a menu of those schemes, so that, before we take part in the GATT talks and consider the outcomes, we have an idea of the offers that we will be able to put before farmers. That might help us to come

1157
out of the GATT round with a clear idea of how to use those schemes constructively. That is a proposal which the Select Committee could consider, but it will not be easy.
In the Yorkshire dales, in my constituency, it is obvious that we would want to preserve environmental assets such as stone walls, barn roofs, meadows and woodlands—and in Somerset, the water meadows—but it is less obvious in Cambridgeshire and parts of East Anglia. It is important to begin setting out what environmental aid farmers would be eligible for as we move towards greater dependence on that aid and away from production aid.
I am not an enthusiast for cross-compliance because it is too linked to output, and the two should be divorced. However, I understand that it has attractions as a transitional instrument.
There are implications for reform, and on that point I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). We shall inevitably see the development of more corporate agriculture, which, with the demand for agricultural investment, the possibility of expansion, the pressures on costs—including labour costs—and inputs, and the requirements to conform to quality standards, represents a push towards greater size in agriculture.
That development is occurring in the dairy sector, where about 11,000 producers now account for well over 50 per cent. of output, and in pig production, where 80 per cent. of pig meat is produced by 2,000 mainland British producers out of 10,000. It can also be seen in the continuing change in the arable sector: when a farm comes up for sale, the land is sold to the neighbouring farmer and the household to an individual.
Conversely, an expansion of part-time farming is also likely. That trend is already occurring on farms where the income depends on a second source that is not identified with production. We need to sustain and support such agriculture. Agriculture should not be viewed as an activity unto itself, divorced from the wider needs of the rural economy, or as a religious practice, separate from the wider rural community.
The long-term future must depend on market orientation for agricultural output and, therefore, the ability of farmers to bid into programmes. I would not object if we experimented with competitive programmes to deliver environmental and other assets. Indeed, I should be interested to examine—I know that this idea is being discussed in Wales—the possibility of developing social assets, such as farmers' employment and housing, to be capable of being delivered or safeguarded as part of the wider reform of agriculture. I wanted to focus on the long term because I thought that much of the debate would necessarily focus on the immediate concerns.
In the short term, we need for agriculture, as for much of business, a clear path to the single currency set out by the Government. We have a pound that is too high and volatile. We have five tests set by the Chancellor—only one matters, but getting five ducks in a row is not possible for anybody at any time. We have an uneasy triangle between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Mr. Murdoch. We have doubts over the period of exchange rate stability before we are eligible to join a single currency.
We desperately need clarification and an indication to the market of the Government's intentions, because the market takes note and deals with the currency in the light
1158
of those. At the moment, the market does not know what intentions to attribute to the Government. That is a major problem for everybody in the United Kingdom, and farmers suffer most immediately because of the green pound effects. Change is inescapable, but the present coruscating crisis can be alleviated only by the Government accepting their responsibilities.
6.48 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: When I read the official Opposition's amendment to the motion, I wondered who had written it because it is misleading and full of errors. I then listened to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and realised that he must have had a hand in it because his tub-thumping speech—which was completely devoid of reality—was meant simply to rouse farmers and farming communities by rhetoric, not fact.
I was also amazed at the Opposition's proclamation that the common agricultural policy should be brought under stricter financial control. I agree with that, but I found it a little strange coming from the right hon. Member for Fylde, because, over the 18 years of Tory Government, the UK contribution to the CAP rose by 79 per cent., which meant a net outflow of £2.1 billion from this country. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can start correcting some of the horrendous mistakes in those finances that date from the Tory past.
Under Agenda 2000, I shall focus on the plight of the rural areas. That, too, has been caused by the Tory Government. Rural areas have been left with 29 per cent. of parishes not having a village hall, while 43 per cent. have no post office. Under the Tory Government, who withdrew investment from local authorities and did not care, post offices, shops and schools closed, and the bus route network collapsed. The Labour Government are now trying to turn that situation round, and I urge the Minister to continue with his endeavours towards an integrated rural policy within Agenda 2000.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marsden: No, I would like to make some headway first.
As things stand, only about 4 per cent. of the budget proposed under Agenda 2000 will go towards rural development. That is not good enough. We must take a more holistic approach to rural development, and include social, economic and environmental factors as well as agricultural factors. That is vital if our rural communities are to survive.
I make a special plea for greater investment. I welcomed the news in the Budget that there would be £50 million for rural transport, and I hope that we can find even more money for that purpose, because access, especially to jobs, is so important for young people. They can be stranded in rural areas, with few job opportunities. I welcome, too, the Government's ventures into IT, and their attempts to open some of the village halls and provide more facilities for young people in rural areas.
Mr. Hayes: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the need for an integrated rural policy, but how does he square that idea with the savage

1159
cuts to shire counties in the local government settlement? The settlement does not even enable the shires to maintain their level of services in rural areas, let alone to improve them as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Marsden: Absolutely, and the answer is simple: it was the Tory party that saddled the Government with the spending plans by which we had to abide. We agreed at the election that we would abide by those plans, so the fault lies fairly and squarely with the Tory Government. [Interruption.] They are your spending plans.
Mr. Peter Bradley: I make no secret of the fact that this year Shropshire, the county that my hon. Friend and I have the honour to represent, did not get the deal that we hope it will get next year. However, Shropshire's problem is the fact that this year's settlement came on top of four successive years of settlements under the previous Government, and the cumulative impact was a bridge too far for the county.
Is my hon. Friend aware that because of the Tory Government's deregulation of buses, 86 per cent. of parishes in rural Shropshire have no daily service? Fortunately, the Government are providing £700,000 for Shropshire's transport system to be improved, but, until we can reconnect people to employment, to schools, to health care, to training—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—to family, to friends and to shopping, we shall get nowhere in the rural areas.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Interventions must be brief.
Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—set of points. I concur with what he said. Over the past five or six years, Shropshire has suffered cuts of about £40 million, thanks to the Conservative Government, and the sort of damage that that inflicted in terms of schools closing—
Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Christopher Gill rose—
Mr. Marsden: I have already given way. Time is short and I wish to press on now.
The Government have taken the right approach and I support their actions. They have new-found respect in Europe and are making great headway. In his absence, I put it to the right hon. Member for Fylde that, when he asks when the beef ban will be lifted, I remember the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) saying that it would be lifted six months after it was first imposed—in November 1996, I believe. I put the question straight back to the right hon. Member for Fylde: his right hon. Friend missed that deadline, did he not?
Labour Members firmly believe that the beef ban will be lifted. It is encouraging that it is to be lifted in Northern Ireland, and we now have a date that we can look forward to when exports from there will be allowed. I welcome the development of the cattle tracing system, the organic
1160
aid scheme, and improvements to animal welfare. Those are just some of the things that the Government have achieved in 12 short months, despite having had to pick up so many of the pieces left by the previous Government. I am confident that my constituents will bear with us while we continue to sort out the mess that we inherited.
I emphasise the need for a Ministry for rural affairs. We need a Department at Cabinet level that can adopt an integrated approach to rural affairs, which must embrace the socio-economic and environmental aspects as well as the agricultural aspects. It is important that those are all dealt with together, and rural communities will then have a clear focus and support at Cabinet level.
The Government have made great strides, and it is a bit rich when we hear from the Opposition Benches—
Mr. Paterson rose—
Mr. Marsden: I shall not give way, because my time is almost up.
It is a bit rich when Conservative Members try to seize the rural areas as their own. Rural areas do not belong to the Conservative Party; they did not at the general election, when far more Labour Members than Conservatives were returned for rural areas, and people clearly saw through the hypocrisy of the Tories' words.
We focus on the issues of health and education and on the importance of agriculture in those areas. That is what people want to hear, and that is what we shall deliver. Through my hon. Friend the Minister, we have made great progress in tackling CAP reform, and we are delivering on our promises—unlike the Tory Government, who repeatedly broke theirs.
6.57 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: As Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I am tempted to respond to the words of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) in a slightly more partisan way than I probably should. The hon. Gentleman is a fine Member of the Select Committee and I agreed with much of what he said. However, I have to say that this year's local government settlement really rigged things against the shire counties, for which Worcestershire is paying a heavy price.
I am sorry that there is so little time for the debate today. There will be time for only about eight Back-Bench contributions in what is probably one of the most important debates on agricultural issues that the House can have. It is also one of the most important debates in connection with the build-up to enlargement of the European Union, so it is a matter of regret that those on the Front Benches on both sides of the House agreed to allow only three hours for it. I hope that the usual channels will be able to arrange for another debate on agricultural issues to be held in the near future, to give the many Members on both sides of the House who would have liked to speak a chance to contribute on this important subject.
It is difficult to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy at a time when farm incomes have fallen so sharply. Inevitably, that will make farmers more nervous about the consequences of such reform. However,

1161
the House needs to send out a clear message that there is very broad cross-party consensus about the need for CAP reform, and also about the general shape of the reform needed.
No wonder farmers are concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has kindly shown me some of the questions sent to him by the readers of Farmers Weekly. Concern has been expressed by Mr. David Steed, from near Ramsgate, about the future of small farms; Mr. Robinson of Willow lodge, West Dereham, King's Lynn, has written about the possibility of a level playing field within the common agricultural policy. I understand and respect those concerns, but I think that we must press ahead with reform.
The Select Committee produced a report on CAP reform on 25 February. I am grateful to the Government for mentioning it in their motion and, indeed, for their response to it—there was no point of disagreement between the Committee and the Government, which is encouraging. It is also encouraging that the Committee was itself unanimous, despite comprising a broad range of views of European matters. The report said:
"The CAP, and its disproportionate spending, disfigures and discredits the European Union, turning an effort to build unity into unseemly horse-trading dominated by entrenched national and sectoral interests. The time has come for Europe to think radically and bring agriculture into the changed world. If the countries of Europe try to resist, they will be deluding themselves. The international pressure for freer trade and the consequences of enlargement are both irresistible."
I am grateful to members of the Select Committee for their hard work, and to our advisers, Professor Alan Buckwell of Wye college and Professor Alan Swinbank of Reading university. I think that our report made an important contribution to the debate on CAP reform.
The Committee made three background points in its report. First, we were concerned that the Government and their predecessor did not have a sufficiently clear strategy or vision for the future of United Kingdom agriculture, which inhibited their ability to negotiate effectively in the UK's interests. Secondly, we were deeply concerned that the Agenda 2000 proposals would increase, not reduce, CAP expenditure—we found that unacceptable. Thirdly, we found the Commission's outline proposals very timid. We felt that it should have taken a much more positive lead, forcing the Agriculture Council—which meets next week under the United Kingdom's presidency—to grasp more forcefully the nettle of CAP reform.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, the EU faces two huge challenges on CAP that cannot be ducked, no matter how much our colleagues on the mainland of Europe think that they can be. The first is the World Trade Organisation negotiations on agriculture, which are due to begin next year. The Commission' s proposals are an inadequate basis for those discussions. The United States and the Cairns group will seize the moral high ground, whereas the Commission's proposals will give us little more than a base camp in the foothills.
Secondly, the proposals do nothing to deal with the problem of enlargement. How can there be two separate regimes for agriculture in a single market? There cannot possibly be two separate milk quota regimes, for example. Do we really believe that milk quotas can be imposed on Poland when Italy, as it freely acknowledges, found it
1162
very difficult to enforce them? The idea that the proposals will do anything to assist enlargement will, I fear, prove to be folly.
Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Luff: I should love to give way, but, as I have only 10 minutes, I do not have time, for which I apologise—I wish that we had more time for this debate.
I draw the attention of the House to some of the Committee's main recommendations. Direct compensatory payments are made to compensate farmers for reduced levels of price support, so we feel that, by definition, they cannot be permanent. They must be used to help farmers to adjust to new circumstances. Moreover, they must be time-limited and decrease over time—they must be, to use an ugly word, degressive. They must also be fully decoupled—they must provide no incentive to increase production.
The term modulation causes much confusion. In fact, two types of modulation are under discussion—differentiation and ceilings. I see the attraction of differentiation—varying the amount paid on the basis of a farm's characteristics—but, as we see no long-term role for the payments, we do not believe that that is the right way in which to deal with the concerns about the interests of smaller farms, for example. We believe that separate policy instruments are needed to deal with those concerns.
Similarly, what is the point of cross-compliance on environmental conditions to payments if the payments are to be stopped? If they are not to be stopped, we believe that conditions should be attached provided that they are satisfactory and can be imposed without requiring a huge new bureaucracy in the CAP. Better still, let us get rid of the payments.
The other form of modulation is the imposition of ceilings to limit payments to a farm. I think that that would have very adverse consequences for UK farmers, so I hope that the Government will strongly oppose the proposal, as they said they would.
I had hoped to speak in some detail about the individual commodity sectors, but I do not have time. I am grateful to the Government for agreeing with the Committee's views on the arable sector, on which the Commission proposes only partial decoupling, which does not go far enough, although it is a welcome step in the right direction.
I am also grateful for the Government's endorsement of the Committee's views on beef, but I draw the attention of the House to our third report, in which we highlighted the need for restructuring—another ugly word—the domestic beef sector, but only as part of EU-wide restructuring. There is no doubt that the British beef industry is taking too much of the pain of the necessary restructuring across Europe—we must ensure that that does not continue. There is overproduction in Europe, so Europe as a whole, not only this country, must face the consequences of that. That must be one of the Government's major negotiating objectives in the debate on Agenda 2000.
On dairy farming, the Committee believes that the Government are right to seek the abolition of milk quotas—we hope that that will be one of their principal objectives in the negotiations. I am glad that the Government are making progress in building a coalition

1163
of support for that proposal, including countries such as Italy, which was previously opposed to the abolition of quotas. Abolition will create problems for UK farmers; as has been said, quotas are the major capital asset of too many farmers. Currently, British farmers are producing milk close to world market prices, but they cannot produce as much as they want to; they have the worst of both worlds—low prices and lower production than they can manage. I hope that the Government succeed in ensuring that something is done.
I also hope that the Government are successful in their proposals to reform the tobacco regime, although I suspect that that will be a difficult objective, especially when it comes to building coalitions to secure our other objectives.
The future of the CAP clearly lies in agri-environmental and rural policy. It is a matter of great regret that Agenda 2000 is based not in rural policy proposals, but in agri-rural proposals, so to speak—it does not deal with the wider rural dimension. I hope that the Government will do something to correct that shortcoming. That is why, in the next stage of its examination of Agenda 2000, the Select Committee will consider rural development in detail. As the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, rural development will be one of the key components of the CAP in the future—which, incidentally, is a good reason for giving the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a wider remit than agriculture alone, as MAFF Ministers will have to negotiate rural policy in the years ahead.
On CAP and the consumer, the Committee found it unacceptable that the Commission had failed to provide any estimate of the benefits that could accrue to consumers from reform—that was an extraordinary omission. It was left to the UK Government to make the assessment. They noted that, if lower market prices fed through to the consumer, there could be savings to consumers of up to £1 billion a year in the UK alone, and of up to 10 billion ecu—£6.77 billion—across Europe. I hope that the Government will keep the consumer firmly in mind. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, all interests, including the consumers, march together on this.
CAP reform holds the key to prosperous rural economies, EU enlargement and freer world trade. Much rides on it, and the whole House must wish the Minister every success in the negotiations.
7.7 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I shall focus on the longer-term future of the UK's agriculture industries, but first I make an assumption: because of the changes imposed through the next World Trade Organisation round, the increasing ideological bias against market intervention, and declining consumer and taxpayer tolerance, I believe that, within a dozen years, British agriculture will have no or almost no—production-based subsidies or quotas from either United Kingdom or European sources. Any support will have to be based on other public policy criteria—care for the environment, higher standards of animal welfare than the global market demands, or employment and rural development goals.
1164
Given the varied nature of UK agriculture, its future will be diverse. In mapping our futures, we need to understand the present, but we badly neglect research on it. We need a proper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of our agricultural economy. I compliment the National Farmers Union on its initial report on the competitiveness of the UK farming sector, but much more needs to be done.
We must answer questions such as in what sectors we are already competitive in continental and global terms, and how those strengths and weaknesses are evidenced in our regional economies. We need far stronger research on how our food chain industries fit together to produce a competitive economy for the export sector.
Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which farmers can achieve success is by the localisation of supply, especially through the consequent reduction in transport costs, but also through initiatives such as organic farming? Could British agriculture get back on the world stage in that way?
Mr. Todd: Yes, I agree entirely.
Some sectors, such as horticulture, poultry and pigs—industries which are substantial contributors to the South Derbyshire economy—already compete without support. We have heard tales of gloom and woe, and I do not doubt their truth, but we should also talk about our successes: industries that thrive and prosper in a competitive market.
Some larger producers in the protected sectors could survive without protection. Smaller producers and those in less-favoured areas will face the prospect of radical change, towards niche production, in which quality and added value are critical, volume is less important and extensive methods are viable; environmental maintenance and protection; merger with larger, more competitive producers; diversification into other compatible industries; supported departure from the land, with the land returning to a managed nature; or a combination of those.
Government should ensure that our farming communities have genuine choices. We need to identify the role of Government in the process. In most industries, restructuring would be driven by the market alone, but the historical role of the United Kingdom Government before the common agricultural policy and the European Union came on to the scene, distorting the market and managing much of our agricultural decision making, means that there is a legitimate demand for Government assistance for change.
That assistance can be won only if there is a clear strategy, a clear methodology for implementing it, and an exit point for Government, leaving its role confined to the public policy objective that I set out earlier. Government assistance can then focus on transitional support and initial risk sharing; skills development; international marketing assistance to regain markets that we may have lost; ensuring that public policy concerns do not impinge unduly on competitiveness; and backing all that up with appropriate research.
That is all made far more challenging by our obligation to act in step with our European partners, but that is not an excuse for failure to progress the agenda. We can persuade others only when we are clear about our own goals and strategies, and we can negotiate competently

1165
only within a coherent, long-term policy framework, which we currently lack. Our farming policies are, understandably, too much driven by short-term crisis management, and, less justifiably, by a peculiar British delight in the beauties of bureaucracy.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new genetic technologies give us a great opportunity to produce good-quality foods, with good regulation? If we do not do that on a European basis, the Americans will be well ahead of the game, so European co-operation and CAP reform are very much part of producing new quality food.
Mr. Todd: I agree entirely.
We must concentrate on reform of the CAP on the basis that I have set out. The EU reforms are extremely disappointing and limited: tariff measures remain; there is a substantially increased role for national determination that may lead to inconsistency in the implementation of the measures in individual member states; compensation for price cuts appears to have no time limit or phase-out; continued price support and quotas are inconsistent with likely World Trade Organisation directions; capping may work against the most market-oriented producers and discourage farm mergers; further complexities have been added to an already arcane and bureaucratic system; milk quota increases are targeted at the most marginal producers or new entrants; and continued bureaucratic intervention stifles innovation in a sector that desperately needs it.
There has been useful recognition of environmental obligations, rural development goals and job creation measures, but it is predictable that we will fail in the WTO round to occupy an area that we can defend adequately.
It would have been far better to have a range of agri-environmental and rural development measures that were accessible to some degree to most, if not all, farmers; a focus on area payments rather than price supports or quotas; much more active support for diversification, training and early retirement, perhaps with subsidised insurance and marketing support to aid transition; and an identification of the best in European agriculture, using policy tools to support the transition to a free market. Instead, some reforms foster the least efficient forms of farming. It seems likely that the reforms will have a short life span, perhaps taking us up to the WTO round.
We all subscribe to the protection of the rural environment, without even knowing what we mean by it. In most places in Britain, we have to combine our aspirations for the environment with the need to earn a living and feed our people from the land. When society places those obligations on a farmer, beyond the norm of good practice—I recognise that most UK farmers care deeply about the environment—society should pay the costs.
We must accept that there may be some areas in which it is no longer appropriate to attempt commercial farming; define where they are; and devise measures to allow farmers to withdraw or to transfer to environmental maintenance. We must define what we are seeking to protect in our farmed environment; how we will measure the achievement of that protection; and how policy tools can be devised to secure that protection.
To me, the opportunity is great. We already have, overall, the most competitive farming concerns in Europe. Demand for quality food is growing world wide as
1166
economies mature. Every year, we commit about £4 billion as taxpayers, and a further £3 billion or so as consumers, to a byzantine bureaucracy and subsidy process, controlling individual entrepreneurs at micro-level, in a way not attempted in much of the former Soviet bloc. Poland, which is about to be admitted to the European Union, had a private sector agricultural system throughout the time of Soviet domination. It probably had, and has, a less controlled agricultural sector than the European Union.
Could we not spend the money better and achieve far superior outcomes for both producers and consumers? Few politicians welcome the idea of drip feeding an industry into the future. I have set out an exit strategy that I think will work, and I commend it to the House.
7.16 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I want to demonstrate accurately the full scale of the crisis that faces British farming. Agenda 2000 ought to have been a bold expression of what the Commission set out to do in 1995 in reforming and moving towards greater trade liberalisation in agriculture, but I agree that the proposals are timid.
I cannot agree with the Minister, who described the beginning of the negotiations as a powerful start. Several members of the European Union have already rejected the proposals, so it is difficult to understand how that could be called a powerful start. While Europe delays, our competitors make hay—to use an agricultural analogy—and the United States in particular is exploiting the opportunity of greater liberalisation and the decoupling of agricultural support to take advantage of its greater farm size; of its economies of scale; and of better public acceptance of technology that delivers greater productivity in farming.
The tragedy is that, on the face of it, British agriculture, with its large farm structures by comparison with the rest of Europe, would be well placed to take advantage of such decoupling and reform. Despite those advantages, no other member state in the European Union goes into the Agenda 2000 negotiations from such a poor base.
The damage caused by the high pound, the ban on beef exports and the industry's loss of confidence in its Minister have produced a state of despair. Without over-dramatising the situation, I had a letter only last week from the National Farmers Union county secretary noting that one of my constituents, a small dairy farmer, had taken his life because he could see no way forward.
We know that the Minister questions why agriculture should be treated differently from any other industry. No one in private business expects to be bailed out, but politicians have set the framework within which these businesses try to thrive. The framework has many constraints, quotas and regulations. It is only right that farmers should hold us politicians to account if they find that the framework is not serving them well. It is not only the straitjacket of the CAP that is causing problems. They are within their rights to call their Minister to account when our domestic economic policy is making it even more difficult for them to compete and secure livelihoods from their farms.
Part of our effective opposition must be to try accurately to assess the scale of the crisis. We have conducted a comprehensive survey of all parts of the

1167
United Kingdom, which reveals that every farm sector and region is affected by the crisis. The answers that we received from our correspondence identify the most serious impact of any decision by the new Government that has adversely affected farming and related industries as that of the Government's refusal to act against the high pound.
Export companies are obviously the most seriously affected. The cereal sales of Ellingham Grain Ltd. in Suffolk are down 80 per cent. Its sales of beans have been halved. A less obvious, but telling, example involves a company affected by imports sucked in by the high pound. A small family mushroom supplier on the Leckford estate in Hampshire is finding it difficult to remain in business because of mushroom imports.
Another telling example was given to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). A Kentish hop grower is struggling to survive in the international marketplace with the high pound. He stored hops on his farm for two years, receiving no income from them. Meanwhile, cheap imports of hops are flooding into the UK from the United States and former eastern bloc countries. There has been a slight weakening of the pound in recent weeks, but the short to medium-term prospect is of continuing difficulty for British farmers. They are deeply frustrated because they know that the Minister has a tool at his disposal to compensate under the CAP, but it lies idle on his desk.
How is the industry responding to that cold shoulder? Like the good business men they are, they are forced to tighten their belts. Milton Mills engineering in Dorset has frozen pay, made one mechanic redundant, and stopped donating time charitably. Agropharm in High Wycombe has not replaced retiring staff, and has reduced overheads to contain erosion of its profitability. Many farmers are considering amalgamating into larger units to survive the crisis, reducing the number of the traditional family farms to whose support the Government pay lip service.
For others, it is already too late. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) told me of the Agrisystems company in Boroughbridge, which has gone into receivership. Knight Farm Machinery has shed 11 jobs. Robert D Webster is closing a depot, and John Wood and Son is closing a branch. Those are examples from the real world. It is not only farms but the companies on which agriculture depends that are badly affected.
It does not matter where one goes—north, south, east, west, livestock, arable or horticulture—the picture is the same. The full extent of the problem can be appreciated only when we consider businesses that serve agriculture. Philip Moss and Son in Cheshire told me that farmers do not have the finance to buy even second-hand farm machinery from it. When we asked those businesses whether they felt optimistic or pessimistic about the future, a classic MORI-type question, the answer was overwhelmingly the latter.
The general manager of Milton Mills in Dorset wrote:
"The current Government seems increasingly reluctant to take note of the very strong fanning voice which has been expressed and I believe it is evident by their apparent reluctance to approach the EU for special consideration and strong economic support for British Agriculture."
We only get one chance a year to debate price fixing and the future of the CAP. We should have before us a set of radical proposals to reform the CAP. Instead,
1168
we have a tame document that offers little of relevance or comfort to British agriculture in crisis. The Government hide behind platitudes to protect inactivity and apparent indifference. With only this one chance, we have no choice but to speak up for the serious needs of rural Britain.
7.24 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I wish to speak briefly from a Welsh perspective. We have been provided with documentation of various sorts for this debate, but it is important to remember another report, which was published yesterday: the Welsh Affairs Committee report entitled, "The present crisis in the Welsh livestock industry". I shall give three quotations from it to emphasise the extreme gravity of the situation.
The report states:
"It is no exaggeration to suggest that much of Welsh agriculture will be destroyed within a decade unless urgent action is taken to reverse the decline."
It also says:
"The collapse of Welsh family farming would be a disaster for Wales as a whole—culturally, environmentally and socially, as well as economically."
Thirdly, it states:
"unless immediate action is taken to assist farmers, there will not be a livestock industry in Wales left to develop."
There will be nothing left to build on, to change or to make more competitive—to use the language that has been used commonly tonight. I hope that the Government note carefully what the report says and recognise that their credibility is on the line in Wales. They need to think hard about that.
The Welsh view of CAP reform is, in many ways, different from the positions of the UK Government, of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and of the Select Committee report. There are two points. First, there is the idea that too much is being spent on agricultural support in Europe. Less than 1 per cent. of European GDP is being spent. If much of that is being spent inefficiently and untargeted—as it is—and on persuading rich farmers not to grow corn, that is unacceptable and must be changed. We agree that there must be radical reform. If that sum were spent to guarantee food security by maintaining Europe's capacity to be self-sufficient in food, which is an issue for the longer term, to provide wholesome food and high animal welfare standards, to maintain the natural environment, the landscape and the richness of natural habitats and biodiversity, and to strengthen rural communities and create a lively rural economy and culture, it would be well spent. That range of benefits, for both rural and urban dwellers, is well worth paying substantially for. It would be irresponsible not to pay substantial sums for such benefits.
Secondly, the Welsh view of modulation is different from that expressed in many quarters tonight. The Farmers Union of Wales supports the Commission's proposal to vary direct payments according to the amount of labour employed on the farm, on the understanding that moneys released in that way would be allocated within the member state for agri-environmental schemes. Modulation within a member state and according to that state's priorities, but within the framework of common European rules, is an appropriate way to proceed. The

1169
flexibility in the Commission's proposals overcomes the issue of discrepancy in farm sizes between different countries, of which much has been made.
Modulation to strengthen family farms is justified; it is not a way to prop up the weak and uncompetitive, which is the language commonly used. In many ways, small farms are not weak and uncompetitive, and they are certainly not inefficient. Such modulation is justified to maintain adequate human resources in the countryside to deliver the benefits that I have mentioned. I strongly dissent from the view of the Select Committee that modulation based on labour units is contrary to promoting competitiveness.
The documents that we have been given emphasise integrated rural development—linking food production, processing and marketing. That is very much in keeping with the analysis of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee report, which emphasises not only the severity of the present crisis, but the opportunities for Welsh agriculture—in common with other sectors of British agriculture—to meet consumer demand for quality, traceability and sustainable methods of production. The right kind of CAP reform, with an attractive agri-environmental scheme, could assist strongly in that.
In the short term, the crucial issue is whether Wales will get what it undoubtedly qualifies for under the European structural funds from 1999 onwards. Objective 1 status for western Wales could deliver as much as £2 billion between 2000 and 2006. That status is absolutely crucial at this time for the viability of our economy and our communities. There is no doubt about the eligibility of the region or the appropriateness of the payment. What has to be decided is whether the British Government are seriously committed to that at this time. On objective 1 status, as in negotiating CAP reform, it is reasonable for us in Wales to expect the Government to represent our views and our interests—along with those of others, of course—and if they fail to do that, they cannot expect to have political support in Wales.
7.30 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: If there is one European policy that is designed to undermine confidence in the European Union, surely it must be the complex, expensive, fraud-ridden and inefficient support systems of the common agricultural policy. That is why the Government are right to press for reform of the CAP.
We have heard a lot about farmers in this debate, but is it not the case that British consumers are the losers under the present policy? Should we not be at least as concerned about them as we are about farmers? Is it not also the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) pointed out, that reform of the CAP is now essential because an expanded European Union simply could not afford it?
As we have heard, the current reform proposals could save British consumers as much as £1 billion a year, and I welcome that. Surely after years of butter mountains and wine lakes, any sane person must welcome a shift from the current system of production-related support. Is it not much better that we move to environmental subsidies, which encourage protection of the land and safety for consumers?
I welcome the idea that member states should be allowed to withhold up to 20 per cent. of payments from farmers who fail to meet proper environmental standards.
1170
I hope, particularly in the light of the BSE scandal, that we might use some of that money to encourage grass-reared beef.
If there is a criticism of the Agenda 2000 proposals, it is that they do not go far enough. We must press for a steady reduction in the level of subsidy paid through the CAP. We must move to income support compatible with the requirements of the World Trade Organisation, which will encourage exports as world markets grow. Of course, no system of support can be totally cost free, but a policy based on lower prices and income support is in the interests of the British consumer.
I am somewhat concerned at the suggestions by Commissioner Fischler that present member countries should continue to receive support, but that new entrants should not. That could lead to the situation in which two farmers grow an identical crop on the same number of hectares, but one receives a subsidy and the other does not. That is a recipe for discord and for continual difficulties as the European Union expands.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) called for more agrimonetary compensation for farmers. I am sure that he knows that 70 per cent. of that money must come from the British taxpayer, which means that we have a choice. We can have more handouts for farmers, but at the expense of pensioners, hospital patients, school children and many other people in our society. Is that what he wants? Is that fair?
Mr. Jack rose—
Mr. McCabe: I will not give way on this occasion because in a similar debate in 1995, the right hon. Gentleman told the House:
"I … have first-hand experience of what it is like to operate in a sector that … has no direct intervention. I know what it is like to live on my wits to serve the needs of customers."—[Official Report, 21 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 237.]
The Conservatives are now calling for compensation for farmers which they never once applied for when they were in government. Should we not also recognise that, far from being hard done by, farmers are receiving £85 million of agrimonetary compensation from the Government and can expect to receive about £3 billion in subsidies this year?
I recognise that some small-scale farmers have problems, but I am simply not convinced that the majority of farmers are that hard done by. They may shout about the strength of the pound now, but did they not enjoy tremendous gains during the early 1990s as CAP payments increased rapidly to compensate for weak sterling? Also, is it not the case that, after 1992, EU farmers continued to receive price compensation even though world grain prices had risen rather than fallen? Is it not also true that the Conservative Government's intervention in the 1992 reforms of the CAP, far from producing a fairer system, allowed a small number of fat cat farmers to receive arable area payments ranging from £500,000 to more than £2 million per year?
Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which that Government set up the milk market, so that dairy processors had a vested interest in driving down the

1171
price of milk, was a recipe for disaster? Thank goodness that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is now looking into that case.
Mr. McCabe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Can anyone seriously argue that the behaviour of the previous Government with respect to the CAP benefited the British consumer, either in terms of prices or food safety? Should we not today support the motion and encourage the Government to negotiate a deal that, although it might have some in-built costs at the outset, could lead to a progressive reduction in the overall size of CAP subsidies? Should we not support the Government in seeking a deal that will encourage a simpler and more efficient system, recognise the rights of consumers, help to create a sustainable rural development policy and protect our environment?
7.37 pm
Mr. James Paice: First, I must declare an interest as I have a small acreage of land and, therefore, would be affected by Agenda 2000.
Dr. John Cunningham: How many acres?
Mr. Paice: Ten. We must consider the Agenda 2000 proposals against a clear picture of what we expect of British farmers and the British countryside. Do we want British agriculture to become a corporate activity, with no regard to the community or the environment? Or do we, as some do, want not merely to stop the clock but to turn it back and to use public money to support a rural way of life and a rural community in some sort of yokel agriculture, immune to the changing needs of consumers and, inevitably, with a constantly increasing cost to the taxpayer?
Or is there a third way—the Government seek to find one in other ways—of encouraging our farmers to be efficient by removing the constraints on their production, stimulating enterprise and making targeted payments for specific activities, whether they be environmental or social, but payments that are decoupled from production, transparent about their intention and, at the same time, reflect our genuine concern for family farms in our farming communities? In its report of 12 November, the Select Committee on European Legislation asked:
"Is the primary purpose of the CAP to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, or as Article 39 of the Treaty says 'to increase agricultural production by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, particularly labour'?"
I find it difficult to square that article with some of the proposals before us, especially those for labour unit modulation and the continuation of quotas.
In considering the whole issue of reform, we have to look back to the last round, which became known as the MacSharry reforms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was Minister at that time, fought hard to ensure that British farmers were not disadvantaged by those reforms—indeed, the idea of modulation was proposed then. If the Minister today does half as good a job of defending the interests of Britain's farmers, taxpayers and consumers as did my right hon. Friend, he will do well.
1172
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) spoke about enlargement and the requirements of the World Trade Organisation. Both expressed concern about whether the Agenda 2000 proposals are enough. It is important that compensation should be degressive, but it is also important to distinguish between payments that are compensation and those that are made for specific activities, whether environmental or anything else. There is clearly considerable confusion, not only inside the House, but in the wider world of agriculture, about those two issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke well about the wider implications of fanning economics and the pressures on farmers' welfare and the welfare of many businesses.
On structural funds, we welcome the clearer rural objective described by Agenda 2000 and the bringing together of measures under one heading. We welcome the fact that money will be shifted from the guarantee part of the budget towards rural development, but, like my hon. Friend the Mid-Worcestershire, we do not believe that the proposals fulfil that laudable objective. There is little doubt that, under the new objective 2, rural areas will receive less money than they currently get under objective 5b; and even the new objective, which is sometimes called objective zero, may not be enough, especially given that less-favoured area payments are to be included. We have reservations about whether the proposals will meet the challenges of the WTO or of other objectives, such as diversification for job creation, which is so important. Those elements of the package are necessary if we are to create opportunities for farmers to earn income from non-farming activities.
The issue is not only one of resources; it involves the attitude of the many officials whom farmers encounter and who affect their businesses. The officials responsible for planning and for the many different regulations, such as those on health and safety, have to understand that the development of a different enterprise may mean the difference between survival or bankruptcy.
I ask the Government to examine the issue of business rates, because, if they want to stimulate enterprise in rural areas, they have to look at the way in which, as soon as a farmer develops an enterprise that is not classified as pure agriculture, he immediately gets clouted by business rates. Even providing a few stables can lead to a huge rates bill. It was the previous Conservative Government who introduced the rate relief for village shops, for which the current Government sought to obtain the credit. Has not the time come to consider applying that principle more widely to help farmers?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, the Opposition are not calling for huge increases in public expenditure—indeed, one of our criticisms of Agenda 2000 is that it does not reduce the cost to the taxpayer. We believe that the Government have a duty to help farmers to adjust to the new world. Small sums of money to help new marketing initiatives, or an increase in research into non-food uses of crops, or, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said, developing and identifying those areas where we can compete more effectively in a free market could help that adjustment.

1173
Will the Minister tell us how we will address the issue of cross-compliance and environmental assistance? Do the Government support the principle of cross-compliance? Will he assure the House that, as the House of Lords report said, any aid for environmental measures should be available for all farmers, including those in the fens of East Anglia, which I partly represent? Does he agree with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which said:
"There is no clear connection between economic or physical size of a farm and its environmental sensitivity"?
There are many examples of large farms that achieve significant environmental benefits along with efficient farming. However, as any farmer knows, conservation costs money. Loss of income and land area, and development and maintenance costs can be justified only against a profitable farming enterprise, or by specific targeted payments.
Some hon. Members referred to removing support from agriculture, but it is important to differentiate agriculture from all other industries, simply because it is British farmers who manage about 75 per cent. of the land area of this country. Our landscape has been fashioned by agriculture over the millennia, and our people value it as a leisure resource. It is a matter of regret that the Government did not take the opportunity of the debate to lay out their views on the future of agriculture in the United Kingdom. We have heard a little of their views, and we agree with and will support some of them, especially their opposition to the capping of support for individual farms. However, we heard nothing about a vision for agriculture.
Farmers in this country do not want handouts and do not want to be seen as seeking handouts. They repeatedly tell me that they want fair treatment compared with farmers in other countries whose products are coming into this country and with whom they have to compete. Do the Government want no public money to be spent on agriculture? What is the Government's policy toward marginal areas of the country? Do they want vast areas of marginal land to revert to wasteland and moorland and the communities of people living there to fade and die? Do they have a vision for revitalising those rural communities with new policies and continuing public support to keep people living in those fragile areas and to maintain the landscape that millions of people value?
We have not been told the Government's policy towards the idea of labour unit-based modulation within a national envelope—indeed, the Ministers remarks on that issue were somewhat vague. Nor have we heard about their view on livestock quotas, although I hope that the Minister will adopt the same view on those as on milk quotas. The Minister has proclaimed that he will not accept any policy that discriminates against British farmers, yet, on 22 December, he stated that in future there would be fewer producers, but a more viable beef industry in the United Kingdom. Beef farmers throughout the country now believe that they are to be sacrificed by the Government to reduce the supply of beef; but reducing the number of producers does not necessarily reduce production.
We have had a good debate, even though the Labour party has yet again paraded its belief that it represents rural areas. If Labour represents the countryside, why has not a single one of the 180-odd new Labour Members of Parliament registered agriculture as a special interest?
1174
That demonstrates the paucity of Labour's argument and the tragedy facing the British countryside, which is now governed by an urban party.
Conservative Members believe that agriculture has a strong and prosperous future, operating in a marketplace, producing what the customer wants and playing a major role in rural communities and the rural economy. The Agenda 2000 proposals will have to be changed significantly if they are to help, rather than hinder, British agriculture's efforts to face up to the future. They go a certain distance in the right direction, but I ask the Government to be resolute in ensuring that Britain's farmers, taxpayers and consumers are properly defended.
7.49 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): By and large, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) made an excellent speech. [Interruption.] I mean that. It was extremely thoughtful, especially at the start. Admittedly, later we got to the third way, but we could wholly agree with the requirements that he set out. I was not so sure that I could agree with him when he got on to the subject of rates, which has long been contentious. I remind him that agricultural land is not rated—an exemption which, one assumes, no one has ever costed. Nevertheless, it was an excellent speech.
That speech was in marked contrast to the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), but we all know that today he was the prize in a magazine contest. That was the result of his speech today. There was a litany of questions. Did anyone read last week's competition in Farmers Weekly? The winner of the competition received a speech from the right hon. Gentleman. He was first prize in a competition. It was not a fairly structured speech. The second prize would have been a winding-up speech by the right hon. Gentleman.
It has been an interesting debate. The occupants of the two Front Benches are not responsible for the time constraints—the usual channels and business managers agreed them—but we have had a fascinating debate. At one time, four hon. Members representing Shropshire were on their feet at once—two from each side of the House. At another time, no fewer than four hon. Members representing Cumbria were on their feet at once—two from each side of the House. Obviously, the idea that there is a monopoly of provision for, and representation of, rural areas is nonsense. That was the only remark by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to which I took exception.
On Tuesday night—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Parliamentary Secretary, were there—there was hardly any room in the Committee Room when we met the rural group of Labour Members of Parliament. The Room was packed to the gunwales with people with an interest in the rural economy, who believe that the rural economy extends beyond agriculture. That is a key factor.
Many hon. Members have made important points tonight. I shall try to respond to some of them, but it would be impossible to cover them all. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) kicked off by drawing attention to overgrazing on the fells. That behaviour contrasts with that of the people who, over the

1175
millennia, have left us a massive, beautiful landscape, apparently managed and cultured to great success. As my hon. Friend said, obviously that is not the case throughout the country.
My hon. Friend was also the first person to raise the issue of animal welfare. It is impossible to divorce the issues of the CAP and its reform from the incredibly important but narrow issues of simple price support—including animal welfare issues.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) demanded to know—unfairly, I thought—the decisions taken at the informal meeting of Agriculture Ministers at Newcastle last week, where, by definition, no decisions are reached. Like him, we do not, as a matter of policy, want a diminution of family farms—which is the way that some people would wish to drive it. He also, very fairly, pointed out that not all problems started in May 1997. We accept that farmers are going through a difficult time, but one must be absolutely realistic about the history of the problems that confront us today.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made a measured speech—in contrast to the bawling and shouting. He rightly pointed out that farmers were affected more than most by the strength of the pound because they were affected earlier than anyone else. I would be the first to say that all manufacturing industry is affected—I know that from constituency experience in Birmingham—but farmers are affected first, because of the operation of the green pound.
If I were to reply to all the points made in the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) I would take up all the remaining time, because they raised important issues on a range of CAP policy issues, including the cattle-tracing system, about which I shall say a few words. My hon. Friend said that we need to look at rural affairs in the round, not only from an agricultural perspective but from an environmental and social one.
I was on a farm yesterday—and indeed last week—and met not just farmers and country landowners, but those involved in the wider rural economy. My fellow Ministers and I visit farms regularly. We are in contact with, and listen to, people at the sharp end, not just in our Whitehall offices. We are very conscious that those people are keen to discuss wider rural affairs, not just the narrow agricultural aspects.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, referred to the valuable report that had been produced. This is not a love-in. The Government were able to respond because the Committee had produced a report that we did not wholly support but which was a credit to the Select Committee system. That is not to say that the Committee will produce such a good report every time, but it was a valuable contribution. I wish that forced reading of that report had been a requirement for speaking in the debate.
Many hon. Members mentioned the cattle industry, especially regarding the beef ban. The myth persists that this Government are responsible for the beef ban. We are responsible for legislating it, because the previous Government forgot to do so. There are aspects of the beef industry, however, to which we must pay special
1176
attention, because any problem in our food industry, especially the beef industry, affects our capability to negotiate our way out of the ban.
Confidence in food is affected in many ways. In negotiating our way out of the ban, we have been affected by questions of quality in the slaughter industry and meat-cutting plants. We now have higher levels of inspection by the Meat Hygiene Service, and that confidence must be communicated to the European regulators. In addition, we now publish the hygiene scores of more than 1,000 red and white meat slaughterhouses.
The staff on that vital inspection work do it on behalf of the public as well as the industry, but I regret that there are continued instances of intimidation of meat hygiene staff to prevent them from carrying out their duties to protect public health. We—I hope that I speak for the whole House—will not tolerate the intimidation of veterinary surgeons and meat hygiene inspectors, carrying out their work in the slaughterhouses of this country.
We recently had the first successful prosecution for intimidation and assault on an official veterinary surgeon, carried out by Mr. R.B. Crowther at the plant of D.S. Cooper of Shelley Bank abattoir in Huddersfield against a female official veterinary surgeon in pursuance of her duties. We shall expose and prosecute on every possible occasion when intimidation of the people doing those jobs, in defence of the beef industry and food safety, is brought to the notice of the authorities. I give that pledge on behalf of—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [18 May].
The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 230.

Division No. 285]

[7.58 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Amess, David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Duncan Smith, Iain

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Evans, Nigel

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Faber, David

Baldry, Tony

Fabricant, Michael

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Fallon, Michael

Bercow, John

Flight, Howard

Blunt, Crispin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Boswell, Tim

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brady, Graham

Fox, Dr Liam

Brazier, Julian

Fraser, Christopher

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Garnier, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gibb, Nick

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Burnett, John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Burns, Simon

Gorrie, Donald

Burstow, Paul

Gray, James

Butterfill, John

Green, Damian

Cash, William

Greenway, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Grieve, Dominic

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Chidgey, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Chope, Christopher

Hammond, Philip

Clappison, James

Harvey, Nick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hawkins, Nick

Collins, Tim

Hayes, John

Colvin, Michael

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Cotter, Brian

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Cran, James

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, Rt Hon David

Horam, John

1177

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Rendel, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Robathan, Andrew

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hunter, Andrew

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Ruffley, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Jenkin, Bernard

St Aubyn, Nick

Keetch, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Key, Robert

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Soames, Nicholas

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lansley, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Leigh, Edward

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Letwin, Oliver

Steen, Anthony

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Streeter, Gary

Lidington, David

Swayne, Desmond

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Syms, Robert

Livsey, Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Loughton, Tim

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Luff, Peter

Townend, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Tredinnick, David

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Trend, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Tyler, Paul

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Tyrie, Andrew

McLoughlin, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Madel, Sir David

Wallace, James

Malins, Humfrey

Walter, Robert

Maples, John

Wardle, Charles

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Waterson, Nigel

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Wells, Bowen

Moore, Michael

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Moss, Malcolm

Whittingdale, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Norman, Archie

Willetts, David

Oaten, Mark

Willis, Phil

Ottaway, Richard

Wilshire, David

Page, Richard

Woodward, Shaun

Paice, James

Yeo, Tim

Paterson, Owen

Prior, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Randall, John

Mr. Oliver Heald and

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Mr. John M. Taylor.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Alexander, Douglas

Cann, Jamie

Allen, Graham

Caplin, Ivor

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Chaytor, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Austin, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Banks, Tony

Clelland, David

Barnes, Harry

Coaker, Vernon

Bayley, Hugh

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beard, Nigel

Colman, Tony

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cooper, Yvette

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Corbett, Robin

Benton, Joe

Corbyn, Jeremy

Berry, Roger

Corston, Ms Jean

Betts, Clive

Cox, Tom

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Crausby, David

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bradshaw, Ben

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Dafis, Cynog

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Buck, Ms Karen

Darvill, Keith

Burden, Richard

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Burgon, Colin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Byers, Stephen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

1178

Dawson, Hilton

Lock, David

Denham, John

Love, Andrew

Dobbin, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

McCabe, Steve

Doran, Frank

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Dowd, Jim

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Drew, David

McDonagh, Siobhain

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McDonnell, John

Edwards, Huw

Mackinlay, Andrew

Efford, Clive

McNamara, Kevin

Ellman, Mrs Louise

MacShane, Denis

Ennis, Jeff

Mactaggart, Fiona

Etherington, Bill

McWalter, Tony

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Mallaber, Judy

Fisher, Mark

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Flint, Caroline

Martlew, Eric

Follett, Barbara

Merron, Gillian

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Michael, Alun

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Milburn, Alan

Gapes, Mike

Miller, Andrew

Gardiner, Barry

Mitchell, Austin

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Moffatt, Laura

Gerrard, Neil

Moran, Ms Margaret

Gibson, Dr Ian

Motley, Elliot

Godman, Dr Norman A

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Godsiff, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Mudie, George

Grant, Bernie

Mullin, Chris

Grocott, Bruce

Norris, Dan

Grogan, John

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

O'Hara, Eddie

Hanson, David

Organ, Mrs Diana

Healey, John

Pearson, Ian

Hepburn, Stephen

Pendry, Tom

Heppell, John

Pike, Peter L

Hesford, Stephen

Plaskitt, James

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Pollard, Kerry

Hill, Keith

Pond, Chris

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pope, Greg

Hope, Phil

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Howells, Dr Kim

Purchase, Ken

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Radice, Giles

Hutton, John

Rammell, Bill

Iddon, Dr Brian

Raynsford, Nick

Illsley, Eric

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Jenkins, Brian

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Rooker, Jeff

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Ruane, Chris

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Ryan, Ms Joan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Salter, Martin

Keeble, Ms Sally

Sawford, Phil

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Sedgemore, Brian

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Sheerman, Barry

Kemp, Fraser

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Singh, Marsha

Khabra, Piara S

Skinner, Dennis

Kidney, David

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Laxton, Bob

Lepper, David

Snape, Peter

Leslie, Christopher

Soley, Clive

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Spellar, John

Linton, Martin

Squire, Ms Rachel

Livingstone, Ken

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Steinberg, Gerry

1179

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Ward, Ms Claire

Stuart, Ms Gisela

White, Brian

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Swinney, John

Wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wood, Mike

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Woolas, Phil

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Todd, Mark

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Touhig, Don

Wyatt, Derek

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Vis, Dr Rudi

Janet Anderson and

Walley, Ms Joan

Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7073/98 relating to reform of the Common Market Organisations for beef, cereals and milk and for the development of rural development policy in the European Union, and the Second Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997–98, `CAP Reform: Agenda 2000' (HC 311) and the Government response thereto (HC 719); and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of the interests of UK producers, consumers and taxpayers alike and of developing countries and to press for a reformed Common Agricultural Policy with substantially reduced overall costs, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which provides a better framework for targeted environmental and rural development support, which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the UK's farm and food industries can exploit their competitive advantage in European and world markets, which facilitates the accession of associated countries and which offers the medium-term prospect of benefits to developing countries.

Common Agricultural Policy
  DEREGULATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  DEREGULATION

    UNION SUBSCRIPTIONS
    That the draft Deregulation (Deduction from Pay of Union Subscriptions) Order 1998 be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 100.

    Division No. 286]

    [8.14 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Allen, Graham

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Burden, Richard

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Byers, Stephen

    Austin, John

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Ballard, Mrs Jackie

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Banks, Tony

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Barnes, Harry

    Caplin, Ivor

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Chaytor, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Chidgey, David

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Benton, Joe

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Berry, Roger

    Clelland, David

    Betts, Clive

    Coaker, Vernon

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Colman, Tony

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cooper, Yvette

    1180

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kidney, David

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cotter, Brian

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Crausby, David

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Laxton, Bob

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

    Lepper, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Darvill, Keith

    Linton, Martin

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Livsey, Richard

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Lock, David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Love, Andrew

    Denham, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dobbin, Jim

    McCabe, Steve

    Doran, Frank

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Dowd, Jim

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Drew, David

    McDonnell, John

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Edwards, Huw

    McNamara, Kevin

    Efford, Clive

    MacShane, Denis

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Ennis, Jeff

    McWalter, Tony

    Etherington, Bill

    Mallaber, Judy

    Fisher, Mark

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Follett, Barbara

    Martlew, Eric

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Merron, Gillian

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Michael, Alun

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Gapes, Mike

    Milburn, Alan

    Gardiner, Barry

    Miller, Andrew

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Gerrard, Neil

    Moore, Michael

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Mudie, George

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mullin, Chris

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Norris, Dan

    Gorrie, Donald

    Oaten, Mark

    Grocott, Bruce

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Grogan, John

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Pearson, Ian

    Hanson, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Pike, Peter L

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Plaskitt, James

    Heppell, John

    Pollard, Kerry

    Hesford, Stephen

    Pond, Chris

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Pope, Greg

    Hill, Keith

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hope, Phil

    Purchase, Ken

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Rammell, Bill

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Hutton, John

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Rendel, David

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Rooney, Terry

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Ruane, Chris

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Salter, Martin

    Keetch, Paul

    Sanders, Adrian

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Sawford, Phil

    Kemp, Fraser

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Singh, Marsha

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Khabra, Piara S

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    1181

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wallace, James

    Soley, Clive

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Spellar, John

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    White, Brian

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Willis Phil

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wood, Mike

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Todd, Mark

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Touhig, Don

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Janet Anderson.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Amess, David

    Lansley, Andrew

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Leigh, Edward

    Arbuthnot, James

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Lidington, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Bercow, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Blunt, Crispin

    Luff, Peter

    Brady, Graham

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    MacKay, Andrew

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Burns, Simon

    Madel, Sir David

    Butterfill, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Cash, William

    Maples, John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Norman, Archie

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Page, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Paterson, Owen

    Cran, James

    Prior, David

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Day, Stephen

    Ruffley, David

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Faber David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Fabricant Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Flight Howard

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Fraser, Christopher

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Streeter, Gary

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gibb, Nick

    Syms, Robert

    Gill, Christopher

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Townend, John

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

    Tredinnick, David

    Gray, James

    Trend, Michael

    Green, Damian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Greenway, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Grieve, Dominic

    Walter, Robert

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Wardle, Charles

    Hammond, Philip

    Waterson, Nigel

    Hawkins, Nick

    Wells, Bowen

    Hayes, John

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Horam, John

    Whittingdale, John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Willetts, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Wilshire, David

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Woodward, Shaun

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Yeo, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Key, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Mr. John M. Taylor and

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Mr. Oliver Heald.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Arnos Vale Cemetery
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
8.23 pm
Ms Jean Corston: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the future of Arnos Vale cemetery in my constituency. It was established by a private Act of Parliament in 1837, and is—and has always been—owned by the Bristol General Cemetery Company. It comprises 45 acres in the city, was planned as a Greek necropolis, and has been described as an Arcadian garden. It is of unique ecological importance, in that it has changed from being mediaeval countryside to a Georgian estate to a Victorian cemetery without the use of chemical pesticides or insecticides.
The cemetery provides a fascinating insight into the history of Bristol, as it contains the graves of the Victorian well-to-do, a survivor of the charge of the Light Brigade, a police officer who was murdered in Old Market while trying to intervene in a fight over the ill treatment of a donkey, and the notorious Mary "Princess Cariboo" Baker, who managed to persuade the squire of Almondsbury that she was an eastern princess.
There are also the unmarked mounds of the common graves of the Victorian poor and the markers of the "guinea" graves of those whose friends and relatives had managed to put up the required 21 shillings and so avoid a pauper's funeral. There are many Commonwealth war graves, and last—but by no means least—the mausoleum of Raja Rammohun Roy, who is internationally revered as a humanist and social reformer, and whose statue stands outside the Council House in Bristol.
The income of the cemetery obviously declined as it filled up, and the costs of upkeep rose as burials continued to the present day. In 1987, Mr. Tony Towner took over as the new owner, and he and his wife became the principal shareholders in the Bristol General Cemetery Company. He made no secret of the fact that he was effectively given the cemetery in lieu of a professional debt. Mr. Towner is a barrister.
After my election in 1992, Mr. Towner contacted me to discuss the state of the cemetery. Such was my concern that, on 6 December 1992, I convened a meeting at the Council House in Bristol, which I chaired. It was attended by representatives of Bristol city council, Mr. and Mrs. Towner, the Victorian Society and representatives of the Association for the Preservation of Arnos Vale Cemetery, known as APAC. We discussed all the issues that arose from the private ownership of the cemetery, which was facing decline. At that stage, there was already considerable dereliction in the cemetery.
There was a further meeting on 12 February 1993, which I also chaired, when we discussed issues relating to the records of the cemetery, because Mr. Towner had made it clear that he did not think that they were safe as the property was subject to vandalism. An offer was made to microfiche or film the cemetery records, and it was made clear that the cost would not be borne by the cemetery company. However, there was no co-operation from Mr. Towner, not just on this issue but on any other issue raised at the meeting in December 1992. I found that puzzling, in view of the fact that he had approached me to help resolve the issue.

1183
As to APAC, which is now known as the Friends of Arnos Vale Cemetery, I must say that I have never come across a more responsible and committed group of individuals. I believe that they have only the upkeep and the best interests of the cemetery at heart. They offered to provide a cut-and-clear service for the cemetery and, after Mr. Towner objected to insurance indemnity, had discussions with the National Federation of Cemetery Friends and agreed to provide their own insurance cover for any accident or mishap arising from their activities.
Their reward was rudeness, intimidation and repeated threats of legal action—once when the then chairman was recovering from a serious illness—from Mr. Towner and his solicitors. I also have copies of threatening and intimidating letters from Mr. Towner to constituents who expressed distress at the state of the cemetery.
I referred to the Raja Rammohun Roy. He has a unique importance for the Indian community, in the United Kingdom and world wide. A centre promoting his work is located in Delhi. The High Commission has made strenuous efforts over many years to restore the mausoleum. There are regular pilgrimages to the cemetery, and one visit every year—which is usually attended by the high commissioner—to mark the date of the Raja's death.
The high commissioner has been locked out on that day at least once. The spectacle of a representative of a friendly country and fellow member of the Commonwealth visiting this country, only to be locked out of the premises to which he had asked for access, and having to leave flowers at the gate, was disgraceful. There was a gross discourtesy, and, to its credit, the high commission is still patiently trying to resolve the issue.
The site is also unique in heritage terms, which is where its future lies. A letter to me from English Heritage on 14 January 1993 states:
"Cemetery contains 16 listed structures of which the 1830's Bath Road entrance lodges, gates and screen walls, 2 mortuary chapels of 1840 and retrospective commemoration of Raja Rammohun of 1843 are all listed Grade II*; the Cemetery Road gates, 1914–18 war memorial, 1866 obelisk and five further memorials are listed Grade II. All these structures have been on the statutory list for at least 30 years."
On 19 May, the 1998 buildings-at-risk register listed the entrance lodge gates and mortuary chapel of Arnos Vale cemetery.
Mr. Towner's failure to disclose his financial situation meant that it was difficult for English Heritage to give grant, because he could not demonstrate need for financial assistance. He knew that in 1992. The south-west team of English Heritage made it clear that there was no possibility of a grant to him, that he was unable to accept the grant conditions, and that it would not communicate further with him on the matter. I formed the view then that a trust for the people of Bristol was the only answer.
Bristol city council's responsibility has generally been confined to environmental matters, principally the crematorium. It was built in 1928, when cremation was not common. Mr. Towner's accusation that the council built crematoria to put Arnos Vale out of business is manifestly absurd. Canford crematorium opened in 1957, and Bedminster Down in 1971, as cremation became more acceptable and popular. That was long before Mr. Towner
1184
knew where Arnos Vale was. He took it over in the full knowledge that there were local authority crematoria in Bristol.
Arnos Vale crematorium is at the end of its useful life. Bristol city council has served notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, ordering the company to meet certain conditions and bring the crematorium up to standard. Mr. Towner appealed against a previous notice, and I was astonished when he succeeded. He was given until 31 March 1998 to bring the crematorium up to the standards laid down by the 1990 Act.
I do not often read the Investors' Chronicle, but I am pleased that I read the 7 January 1994 issue, because I saw an advertisement for "Arnos Village Cemetery Operator". It continued:
"Arnos owns and operates a 45-acre cemetery in Bristol less than half a mile from Temple Meads station. It has retained Hambros to advise it on developing up to 30 acres of the site. If negotiations over the new Bristol City development plan go well, Arnos calculates that up to 400 houses could be built on land where graves have been moved. Meanwhile it looks an attractive shell."
It is important to remember the case of the Westminster cemeteries. In January 1987, three were sold by Westminster borough council for 15p—or 5p each. The cemeteries—at Mill Hill, East Finchley and Hanwell—were outside the boundaries of Westminster borough, and so were thought to be a waste of Westminster ratepayers' money. According to Lady Porter, in an Evening Standard article on 8 March 1989, the cemeteries were offered to the appropriate local authorities for nothing and were refused, so it was decided to sell them to eliminate the £300,000 a year maintenance costs. Valuable land was also given away with the cemeteries—12 acres at Mill Hill. The purchaser, who paid 15p, sold them on for £1.25 million.
When I saw the advertisement, I immediately contacted Bristol city council. I am pleased that the result was that conservation area status was conferred by the council in July 1996. In a way, that made sense of the previous few years and of Mr. Towner's refusal to co-operate in guaranteeing the future of Arnos Vale. My opinion is that his objective was always to sell the site for development.
Matters came to a head earlier this year, with a newsletter from the company headed: "Exhumation—a sad necessity?" It says:
"An uncertain future for our famous Arnos Vale Cemetery now needs you to consider how best to continue your respect for your relatives and loved ones graves.
If the grave of your loved one or friend is in the top part stretching between the Cemetery Road gates and the Park where the distress and dereliction is at its greatest (and will be unaffected by Heritage funded improvements to the original Arcadian Gardens) you may wish to consider exhuming the remains for re-burial in the original Victorian Arcadian Gardens (which whatever happens must surely be preserved) near the chapels or for cremation with the ashes to be buried in a cremation plot in the same area, or to be scattered here, or if you wish, to be re-interred in another cemetery of your choice.
How has this come about?
One simple answer—No money.
Why not?
Two main reasons—competition for cremations from Council owned crematoria installed despite our company having sufficient capacity, at that time, for the whole of Bristol and the costs of compliance with environmental legislation."

1185
The newsletter invites readers to apply for an
"information pack on the future of Arnos Vale and how exhumations are arranged."
I immediately contacted the Home Office, and asked that no decision be taken on the granting of licences for exhumation.
That notice must be unprecedented, and the public reaction was what any right-minded person would expect: extreme distress, revulsion and anger. The culmination was Mr. Towner's announcement that he was closing the cemetery permanently, as from 31 March 1998. I cannot describe the grief and distress that that caused, but the people of Bristol decided they would have none of it. They took over, drew up a rota for locking and unlocking the gates, and set about a clean-up. The cemetery looks better than it has for years. Mr. Towner's reaction was to call those people "vigilantes", who were involved in "mob-rule", in a letter to me. I can only describe the use of such language in respect of bereaved people as despicable.
The Bristol Evening Post has helped to keep up the pressure, with coverage virtually every day. There are now 1,500 people in its Arnos Vale army. That coverage has been vital in keeping the issue at the forefront of public attention.
Bristol's planning, transport and development committee considered Arnos Vale cemetery at its meeting on 23 April 1998. It welcomed the report, and agreed that a regeneration study, looking at the historic buildings, landscape and future management of the cemetery, should be commissioned. Subsequently, the policy and resources committee agreed to underwrite the cost of the study, until money becomes available.
The regeneration study is expected to cost about £40,000. The council hopes to set up a joint project, funded by English Partnerships, English Heritage and the Bristol Preservation Trust. A brief for the study is being put together, and it is hoped that it will be commissioned in June and that there will be a report in September. The council is about to write to Mr. Towner, requesting urgent works to listed buildings. If he fails to carry them out, the city council will undertake them and put a charge on the property. A petition of about 18,000 signatures will be submitted to the city council any day now.
The leisure services committee is satisfied that the quality landscape is being well cared for by volunteers, and it looks forward to a landscape plan as part of the regeneration study. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission recently took on landscape maintenance around its graves.
There are marvellous opportunities for community involvement in regeneration and to tie in with Government projects, such as the environmental task force. There is also the possibility of a local employment and training project for work on walls and buildings, as well as landscape maintenance and enhancement. The site may be beneficially used as a local social history resource outlet for schoolchildren and others who are interested in local history.
Mr. Towner charges £25 for every letter or fax that he sends in connection with funerals, and £15 for each phone call. A private burial takes three weeks to set up, and that was described by a Bristol undertaker as "extortionate and without justification."
1186
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will reply to the debate, and I call upon him to use any powers that are open to his Department to secure the cemetery as a precious asset to our heritage and as a haven for remembrance, contemplation and conservation. I understand that his Department has reserved powers to serve a repair notice on a site owner specifying work that is to be carried out, but that those powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances. I cannot think of any circumstances that are more exceptional than these.
There are other issues, such as the granting of exhumation licences by the Home Office. I hope that the Minister will be able to speak about the Home Office's response. There is also the issue of the way in which exhumation licences are granted. I agree with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission that licences should be granted only if there is "an overriding public necessity."
My central argument is that no one should be allowed to profit from the bones of the dead or from the bereavement or remembrance of the living. Mr. Towner may have been able to play cat and mouse with me and with Bristol city council, the Friends of Arnos Vale Cemetery, the Indian high commission and English Heritage, but he did not reckon with the force of public opinion in Bristol. He should accept that there is no future for Arnos Vale as a business, and that his procrastination has brought disrepute to the city of Bristol and distress to people whose only concern is to provide a fit and proper resting place for loved ones and ancestors. If he is not prepared to co-operate in the setting up a trust for the people of Bristol, he should go back to Oxford, and let us get on with it.
8.42 pm
Valerie Davey: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has said, and I echo her concern for the people of Bristol and those further afield who, in their distress, have been writing to us. Tomorrow is the 226th anniversary of the birth of Raja Rammohun Roy, the Indian philosopher, and in his memory, people may wish to visit the cemetery. However, every day is an anniversary to some family who have loved ones in that cemetery. Every day draws people not just from the Bristol area, but from much further afield, because there are 40,000 graves in that cemetery.
We are debating a human tragedy, and the dignity with which the people of Bristol have responded is to their great credit. We seek the Government's help in redressing the despicable situation of one person trying to make a profit at the expense of the majority of people in that area who wish to maintain the cemetery. They display great dignity, and bring to bear a great deal of endeavour and hard work. I trust that the Minister can offer some help in that endeavour.
8.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): It seems that this is my week for Adjournment debates. The one last night was about church bells, and I suppose tonight's debate is about those for whom the bells have already tolled.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on drawing this important matter to the House's attention.

1187
I listened carefully to the concerns about the future of Arnos Vale cemetery, and I can understand why the matter has aroused anger, not only in Bristol but further afield. The Government understand those concerns, and wish to secure the future of this important and historic cemetery. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends that initiatives are in hand to do that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, the cemetery was laid out in 1836 to 1840 with buildings by Charles Underwood, who was Bristol's leading neo-classical architect of the early 19th century. It is a fine and early example of what was a new concept in cemetery design, and it was influenced by the great pictures of 18th-century landscape gardens and the romantic ideals of the time. Its historic importance has been recognised in many ways.
In 1996, the efforts of my hon. Friend led to Bristol city council including the cemetery within the Arnos Vale conservation area. Such areas are of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. They are designated by local planning authorities in the light of their local knowledge.
More recently, the cemetery has been listed grade II in English Heritage's "Register of Historic Parks and Gardens". In addition, the cemetery contains 14 grade II and grade II* listed buildings. As we have heard, they include the grade II* tomb of Raja Rammohun Roy, who died in Bristol in 1833. He is described by the Indian high commissioner
"as one of the most significant figures in the social, cultural and intellectual history of India during the last two hundred years."
The tomb is regarded as a shrine for all Indians, and I was appalled to hear from my hon. Friend that, in the past, pilgrims to the tomb were locked out. That is a disgrace, and one can only apologise to the Indian Government and to the followers of Raja Rammohun Roy for that insult. His tomb, like some other unlisted and listed buildings in the cemetery, is in poor condition.
The Indian high commissioner met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to express his concern that the tomb may deteriorate beyond rescue, and be lost for good. He is also worried about access to the tomb for pilgrims who come to pay their respects. High commission officials have discussed those problems with Mr. Towner of the Bristol General Cemetery Company, which owns the cemetery. However, I am afraid that the parties have so far been unable to agree on how the matter should be resolved. That seems to be a common story when one tries to make arrangements with Mr. Towner.
In many ways, the problems surrounding the tomb of Raja Rammohun Roy encapsulate the difficulties that face the cemetery as a whole. Many of the tombs and vaults are in a dangerous condition, due to neglect by those who own them, and the grounds have become dangerous, raising public liability issues. The entrance lodge and gates and the mortuary chapel, which is listed grade II* are in the highest category of risk in English Heritage's new "Register of Buildings At Risk" which was published on Tuesday.
I understand that the long-term financial viability of the cemetery company to manage the cemetery effectively and safely has been in doubt for some years because of
1188
declining revenues from burials and cremations. In addition, we understand that the company's crematorium has been closed because of insufficient funds to upgrade the cremators as required to ensure compliance with environmental protection legislation.
Understandably, these matters have raised widespread local concern that the cemetery may be forced to close. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, the cemetery was closed for a time last month, but public pressure forced the company to reopen it.
The attitude of Mr. Towner was mentioned several times by my hon. Friend. I noted her criticism of the way in which he manages the cemetery, and the difficulties that the city council, local residents and others have had in trying to discuss with him how to secure the cemetery's long-term future. I well understand local anger. The recent history of cemeteries being sold off or passed on to unsuitable persons is sad and depressing. We all remember well the scandal of the Westminster cemetery sale.
I should make it clear that English Heritage has always stood ready to consider any request for grant aid support in respect of listed buildings in the cemetery, and remains willing to do so. I confirm that it remains ready to consider assisting the city council with both professional advice and grant aid in the event that the city council decides to use its statutory powers for listed buildings in disrepair.
It may be helpful at this point if I outline legislative provisions that may have some relevance in respect of the cemetery. On guaranteed access to the cemetery, little can be done. As my hon. Friend has said, Arnos Vale is a private cemetery, established by a private Act of Parliament of 1837 and run by a private company. Beyond what is contained in that and subsequent private Acts relating to the cemetery, the activities of the Bristol General Cemetery Company are not subject to regulation. Other than in relation to any requirements of the Burial and Cremation Acts, and to limited Home Office powers of intervention, the company is largely free to conduct its business on its terms.
Nevertheless, the company will have a contractual relationship with people who have bought burial rights in the cemetery, and any infringement of the rights thus acquired will be subject to the provisions of civil law. Individual families with concerns about their burial rights may wish to consider taking legal advice.
I said that the Home Office had limited powers of intervention. It has an interest in ensuring that any relevant regulations relating to burial grounds are observed, and that such grounds are not allowed to become a health risk or to offend public decency. To that end, it has powers to undertake inspections of all burial grounds. In extreme cases, it is open to the Home Office to seek an Order in Council to require certain works to be carried out, or to close the site to further burials.
I can inform the House that the Home Office is considering whether it would be helpful and appropriate to undertake an inspection of the cemetery. My noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has arranged to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, and how far the Home Office may be able to help.
The legal powers relating to the protection of listed buildings are set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The primary responsibility

1189
for the upkeep of a listed building rests with the owner, but sanctions can be imposed by the local planning authority when a listed building is in a poor state of repair. In the case of Arnos Vale, ownership of listed tombs and other buildings will rest with either the cemetery owner or private individuals.
Where the authority considers that a listed building is in need of repair, it can serve a repairs notice on the owner, specifying the works that are considered necessary for the building's preservation. If no action is taken in response to the notice, the authority can begin compulsory purchase proceedings. In addition, in the case of an unoccupied listed building, a local authority can serve an urgent works notice requiring the owner to carry out emergency repairs. If the owner fails to carry out the works, the authority can do so, and recover expenses from the owner.
The legislation also gives the Secretary of State powers that are broadly similar to those of local authorities. However, it is the Government's policy to treat them as reserve powers for use only in exceptional circumstances. I assure my hon. Friends that we will use the powers if we have to.
I understand that Bristol city council has considered serving an urgent works notice on the Bristol General Cemetery Company in respect of the listed buildings in disrepair for which the company is responsible. However, the city council has been reluctant to take that step, because of the potential costs. It considers that the company is not in a position to reimburse the council for the costs of any urgent works that are undertaken. That option remains open, and, if pursued, it may be possible for English Heritage to underwrite some of the risk as part of its buildings-at-risk programme. That programme includes advice to local authorities on how they can use their statutory powers effectively.
Following his meeting with the Indian high commissioner, the Secretary of State asked English Heritage to produce a report on the condition of the Raja Rammohun Roy tomb. It has become clear, however, that that particular matter needs to be looked at in the context of wider issues concerning the present state and future options of the cemetery as a whole. The English Heritage report will therefore now look at all those issues. That is a sensible step, because individual problems of access, maintenance responsibility and public safety are closely interlinked, and cannot be dealt with in isolation. Any solutions to them must fit in as part of an overall package.
English Heritage is still producing its report, but I am pleased to say that it has indicated to us that good progress has already been made in dealing with a number of issues. It has held meetings with all interested parties, including Mr. Towner, and has discovered that the parties share a lot of common ground. As a result, it has agreed that a sensible first step would be to commission a conservation and regeneration study into the cemetery's future. That will include an appraisal of its heritage assets, its role as a local amenity and preparation of a business plan.
1190
Clearly, any business plan will need to address several options. For example, I understand that there may be scope for some limited development, combined with increased public access to the open spaces, restoration and regeneration of the historic core of the cemetery—perhaps by a trust—and the retention of part as an active cemetery for conventional burials. A number of buildings on the site have viable reuse potential.
Bristol city council is prepared to underwrite part of the conservation and regeneration study, and other potential funding partners, both public and private, have declared a readiness to support that. English Heritage is also considering what financial support it can offer. The Indian high commission has also informally offered help in the restoration of the Raja Rammohun Roy tomb.
I know that the Heritage Lottery Fund has been approached by the city council to support the conservation and regeneration study. The fund has made it clear, however, that it normally requires applications to be made by the eligible owner. I hope that, in the light of recent developments, the company will be persuaded to co-operate with the city council to allow a proper application to be considered as quickly as possible.
However, the fund has assured me that it is aware of the urgency surrounding the case, and it is meeting shortly officials from the city council to review matters. My hon. Friends will appreciate that the Government have no role in the decision-making process of lottery applications. Decisions are made independently of Government by the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the body which is responsible for the Heritage Lottery Fund.
As a next step, English Heritage envisages that a wider meeting should be held, involving itself, the company, potential trust members, local politicians, officials from the city council and my Department and other agencies. It is hoped that such a meeting will be arranged in late June or July, and will reach agreement on the steps to be taken. English Heritage will then present its report and recommendations, which it is hoped will have the full support of all interested parties.
If agreement is reached on the way forward, the wider public will be consulted on what is being proposed. With good will and co-operation from all parties involved, it should be possible to agree a workable solution, which will not only regenerate the cemetery as a local amenity, but develop it into something that has a viable future. However, if it is not possible to reach agreement, the statutory procedures that I have referred to can be implemented.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important matter. I hope that she is able to take some reassurance from my comments. I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that I hope that the discussions that are taking place will result in the long-term future of Arnos Vale cemetery being secured. The people of Bristol have a right to expect nothing less.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Nine o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Dilapidated Housing
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions hat steps he is taking to assist with the renovation of dilapidated housing stock in(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster. [42655]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is for local authorities to decide how best to apply the resources available to them for investment in housing to meet local needs and priorities. The table shows resources allocated by the Government for housing in 1998–99 to the Metropolitan Borough Councils of Barnsley and Doncaster:

  £ million

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  (i) Housing Annual Capital Guidelines

  2,905

  3,137

  (ii) Private Sector Renewal support grant

  700

  775

  (iii) Disabled Facilities Grant

  284

  345

  (iv) Capital Receipts Initiative

  3,035

  3,424

  In Doncaster, we are supporting ongoing Estate Action work to renovate housing in Stainforth and Dunscroft villages and SRB Challenge Fund projects which include renovation of housing in the Balby and Northern Corridor areas.

  Thames River Crossings
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) local hon. Members, (b) local authorities, (c) private sector businesses and (d) other organisations on Thames river crossings. [42797]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Between 1 May 1997 and 1 May 1998, a total of 176 written representations about new East Thames River Crossings were received. They can be categorised as follows:(a) 15 from local hon. Members, (b) 61 from local authorities, (c) 107 from private sector businesses and (d) 93 from other organisations.

  East Thames Appraisal Framework
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the East Thames Appraisal Framework results and the Secretary of State's consequent decision will be published. [42796]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently considering the case for new river crossings east of Tower Bridge following an assessment of options using the East Thames 438
  Appraisal Framework (ETAF). No decisions have yet been taken. The ETAF results will be made available in due course.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in each of the years from 1992 to 1997 how many planning applications in England were referred to his Department(a) because they were applications raising issues of more than local significance, (b) following referral by the local planning authority as proposals which depart from the local development plan and (c) following voluntary referral by the local planning authority; and how many in each category were called in. [42153]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: Information is readily available only in the form set out as follows from 1995 onwards. The approximate total number of planning applications referred to this Department as departures from the local development plan, and the total number of planning applications called in, in each of the years from 1995/96 to 1997/98 are as shown. The figures for departure applications include applications referred under the "Shopping" Directions in the West Midlands and South West Regions. Information on departures for 1992 to 1994 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Departures

  Call-ins

  1995–96

  1,010

  144

  1996–97

  985

  139

  1997–98

  1,088

  147

  London Assembly
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if an environmental appraisal was produced for the 'A Mayor and Assembly for London' White Paper. [42665]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our Green Paper, "New Leadership for London" (Cm 3724), invited views on a range of proposals for an environmental role for the new Greater London Authority. Our White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (Cm 3897), sets out our detailed proposals, taking into account consultation responses.

  Under our proposals, the Greater London Authority will have extensive environmental responsibilities. It will be placed under a duty to promote the environmental, economic and social well being of Londoners. It will also be placed under a duty to promote sustainable development. The Mayor will also be placed under a duty to produce an air quality management strategic plan and an integrated municipal waste strategy for London, and to take action to promote efforts to reduce the impact of noise. The Mayor will have power to promote Local Agenda 21 and biodiversity within London. The Mayor will produce a report every four years on the state of the environment in London and, in consultation with the boroughs, will produce a further report every four years on the contribution made by London towards the Government's national programme for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  Park and Ride
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 May 1998,Official Report, column 118, if he will list the Park and Ride schemes initiatives, by local authority funded by his Department. [42792]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The table shows the single scheme referred to in the answer of 13 March 1998,Official Report, column 362–64, for which a local authority has received a specific allocation, and lists those which authorities could pursue using their block allocation from the Department.

  Authority

  Scheme

  Specifically funded scheme

  Cheshire

  Chester: Park and Ride Phase 2

  Fundable from block allocation

  Allocation

  Bedfordshire

  Cardington Cross Park and Ride Phase I

  Bedfordshire

  Elstow Park and Ride

  Birmingham

  Maypole Park and Ride—King's Heath

  Blackburn

  Whitebirk Park and Ride

  Bournemouth

  Riverside Avenue Park and Ride

  Bradford

  Shipley Rail Park and Ride Extension

  Bradford

  Menston Rail Park and Ride

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge: Newmarket Road Park and Ride

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge: Babraham Road Park and Ride

  Cornwall

  Ponsharden Park and Ride

  Coventry

  Park and Ride: North of City

  Derby

  Wyvern Park and Ride

  Devon

  Park and Ride: Dartmoor

  Devon

  Honiton Road Park and Ride

  Devon

  Digby Park and Ride: Security Improvements

  Devon

  Digby Park and Ride: Facilities

  Devon

  Matford Park and Ride: Promotional Signs

  Devon

  Matford Park and Ride: Facilities

  Devon

  Balls Corner Park and Ride

  Gloucestershire

  Arle Court Park and Ride Stage 1

  Gtr Manchester PTE

  Cycle Parking at Rail Stations (unspecified)

  Hampshire

  Winchester Park and Ride Stage 2

  Kent

  New Dover Road Park and Ride

  Kent

  Bus Priority for A249 Park and Ride Site

  Knowsley

  Unspecified Park and Ride proposals

  Lancashire

  Chorley Railway Station Park and Ride

  Leeds

  Horsforth Park and Ride

  Lincolnshire

  North Lincoln Park and Ride

  Norfolk

  Norwich: Eastern Corridor Park and Ride Route—Traffic Management

  North Yorkshire

  Harrogate Park and Ride: Land Acquisition

  North Yorkshire

  Scarborough Park and Ride: Weoponess and Other Sites

  North Yorkshire

  CCTV Surveillance Equipment at Various Sites

  Nottingham

  Queens Drive Park and Ride Site

  Nottingham

  Racecourse Park and Ride Site

  Nottingham

  Park and Ride Sites—Block Provision

  Nottinghamshire

  Gamston Park and Ride Site

  Oldham

  Park and Ride: Shaw, Hollinwood.and Mumps

  440

  Authority

  Scheme

  Oxfordshire

  Oxford City Park and Ride: Parking Management

  Plymouth City

  Carkeel Park and Ride

  Poole

  Creekmoor Park and Ride

  Rochdale

  Milkstone Road/Fishdock Park and Ride

  Rotherham

  Area-wide Park and Ride Facilities

  Sefton

  Southport Park and Ride

  Sheffield

  Hillsborough Corridor Park and Ride Sites

  Shropshire

  Shrewsbury: Development of Existing Sites

  Surrey

  Guildford: Park and Ride

  Surrey

  Stains: Park and Ride

  Swindon

  Copse Site Park and Ride Cricklade Road A4311

  Swindon

  Junction 16 Park and Ride—M4

  Tyne and Wear PTE

  New Park and Ride Car Park—Pelaw

  West Midlands PTE

  Midland Metro Line 1: Park and Ride—Leabrook Road

  West Midlands PTE

  Medland Metro Line 1: Park and Ride—Loxdale Street

  West Midlands PTE

  Midland Metro Line 1 Park and Ride—Swan Lane

  West Midlands PTE

  Rail Park and Ride: Sandwell and Dudley—Refurbishment

  West Midlands PTE

  Rail Park and Ride: Marston Green—Refurbishment/Expansion

  West Midlands PTE

  Rail Park and Ride: Hall Green—Expansion

  West Midlands PTE

  Rail Park and Ride: Olton—Refurbishment

  West Midlands PTE

  Rail Park and Ride: Selly Oak—Expansion

  West Midlands PTE

  Rail Park and Ride: Kings Norton—Expansion

  Wiltshire

  Salisbury: Beehive Park and Ride Scheme

  Wirral

  Grove Road Rail Station Park and Ride

  Wolverhampton

  South Bilston Park and Ride

  Wolverhampton

  Town Centre Park and Ride

  Worcestershire

  Bromsgrove Station Car Park

  Worcestershire

  Barnt Green Station Car Park

  Worcestershire

  Worcester Park and Ride

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of a fast rail link from the Channel Tunnel to the north via Ebbsfleet, Stratford and St. Pancras on levels of road freight transport; [43096]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on investment of a fast rail link from the Channel Tunnel to the north via Ebbsfleet, Stratford and St. Pancras; [43094]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the total cost to the Government of (a) continuing the Channel Tunnel rail link as proposed under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, including the incorporation of the Ebbsfleet and Stratford international stations, (b) opting for an upgraded link to Waterloo and (c) delaying the project. [43028]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 27 March 1998,Official Report, columns 295–96, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that the cure period under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) Development Agreement within which London and Continental Railways (LCR)

  441
  could bring forward any improved proposals to the Government had been extended to 29 May 1998. Proposals have now been received and we are discussing them with the company. The economic and transport implications (including freight) of decisions on the CTRL will be a key consideration for my right hon. Friend in assessing the proposals put to him by LCR.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 March 1998,Official Report, column 295, if he has received revised proposals from London and Continental Railways; and if he will make a statement. [43546]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have received revised proposals from London and Continental Railways which are being discussed with the company. I will make a statement to the House as soon as I can after the Whitsun recess.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the date of the elections to the Greater London Authority. [42977]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We hope to announce the proposed date of the elections to the Greater London Authority later this year.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proposals he has to grant local authorities discretion to vary the level of council tax imposed upon the owners of second homes; [42996]

  (2) if his review of the council tax system has included the issue of varying the level of council tax imposed upon the owners of second homes from the present mandatory 50 per cent; and if he will make a statement; [42997]

  (3) what representations he has received from (a) South Lakeland District Council, (b) South Lakeland residents and (c) others on the subject of the level of council tax imposed per owner of second homes. [42995]

  Ms Armstrong
  The consultation paper "Improving local financial accountability" invited views on whether there is a case for change to the council tax. We have received a number of representations about discounts given on second homes including from the South Lakeland District Council and from other local bodies, and individuals. Our proposals will be set out in a White paper which we shall publish in the summer.

  Agrochemical Levy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will define the terms of reference of the inquiry into the feasibility of an agrochemical levy. [42713]

  Angela Eagle
  Work has recently been commissioned by the DETR into whether a tax or charge on pesticides would be an effective way to reduce water pollution and negative impacts on the terrestrial environment, and to consider how such a tax or charge might work. The terms of reference for the study, to be carried out by ECOTEC 442
  research consulting limited cover inter alia detailed design issues; potential distributional impacts; and assessment of the issues affecting competitive positions of sectors of the UK economy.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the relative risks of(a) cycling and walking and (b) powered two-wheel vehicle use; and if he will ensure that the latter is not excluded from the Integrated Transport Policy on the grounds of safety. [42330]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Table 1.6 of Transport Statistics Great Britain 1997 shows that, for every billion passenger kilometres travelled in 1995 (latest figures), there were 1,507 two-wheeled motor vehicle users killed or seriously injured. The comparable figures for pedal cyclists were 881 and 611 for pedestrians. Motorcycle use, like other modes of transport, will be addressed in the Integrated Transport Policy White Paper.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to end the requirement that provisional motorcycle licence holders who fail to pass their driving test within two years are subject to a one year ban. [42331]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are preparing a consultation paper that will consider the options for amending the current rule, whilst ensuring that any alternative arrangements provide that learner riders are properly trained and tested.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of drivers randomly tested were found to be over the legal alcohol limit in the last year for which figures are available. [42714]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The police do not have powers to take breath samples from motorists on a random basis. Motorists may be breath tested following an accident, when they appear to have committed a moving traffic offence or where there is a suspicion of alcohol use.

  In 1996, the latest year for which figures are available, 781,100 breath tests were administered in England and Wales and in 13 per cent. of those, either the test showed a positive (over the limit) reading or the driver refused to provide a sample.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on the amount of alcohol which may be safely consumed by those intending to drive; and if he will make a statement. [42715]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The limit up to which a person can legally drive after consuming alcohol is 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood. However, alcohol affects people in different ways according to factors such as the person's sex, body weight and whether food has been consumed. Even a small amount of alcohol can impair performance. The Department's advice, which is endorsed by its current drink-drive publicity campaign, is therefore not to drink and drive.

  School Transport
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the average number of school children in England travelling by school transport each day and (b) the number of (i) fatalities and (ii) injuries of school children involved in road accidents associated with school transport in each of the last five years. [42423]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The average number of children (aged 4–16) resident in Great Britain in 1992–96 who travelled to school by bus each day was about 1.7 million. Of these, about 0.5 million used a school bus.

  The number of road accident casualties in England who were school pupils going to or from school by bus or coach is as shown for each of the last five years for which figures are available. It is not, however, possible to identify how many of these were travelling in a school bus.

  School child casualties (aged 4–16) travelling to or from school by bus, coach or minibus in England

  Year

  Killed

  Injured

  1992

  1

  530

  1993

  1

  708

  1994

  1

  536

  1995

  0

  568

  1996

  1

  761

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow local planning authorities fully to determine applications for motorway service areas. [42924]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no plans to change the existing arrangements under which motorway service area planning applications are dealt with in the same way as those for any other development. Applications which are called in for determination by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or are the subject of an appeal by the intending developer, will normally be considered at a public inquiry before an independent Inspector. In such cases, the Inspector reports to my right hon. Friend who takes the final decision. In all other circumstances, the decision rests with the local planning authority.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to take direct responsibility for the location of motorway service areas; and if he will make a statement. [42923]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 ("Transport") and Roads Circular 1/94 give advice to intending developers and local planning authorities on the spacing of motorway service areas (MSAs). We are considering whether there is any need to amend that advice but we have no plans to review the underlying policy that, within the constraints set by the spacing guidance, identification of specific sites for proposed new MSAs is a matter for the private sector.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish a revised Framework Document for the Planning Inspectorate. [43344]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today arranged for copies of the Planning Inspectorate's revised Framework Document to be published and for copies to be placed in the Library.

  It is part of the usual arrangements for Next Steps Agencies to review their operation and revise their Framework Document every three to five years. The revised Framework Document will set out the relationship between the Planning Inspectorate executive agency and its parent Departments (the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Welsh Office).

  Rents
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in drawing up proposals to address the problem of fair rent increases affecting tenants under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1967 and the Rent Act 1977; and if he will make a statement. [43437]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government are very concerned that private tenants with regulated tenancies and secure tenants of registered social landlords have faced exceptional rent increases in recent years. After market rents were introduced in 1989 for all new lettings, these tenants continued to have the protection of the fair rent system. However, they could never have anticipated the high level rent increases that some of them have faced. Many of them are elderly and on fixed incomes. They have planned their affairs on the basis that they would be able to remain in their present homes and are now faced with real financial difficulties. My Department is today issuing a public consultation paper setting out how we propose to tackle this problem.

  The proposals would apply to those private tenants and secure tenants of Registered Social Landlords who have a fair rent registered under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Rent Act 1977. Increases would be limited by an Order made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The limits would be RPI plus 10% for the first re-registration after the Order comes into effect and RPI plus 5% for subsequent re-registrations. The limits would not apply if the rent had not previously been registered or a substantial increase in rent was due as a result of repairs or improvements by the landlord to the property. The limits would not apply to rent increases for assured and assured shorthold tenancies.

  Comments on the proposals are invited by 24 July. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is issuing a similar consultation paper in Wales.

  Passenger Ferries
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on recent developments in the safety of roll-on roll-off passenger ferries. [43438]
  445
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am pleased to announce the publication of an updated list of ferries operating to and from UK ports detailing the dates by which they must comply with the higher survivability standard specified in the Stockholm Agreement. We believe that it is important to continue to provide public information on ferry safety and will publish further lists when there are significant changes.

  Officials from my Department recently attended a conference hosted by the Swedish Government in Stockholm to consider the Report of the Joint Accident Investigation Commission of Estonia, Finland and Sweden into the loss of the ESTONIA in September 1994. The conference was a welcome initiative from the Swedish Government and I thank them for it. It considered whether or not international action since the ESTONIA tragedy had sufficiently addressed the Report's recommendations. It was agreed that most issues, particularly the potential problem of capsize due to water entering the car deck, had been satisfactorily addressed, confirming the significant progress which has been made in recent years. The conference also agreed that there were areas where research might identify further potential safety enhancements. We will look closely at these to establish whether there are any further measures we can take to enhance the already very high safety standard of ferries operating to and from UK ports.

  Trains
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the HSC will make proposals on Mark 1 rolling stock and on train protection. [43439]

  Dr. Strang
  I am pleased that the Commission has today launched a consultative document proposing regulations on the installation of train protection systems (to all trains and at key signals) and on Mark 1 rolling stock. Copies of the consultative document have been placed in the Library. Rail is already one of the safest forms of transport but I welcome the Commission's proposals for making the network even safer.

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the future of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. [43176]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Building Regulations Advisory Committee is a statutory advisory non-departmental public body constituted under Section 14(1) of the Building Act 1984. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is statutorily obliged to consult the Committee on Building Regulations and other subjects connected with those regulations. The regulations apply in England and Wales. Appointments to the Committee are made jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and by the Secretary of State for Wales.
  446
  The Government are continuing a programme of regular "Financial Management and Policy Reviews" of non-departmental public bodies. Under that programme, I have now received and accepted a Financial Management and Policy Review report relating to the Building Regulations Advisory Committee for the period 1992–96.

  The report traces the history and policy development since the establishment of the Committee in 1962. In particular, it traces the evolution of the early Building Regulations—which provided a very prescriptive regime of building control—to a far more flexible process based on functional requirements. The report also highlights some of the more important procedural and technical areas which have evolved over the years—for example, providing for private sector involvement in the building control process at the election of applicants, and the rise in concern within the regulations for energy conservation and access and facilities for disabled people.

  Financial Management and Policy Reviews are essentially concerned with assessing and reviewing the policy relevance and the cost-effectiveness of the body concerned. I am happy to say that BRAC scores high on both counts. I have no doubt that its experience with examining the core relevance of regulations will be of great value to this Government's policy of "better regulation".

  As the report illustrates, the fact that members of BRAC are unsalaried, and that many willingly put in many hours in working parties, means that the cost effectiveness of the Committee is excellent compared with what could be achieved by contracting out to consultants for the provision of expert advice. As the report also indicates, consultants in this context would not necessarily provide the full breadth of expertise I have to hand on BRAC and could also not necessarily provide the continuity of knowledge which is so essential.

  Members are appointed to the Committee usually for terms of two or three years. The Committee's numbers had dwindled over the last year or so and, in addition, some appointments came to an end at the turn of the year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I therefore had the opportunity of appointing fresh blood to the Committee—thirteen members in total. We have also within the discipline of the Nolan recommendations considered it right for the benefit of continuity and the excellent public service which has been offered, to re-appoint five existing members. Details of the new Committee membership were released in a letter dated 20 April 1998 to Editors of the Construction and Property Press.

  I had the opportunity to meet the new Committee in February and was able to say in person how much the Government valued the work of BRAC. I was also able to thank all those members who had served, or who were continuing to serve, on the Committee. In giving a particular welcome to the new members I expressed the view that they should find the Committee an interesting one to serve on. Having now studied the FMPR, I have no doubt about the on-going importance and relevance of the Committee.
  447
  I have arranged for a copy of the FMPR report and the letter to Editors to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of(a) The Hydrogeology of Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment (1978), prepared by the Institute of Geological Sciences, (b) Environmental Radioactivity in Caithness and Sutherland, AERE-R17999 (1988), (c) the annual health and safety reports for Dounreay since 1956 and (d) the earliest report made by the UK Atomic Energy Authority to the Government on the accident at its waste shaft, D1225, at Dounreay in May 1977. [39673]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  I have arranged to place in the Library a copy of the Hydrogeology Report, the Report on Radioactivity in Caithness and Sutherland and the UKAEA's report on the 1977 incident at the Intermediate Level Waste Shaft at Dounreay. The Library already holds copies of the Health and Safety Executive's Reports covering the period 1987–94.

  Consultation paper

  Date published

  Closing date for submissions

  Number of respondents

  Judicial Case Management: the fast-track and multi-track

  2 July 1997

  26 September 1997

  91

  Civil Procedure Rules about Costs

  August 1997

  31 October 1997

  90

  Restoration of 'Price Paid' to the Land Register

  23 October 1997

  12 February 1998

  over 450

  New procedures for Clinical Negligence

  31 October 1997

  31 December 1997

  53

  New Procedures for Multi-Party Actions

  31 October 1997

  31 December 1997

  46

  Civil Procedure Rules—Security for Costs

  November 1997

  31 December 1997

  40

  The amalgamation of Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral magistrates' courts committees

  November 1997

  6 February 1998

  32

  Procedures for the Specialist Jurisdictions of the High Court

  31 November 1997

  30 January 1998

  66

  Small Claims Procedure

  1 December 1997

  31 January 1998

  113

  Civil Procedure Rules—Judgments and Order

  December 1997

  27 February 1998

  25

  Civil Procedure Rules—Service of Court Process Abroad

  December 1997

  27 February 1998

  25

  The amalgamation of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton magistrates' courts committees

  December 1997

  28 February 1998

  49

  Who Decides? Making Decisions on behalf of Mentally Incapacitated Adults

  10 December 1997

  31 March 1998

  over 4,000

  Interest on County Court Judgment Debts under £5,000 which include a Claim for Interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Legislation

  22 December 1997

  16 February 1998

  75

  New guidance on appointment of justices' chief executives and justices' Clerks (amendments only)

  8 January 1998

  27 February 1998

  7

  Control of Unscrupulous Immigration Advisors (joint LCD and Home Office paper)

  22 January 1998

  23 March 1998

  60

  Increase to Bailiff Fees

  23 January 1998

  13 March 1998

  9

  Civil Procedure Rules—Transitional Arrangements

  5 February 1998

  3 April 1998

  47

  Access to Justice: Civil Court Fees

  20 February 1998

  1 May 1998

  58

  Access to Justice with Conditional Fees

  4 March 1998

  30 April 1998

  233

  Determination of Paternity & Parental Responsibility for Unmarried Fathers

  6 March 1998

  5 May 1998

  102

  The Professionalisation of Court Clerks in the Magistrates' Courts

  13 March 1998

  15 May 1998

  80

  Simplification of Transfer Procedure

  31 March 1998

  15 May 1998

  39

  Creation of a Unified Stipendiary Bench

  1 April 1998

  13 May 1998

  43

  The Next Phase of HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate Inspections

  15 April 1998

  22 June 1998

  consultation period open

  Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules

  20 April 1998

  15 May 1998

  17

  Recovery of Social Security Benefits and Payments into Court

  5 May 1998

  29 May 1998

  consultation period open

  More Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in respect of the takeover bid by J. C. Decaux for the More Group; and how many of these were from local authorities. [43042]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received correspondence from J. C. Decaux, and the company has outlined its proposals to officials in this Department. I have received no specific representations from local authorities or other bodies. Mergers are a matter for the competition authorities.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42248]

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Montserration Evacuees
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the future status of Montserration evacuees in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [43586]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have decided that Montserration evacuees in the United Kingdom should be allowed to remain here indefinitely if they wish. This offer will also apply to Montserratians still on the island and those who moved elsewhere in the Caribbean because of volcanic activity, should they wish to come to the United Kingdom.

  Forensic Practitioners
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on proposals from the forensic science community for the creation of a Registration Council for Forensic Practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [43620]

  Mr. Straw
  I am pleased to announce the Government's support for the creation of a Forensic Science Registration Council, in line with the central recommendations made by the industry's own Working Group in December 1997. The Working Group, which was chaired by Lord Lewis, was established following an initiative by the Forensic Science Service.

  The Council's aim will be to promote and maintain high standards of competence, practice, discipline and ethics amongst forensic science practitioners. It will be non-statutory, self-financing, self-regulating and independent, with input from users. The Council will operate on a three tier basis, comprising:

  a Council, to include legal, lay and expert members, and incorporating a disciplinary panel;

  an Executive/Registration Board, which would set the criteria for registration and operate the register; and

  Assessment Panels, which would assess qualifications and competence for each specialism within the forensic science community.

  The Council will build on and incorporate existing expertise and infrastructure using the experience of a wide range of professional bodies which already operate in this field.

  While considering the Working Group's recommendations on this issue, the Government also looked at the other outstanding proposals for the oversight of forensic science put forward by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (which reported in 1993) and by Professor Caddy in his report of December 1996 into the contamination incident at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. The Royal Commission and Professor Caddy recommended the establishment of a Forensic Science Advisory Board and an Inspectorate of Forensic Science Services respectively.

  The Government considered all three sets of proposals very carefully. In light of the progress made in recent years by the forensic science industry to promote quality and standards, including the external accreditation of laboratories by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and the British Standards Institute, we believe that the
  450
  Registration Council offers the most practical way forward. The Registration Council would undertake a number of the tasks proposed for the Advisory Board and Inspectorate, but would do so in a way which complemented existing structures for maintaining standards in the industry. We share the view of the previous Administration, as set out in their final response to the Royal Commission (published in June 1996), that there is no need for the far wider remit envisaged for the two alternative oversight bodies. Many of the functions identified for the Advisory Board and Inspectorate could be fulfilled effectively only with some form of statutory regulation which the Royal Commission itself did not see as justified. The Government concur with this view.

  It is important that any new arrangements for oversight command the support, not only of forensic practitioners, but the end users of their services. I am pleased that the proposals to establish the Registration Council for Forensic Practitioners have received the overwhelming support of the forensic science community, as well as considerable backing from those in the wider criminal justice system.

  Once fully established, the aim would be for registration with the Council to become expected of those presenting expert forensic evidence in court. This would not preclude those who are unregistered from giving such evidence, although I believe such instances will become rare. It will also remain open to the courts to hear evidence from non-registered persons whose expertise is in a field outside the normal range of forensic science. As now, such decisions will remain a matter for the court to determine.

  Although it is the intention that, once fully established, the Registration Council will be self-funded, the Government have agreed that it will provide financial support to help with the start-up costs. Such funding will be for an initial period of two years.

  The setting up of the Registration Council will be a significant step forward in further raising quality and standards in the forensic science industry. Taken together with the other measures already taken by the industry, the Council will do much to enhance the standing of forensic science in the criminal justice process.

  Race Relations Forum
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 May 1998,Official Report, column 125, if he will list the persons appointed to the Race Relations Forum. [40841]

  Mr. Straw
  I am pleased to announce that the first meeting of the Race Relations Forum will be held on 23 June. The following have confirmed that they are willing to serve as members of the Forum:Mr. Rumman Ahmed; Ms Yasmin Alibhai-Brown; Mr. Michael Boye-Anawomah JP; Ms Rachel Campbell; Mr. Thomas Chan; Ms Gobnait NÍ ChrualoaoÍ; Mr. Lincoln Crawford QC; Mr. Mohammed Dhalech; Lord Navnit Dholakia OBE JP; Mrs Zerbanoo Gifford; Mr. Bernie Grant MP; Ms Ros Howells OBE; Mr. Lee Jasper; Mr. Makbool Javaid; Dr. Gus John; Ms Mukami McCrum; Mr. Norman McLean; Dr. Dwain Neil; Sir Herman Ouseley; Mr. Adam Hafejee Patel; Ms Shushila Patel; Mr. Trevor Phillips; Ms Rachel Pickavance; Mr. Iqbal A. K. M. Sacranie; Mr. Gurbux Singh; Mr. Ranjit Sondhi; Dr. Richard Stone; The Rt. Revd Wilfred Wood.

  Sexual Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) teachers and (b) care staff are currently under investigation for retrospective allegations of sexual abuse of former pupils. [41132]

  Mr. Michael
  It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend's question with any precision because it refers to investigations rather than convictions and it is difficult to see how such information could be collected centrally. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is undertaking a thematic inspection on child protection, which will look at how records and intelligence are collated and shared across agencies, and what good practice can be promoted on how to conduct major abuse inquiries.

  The Department for Education and Employment maintains a list of individuals who are barred from working in schools: (List 99), while the Department of Health consultancy index also contains information about individuals who are considered to be unsuitable to work with children and young people.

  A Ministerial group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is following-up work across Government arising from Sir William Utting's report 'People Like Us'. Among the issues arising from that report is the need to strengthen recruitment and vetting procedures for adults who work with children living away from home.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 391, of the two young men held in adult prison accommodation which was not separate from adult prisoners, if he will list (a) their ages, (b) the prison or prisons in which they were held, (c) the reasons they were held in accommodation not separate from adult prisoners, (d) the period for which they were held in such accommodation and (e) the number of other young men held in accommodation not separate from that of adult prisoners since 1 May 1997. [38578]

  Ms Quin
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Parc Prison
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the staff, transport and subsistence costs incurred on each occasion other prisons had to provide staff to support Parc Prison, Bridgend; what effect this had on staffing levels at the prisons which provided staff; how many prison officers are employed at Parc and at each of the prisons which provide staff in proportion to the number of prisoners; and if Parc' s staffing level was at full complement at the time of each occasion when other prisons provided staff. [42070]

  Ms Quin
  Parc Prison has requested assistance from neighbouring prisons for help with disturbances on three occasions since it opened on 17 November 1997.

  On 20 February 1998, a total of 43 staff from Swansea, Cardiff and Usk prisons provided assistance to Parc. The staffing costs were £1,788.00, and the travel and
  452
  subsistence costs were £708.26. Swansea reports no effect on its staffing levels and Cardiff and Usk report minor disruption to regimes and association.

  On 18 April, a total of 43 staff from Swansea, Cardiff and Bristol prisons provided assistance to Parc. The staffing costs were £1,806.00, and the travel and subsistence costs were £560.58. Swansea and Bristol prisons report no effect on their staffing levels and Cardiff reports minor disruption to regimes.

  On 6 May, a total of 119 staff from Swansea, Cardiff, Bristol, Usk, Long Lartin, Gloucester and Erlestoke prisons provided assistance to Parc. The staffing costs were £11,199.00, and the travel and subsistence costs were £2,338.28. Usk and Erlestoke prisons report no significant effect on their staffing levels. Swansea, Cardiff, Bristol, Long Lartin and Gloucester prisons report minor disruption to regimes.

  The number of staff and prisoners at Parc prison, and the establishments which assisted them on 6 May, is set out in the table (The staffing figures are for all unified staff):

  Establishment

  Number of staff

  Number of prisoners

  Parc

  193

  738

  Bristol

  334

  599

  Cardiff

  258

  700

  Erlestoke

  102

  301

  Gloucester

  137

  305

  Long Lartin

  634

  379

  Swansea

  136

  330

  Usk

  90

  334

  Parc Prison's staffing complement for the three occasions when assistance was provided was: on 20 February 1998, 211 staff in post against a target staff figure of 225; on 18 April 1998, 204 staff in post against a target staff figure of 225; and on 6 May 1998, 193 staff in post against a target staff figure of 225.

  Hillsborough and Stephen Lawrence Inquiries
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of public money disbursed to assist families and relatives of victims was provided(a) to individual victims and families, (b) family support groups and (c) collectively in respect of (i) the Hillsborough disaster and (ii) Stephen Lawrence's murder; and by what method the allocations were determined. [42983]

  Mr. Michael
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board advise that injuries sustained in the Hillsborough disaster were not regarded as the result of a crime of violence for the purposes of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and that, accordingly, no compensation in respect of that disaster was awarded under the scheme.

  As regards the Stephen Lawrence murder, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the practice of the Board, or the new Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (which deals with applications lodged on or

  453
  after 1 April 1996), to disclose details about individual applications, including whether applications have been made.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions were made out of public funds in respect of costs to(a) commission expert evidence and (b) challenge expert evidence put by another party at the public inquiries into (i) the Hillsborough disaster and (ii) Stephen Lawrence's murder; what was the outturn cost to public funds of such assistance for each inquiry; and how costs were agreed, verified and disbursed. [42981]

  Mr. Michael
  The original papers relating to the Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough Stadium disaster are being examined to see what information was kept on costs. I will reply to my hon. Friend when that has been done.

  The Stephen Lawrence inquiry is still in progress. The Chairman of the inquiry, Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, has been asked to recommend how the costs of the inquiry should be met. The inquiry was called under section 49 of the Police Act 1996. There is power under section 49 to defray any costs of the inquiry out of the police fund.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers have been banned from driving for one year for drink-related offences in the last year. [43081]

  Mr. Michael
  Information is not available in precisely the form requested because the published motoring offences are based on offences rather than offenders, and offences involving drugs cannot be separated from those involving drink. There were 35,287 disqualifications imposed for 'Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs' in England and Wales in 1996, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Such figures are published annually in "Offences relating to motor vehicles. England and Wales 1996. Supplementary tables", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Operation Charlie
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 181, how many children involved in Operation Charlie (a) received the specific tuition and (b) were used for comparison; and how many hours tuition the children received. [42901]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of children involved in Project Charlie that(a) received the intervention was 44; (b) the number of comparison children was 233; the Project Charlie children received a lesson of at least 30 minutes each week for 39 weeks.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 181, if the review of the value of Operation Charlie recommended further investigation. [42902]
  454
  Mr. George Howarth
  The report on the follow up evaluation of Project Charlie strongly suggested that primary school drugs education programmes can have a delaying effect for the onset of drug use. It also recommended that further research be carried out. The Government's anti-drugs strategy signifies clearly the value of drugs education in schools from age 5 upwards, and identifies the commissioning of long-term evaluation's of the effectiveness of prevention and education programmes as a priority.

  Firearms
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving a loaded antique firearm have been committed in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [42800]

  Mr. Michael
  It is not possible, from the statistics held centrally, to determine how many offences are committed with antique firearms.

  Drivers (Drugs)
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of people driving under the influence of drugs have been reported by South Yorkshire Police in each of the last five years. [42656]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  There is no information collected centrally that distinguishes between driving under the influence of drugs and driving under the influence of alcohol.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have in the past produced an estimate of the number of drug/driving cases based on information supplied by the Forensic Science Service, but this does not enable a police force breakdown to be made. Neither do South Yorkshire police themselves have any local information.

  Police (Training)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the training courses offered to Metropolitan Police officers in 1997 and 1998 to date. [42805]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided a copy of the Metropolitan Police's Training Prospectus for courses held centrally at Hendon's Training Schools under the Director of Training and Development. I have placed a copy of the prospectus in the Library.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total training budget of the Metropolitan Police for the current financial year. [42807]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that training in the Metropolitan Police is delivered on three levels: centrally; by area; and by divisions.

  In addition, some training is purchased from outside trainers through the use of external budgets. As a consequence, the information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate

  455
  cost. However, the Commissioner tells me that the total resource budget for centrally-delivered training is £24 million. Centrally based training under the Director of Training and Development is responsible for approximately 40 per cent. of all training delivery in the Metropolitan Police Service.

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the funds and assistance provided in each year since 1994–95 to the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland from(a) the Home Office, (b) other Government Departments and (c) each police authority or board; [42410]

  (2) if he will list the grades within the uniformed police or civilian police service which make up the membership of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales and Northern Ireland. [42406]

  Mr. Michael
  The membership of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland comprises:the chief constables, and assistant chief constables, including assistant chief constables (designated), of the forces in the police areas listed in Schedule 1 of the Police Act 1996 (full members)
  the commissioners, assistant commissioners and commanders of the Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London Police (full members)
  the chief constable, deputy chief constable and assistant chief constables of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (full members)
  the chief police officers appointed/seconded to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Crime Squad (full members)
  senior civilian staff of the forces and organisations listed above who are deemed by the Association to hold a post equivalent to that at least of an assistant chief constable (associate members)
  those chief police officers of other police forces who accept the Association's invitation to become members (associate members).

  In respect of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Home Office contributed £466,000 in 1994–95, £470,000 in 1995–96 and £458,000 in 1996–97 towards staff salaries and administrative costs of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Secretariat under the common police service arrangements. In 1997–98, under different arrangements, the Home Office contributed a further £458,000 towards these costs.

  Contributions from police authorities in 1997–98 are listed in the following table. Before 1996–97, ACPO was organised differently with a limited central function. Work undertaken in the ACPO cental office from part-way through 1996–97 was previously carried out in forces for which no specific costs are available. Police authorities contributed £330,000 as a part-year cost for setting up the reorganised ACPO in 1996–97. In 1994–95, the police authorities' contribution was 49 per cent. of the total net cost of all common police services, of which the contribution to the costs of ACPO was a small part. This was apportioned between police authorities on the basis of a per capita charge based on the authorised establishment of each force. From 1995–96 to 1997–98, the costs of
  456
  common police services were taken into account when the level of police grant was set for police authorities. These arrangements followed detailed discussions and agreement between the parties involved.

  Contributions made by police authorities to the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997–98

  £

  Force

  Police authority contribution

  Avon and Somerset

  14,792.22

  Bedfordshire

  5,456.95

  Cambridgeshire

  6,353.12

  Cheshire

  9,451.31

  City of London

  5,284.64

  Cleveland

  7,109.47

  Cumbria

  5,393.29

  Derbyshire

  8,808.48

  Devon and Cornwall

  15,014.00

  Dorset

  6,151.13

  Durham

  6,922.83

  Dyfed Powys

  4,563.41

  Essex

  14,287.26

  Gloucestershire

  5,567.67

  Greater Manchester

  33,020.60

  Gwent

  5,962.97

  Hampshire

  16,876.94

  Hertfordshire

  8,478.17

  Humberside

  9,943.65

  Kent

  12,689.32

  Lancashire

  15,800.42

  Leicestershire

  8,971.59

  Lincolnshire

  5,441.39

  Merseyside

  21,382.39

  Metropolitan

  139,033.22

  Norfolk

  7,370.29

  North Wales

  6,640.81

  North Yorkshire

  6,792.39

  Northamptonshire

  5,608.91

  Northumbria

  18,271.40

  Nottinghamshire

  11,252.53

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  54,322.10

  South Wales

  14,339.69

  South Yorkshire

  14,942.69

  Staffordshire

  10,267.55

  Suffolk

  5,962.47

  Surrey

  7,486.28

  Sussex

  14,429.38

  Thames Valley

  19,481.84

  Warwickshire

  4,656.28

  West Mercia

  9,831.60

  West Midlands

  33,486.12

  West Yorkshire

  25,293.17

  Wiltshire

  5,857.04

  Total

  669,048.98

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects to announce the results of her review of the aid programme to Malawi; and if she will make a statement. [41952]

  Clare Short
  I expect to complete the review in July. I am optimistic that we can build partnerships with the Government and others aimed at systematically reducing poverty in Malawi.

  Debt
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives her Department is taking to relieve developing countries' debt during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union; and if she will made a statement on how she is taking these forward. [43092]

  Clare Short
  We work with the Treasury to seek to mobilise increasing international commitment to assist heavily indebted poor countries. In addition, we have contributed $10.5 million to help the African development bank meet its costs of providing debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries debt initiative, and are encouraging other donors to do likewise. We have signalled our readiness to contribute $10 million to an international fund for Mozambique, an action which helped break the impasse among creditors earlier this year.

  I convened an informal meeting of donors to Rwanda in Brussels on 19 May, which considered among other matters ways of helping resolve that country's debt problems. At the donors' meeting in Stockholm on 2–3 June, Britain will announce a significant contribution to the multi-donor debt trust fund, which will provide debt relief to Rwanda over the next few years. We are providing nearly £500,000 in the form of technical assistance to help developing countries improve the management of their debt portfolios. We are continuing to urge other donors to follow the UK's example and write off their aid loans to the poorest developing countries.

  Trauma Counselling
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department gives to agencies providing trauma counselling in post-conflict situations. [42873]

  Clare Short
  We recognise that trauma counselling is an important component of health care in post-conflict situations. We support a number of projects which provide direct assistance to children affected by conflict, including after-care for traumatised children. In the past, we have supported a major social rehabilitation programme with World Vision for children abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. More recently, we have provided assistance to non-governmental and UN agencies working in Liberia.

  Strategic Exports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's contribution to the drawing up of the Government's annual report of strategic exports. [42872]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not lead on the Government's annual report of strategic exports. We take part in interdepartmental discussions and will be consulted on the report before it is published.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with other Government departments on arrangements for the monitoring of arms export licences to less developed countries. [42877]

  Clare Short
  The Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest, in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and my Department.

  Indonesia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who represented her Department at the World bank meeting in Washington on 1 April on international humanitarian aid efforts for Indonesia; what was discussed; and if she will make a statement. [42762]

  Clare Short
  The purpose of the meeting, which was attended by a member of the Department for International Development's Asia division, was to discuss the social consequences for Indonesia of the Asian financial crisis and prospects for mobilising additional support from multilateral and bilateral sources. Copies of a press release issued by the bank after the meeting have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The conclusions of the meeting has been largely overtaken by current developments in Indonesia. As circumstances permit, we shall continue to explore opportunities of working with civil society, non-governmental organisations and other donors to bring effective help to poor people, including those affected by the crisis.

  Public Bodies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what is the average salary of(a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to her Department; [42814]

  (2) what is the average attendance fee of (a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to her Department. [42815]

  Clare Short
  The majority of board members of non-departmental public bodies give their time and services voluntarily and receive no payment other than normal travel and subsistence expenses. Where members do receive remuneration, this can vary between an annual salary, an honorarium or an attendance fee (which itself can be a daily rate or a half-daily rate, or calculated on a per meeting or per case basis). Individuals' remuneration therefore is not directly comparable. Full details of all payments to board members of non-departmental bodies,
  459
  by gender, are given in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1997" are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy towards providing aid to countries with extensive military programmes, including the development of weapons of mass destruction. [42390]

  Clare Short
  My Department seeks to develop long-term partnerships with countries that are committed to the elimination of poverty and are pursuing appropriate economic, social, environmental and political policies. In considering the opportunities for partnership, we take into account a wide range of factors. These would certainly include the impact on the poor of excessive military expenditure and the development of weapons of mass destruction.

  Zimbabwe
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has further to fund Zimbabwean police and army training at United Kingdom establishments. [41583]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is supporting an organisational development project with the Zimbabwe Republic police, to reduce crime and the costs of policing through improved management and operational efficiency. Under this project, we have agreed to fund 12 curriculum development officers to attend training programmes at the Scottish police college over the next 12 months. The Department for International Development does not provide assistance for military personnel.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the type of food and levels of supplies available for(a) adults and (b) children in Sudan. [42871]

  Clare Short
  Last week, my officials visited some of the seriously affected areas. Food supplies are adequate at present. Bulk grain (sorghum) and pulses are being provided to vulnerable communities. Children are also receiving Unimix and other specialised food mixtures. Access remains the major constraint, together with freedom for relief agencies to operate unhindered. Unless a ceasefire is implemented and people can plant their crops, food needs will continue throughout the year.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received about the resources available to Operation Lifeline Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [42761]

  Clare Short
  In February, the UN inter-agency consolidated appeal sought US$109 million for Operation Lifeline Sudan in 1998. To date, some US$33 million has 460
  been committed to the appeal. A number of donors, including the UK, announced additional contributions at a meeting held on 18 May. Since February, Britain has committed £10.23 million to OLS.

  Debt Relief
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the IMF and World bank concerning debt relief to Rwanda; and if she will make a statement. [42878]

  Clare Short
  Rwanda's debt burden is severe, and one of a number of constraints on the Government's capacity to make progress towards achieving the poverty reduction targets. On 19 May, I convened an informal meeting in Brussels to discuss how external assistance could help relieve these constraints. The IMF and World bank were represented. These discussions will continue at a donars' meeting that the Government of Rwanda and the World bank will hold in Stockholm on 2–3 June. At that meeting, Britain will announce a significant contribution to a new multi-donor debt trust fund designed to ease Rwanda's debt burden in the period leading up to eligibility under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative become available.

  Leaders at the G8 Summit in Birmingham recognised the need to respond to the exceptional needs of poor post-conflict countries such as Rwanda as they rebuild their political, economic and social systems, and agreed that, particularly for those countries with arrears to the international financial institutions, there was a need for debt relief mechanisms to be used to release more resources, and more quickly, for essential rehabilitation. We shall be pressing for this work to be taken forward urgently.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the cost to her Department of the accelerated programme of debt relief proposed under the Mauritius mandate. [42879]

  Clare Short
  The main element of the Mauritius mandate is to press for faster implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries debt initiative. To help achieve this aim, the Department for International Development is prepared to contribute to international efforts to ensure speedy debt relief to HIPC countries. We have contributed $10.5 million to help Uganda, have pledged $10 million to help Mozambique, and may contribute to others, but at this stage it is not possible to quantify the total likely cost.

  As part of the mandate, I indicated that I was willing to cancel the remaining aid debts owed to the UK Government by lower-income Commonwealth countries, provided the poor benefited from this action. The potential cost of this is up to £132 million. The mandate also signalled our readiness to finance through the aid programme technical assistance to poor countries, particularly those in the Commonwealth, to assist in debt management. We are providing over £750,000-worth of

  461
  technical assistance to the Governments of Tanzania and Nepal for this purpose. We have also agreed to contribute £400,000 to the core costs of Debt Relief International, an organisation that provides technical assistance in debt management to HIPC countries.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [42816]

  Clare Short
  My Department's action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Examinations (Continuous Assessment)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement the recommendation of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association for a review of the continuous assessment part of standard grade and higher examinations; what advice he has given to teachers in dealing with suspected plagiarism in internal assessment reports; and if he will make a statement. [40252]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: Responsibility for the setting and marking of both standard grade and higher grade examinations rests with the Scottish Qualifications Authority. To ensure the quality and rigour of its qualifications, the authority works closely with experts in the education and training fields; it provides schools with clear guidance on internal assessment, including advice on suspected plagiarism; and it closely monitors assessment arrangements in schools.

  Independent research has recently confirmed the successful maintenance of standards in higher grade examinations. In relation to standard grade examinations,

  £

  Year

  Dounreay

  Hunterston A

  Hunterston B

  Torness

  Chapelcross

  Year total

  1995–96

  65,223

  22,048

  1—

  19,425

  24,629

  131,325

  1996–97

  175,297

  18,791

  65,554

  37,095

  24,016

  320,753

  Totals

  240,520

  40,839

  65,554

  56,520

  48,645

  452,078

  1 Charges relating to Hunterston for 1995–96 were not site specific between A and B

  £

  Year

  Dounreay

  Hunterston A

  Hunterston B

  Torness

  Chapelcross

  Year total

  1989–90

  326,817

  179,412

  303,481

  452,218

  427,341

  1,689,269

  1990–91

  858,403

  92,339

  262,917

  354,151

  350,458

  1,918,268

  1991–92

  732,124

  134,135

  484,053

  382,480

  376,212

  2,109,004

  1992–93

  676,245

  91,730

  310,901

  283,845

  232,206

  1,594,927

  1993–94

  427,784

  182,368

  334,895

  453,121

  292,288

  1,690,456

  1994–95

  426,858

  246,784

  369,096

  446,393

  327,061

  1,816,192

  1995–96

  566,086

  305,263

  604,169

  530,251

  344,368

  2,350,137

  1996–97

  673,569

  176,740

  1,258,656

  373,330

  297,647

  2,779,942

  Totals

  4,687,886

  1,408,771

  3,928,168

  3,275,789

  2,647,581

  15,948,195

  462
  the Scottish Qualifications Authority decided, having consulted the teaching profession about the continuous assessment aspect and in order to address concerns about work load, that the investigating element should be withdrawn for some subjects from 1999.

  These matters are kept under constant review, as befits their importance, and the Scottish Qualifications Authority will continue to take careful account of the views of the teaching profession in relation to future developments.

  Agriculture Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to his Department of administering grants to agriculture in the last year; and how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff were involved. [42437]

  Mr. Macdonald
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the annual cost to his Department or public bodies responsible to his Department, since May 1979, of the oversight and implementation of environmental safety at(a) Dounreay nuclear power establishment, (b) Hunterston nuclear plant, (c) Torness nuclear plant and (d) Chapelcross nuclear materials production plant. [39671]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: Such information as is readily available is shown in the tables. The first table comprises information relating to charges raised in connection with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's inspection and monitoring duties at nuclear sites. The site operators are liable for payment of these charges, which are intended to cover the cost to the Agency of undertaking such duties. The second table shows the costs incurred by the Health and Safety Executive in connection with regulation safety at nuclear sites. Nuclear operators pay the HSE charges, which are broadly designed to meet these costs.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list by fire service board in Scotland,(a) the level of the capital expenditure budget and (b) the number and capital cost of fire appliances expected to be acquired for the current financial year; [41814]

  Fire brigade1

  Central Scotland

  Dumfries and Galloway3

  Fife

  Grampian3

  Highlands and Islands

  Lothian and Borders

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  1995–96

  Capital expenditure budget (£000)

  945

  300

  469

  1,362

  1,460

  1,520

  4,450

  717

  Fire appliances2 acquired:

  number

  2

  0

  3

  0

  4

  4

  15

  2

  cost (£000)

  210

  —

  1—

  —

  384

  480

  1,613

  235

  Average age of fleet (years)

  6.6

  7.5

  7.6

  7

  8.5

  8

  7.3

  6.5

  1996–97

  Capital expenditure budget (£000)

  885

  585

  852

  2,290

  1,575

  1,732

  6,490

  1,571

  Fire appliances2 acquired:

  number

  2

  50

  2

  0

  4

  6

  13

  2

  cost (£000)

  217

  158

  229

  —

  400

  770

  1,115

  216

  Average age of fleet (years)

  7

  8.5

  6.8

  8

  8.3

  7.5

  6.0

  7.1

  1997–98

  Capital expenditure budget (£000)

  1,058

  515

  826

  1,457

  1,696

  2,421

  6,365

  1,232

  Fire appliances2 acquired:

  number

  3

  4

  3

  8

  5

  5

  4

  4

  cost (£000)

  330

  350

  353

  837

  436

  670

  5966

  446

  Average age of fleet (years)

  6.7

  7.5

  7.1

  7

  7.1

  7.5

  4.6

  7

  1998–99

  Capital expenditure budget (£000)

  2,175

  479

  777

  1,361

  1,576

  2,457

  5,734

  1,134

  Fire appliances2 acquired:

  number

  2

  1+1 chassis

  2

  6

  5

  4

  4

  4

  cost (£000)

  220

  160

  240

  650

  472

  450

  435

  430

  1 The information is given for all 8 Scottish Fire Brigades: Dumfries and Galloway Fire Brigade and Fife Fire and Rescue Service are directly administered by the Councils for those areas, not by joint boards

  2 The information relates to operational fire appliances of the conventional type. Aerial and other special appliances, and light fire appliances, have been excluded

  3 Vehicle purchase to some extent funded from revenue

  4 Up to 1996–97 Fife Fire and Rescue Service's appliances were all leased

  5 Expenditure is shown, here and elsewhere in the table, in the year in which it was incurred. Brigades frequently purchase chassis in one year and take delivery of completed fire appliances in the following year

  Source:

  Returns from brigades

  Pensions Agency
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the key performance targets he has set for the Scottish Office Pensions Agency for 1998–99. [43588]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have set the Scottish Office Pensions Agency the following key performance targets for 1998–99:

  To ensure that 99.5% of awards and transfer payments are accurate.

  To pay on time 99.5% of all pensions and lumps sums where the target date for receipt of claims is met.

  To make transfer payments within 12 working days of members' final instructions to transfer pensions rights.

  To ensure that 97% of contributions due from employers of teachers are received within 15 days of the end of the month to which they relate.

  To reduce total identified operating costs per member/beneficiary by 5% in real terms.

  464
  (2) if he will list by fire service board in Scotland, (a) the level of the capital expenditure budget, (b) the number and capital cost of fire appliances acquired and (c) the average age of the fleet of fire appliances for financial years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [41815]

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

  Criminals (Repatriation to UK)
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many United Kingdom citizens convicted of criminal offences abroad and deported back to the United Kingdom in the years 1990 to 1997 have re-offended in Scotland; [41738]

  (2) how many criminals convicted of murder or homicide abroad and deported back to the United Kingdom in the years 1990 to 1997 have re-offended in Scotland; [41739]

  (3) how many United Kingdom citizens, convicted of murder or homicide abroad have been deported back to the United Kingdom and have come to reside in Scotland in each year since 1990; [41740]

  (4) how many United Kingdom citizens convicted of criminal offences abroad have been deported back to the United Kingdom and have come to reside in Scotland in each year since 1990. [41741]
  465
  Mr. McLeish
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers he received today from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Neither the information relating to re-offending nor that on place of residence is held centrally.

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes have been made to the previously reported targets for Forest Enterprise for 1997–98 and 1998–99. [43587]

  Mr. Dewar
  The targets for Forest Enterprise in 1997/98 and 1998/99 were changed to take account of the fall in timber prices and our moratorium on large scale sales of forest land. The original and the amended targets are as follows:

  £ million

  Original target

  Amended target

  1997–98

  Cash Surplus

  28.7

  24.7

  1998–99

  Cash Surplus

  33.7

  29.8

  Operating Profit

  18.6

  12.4

  Cubic Metres of Wood Harvested

  5.0

  5.1

  Income from Disposals of Buildings and Land

  25.0

  10.0

  Copies of the agency's corporate plan, which contains more detail about the agency's targets, will be placed in the Library of the House when it is published in June.

  Performance measures

  Key targets

  The number of prisoners unlawfully at large

  No A category prisoners should escape

  The number of escapes by B category prisoners should be no higher than 1.00 per 1,000 prisoners

  The number of escapes by C category prisoners should be no higher than 1.6 per 1,000 prisoners

  The number of serious assaults on staff and prisoners

  The number of serious assaults on staff should be no higher than 3 per 1,000 staff

  The number of serious assaults on other prisoners should be less than the 1997–98 outturn

  Basic quality of life for prisoners

  By end March 1999, 71 per cent. of prisoners will have access to forms of night sanitation

  The amount of available opportunities for prisoners' self-development

  To ensure that 600 prisoners have completed a cognitive skills programme and 60 prisoners have completed a sex offender programme during 1998–99

  Average annual cost per prisoner place

  To keep costs within £27,904 per place available for use

  The level of absence through staff sickness

  To reduce the average number of days lost per person per year through staff sickness to 14

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the remit of the safety review currently being conducted of the fuel cycle area at Dounreay. [43068]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The review was announced on 15 May and is being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the

  Forestry Commission Research Agency
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets have been set for the Forestry Commission Research Agency for the current financial year. [43590]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Forestry Commission Research Agency has been set the following targets:

  To achieve at least 92 per cent. customer satisfaction by value and by customer numbers.

  To have the entomology research programme reviewed by a Visiting Group during the financial year and have confirmation that the research does meet current quality standards.

  To increase the output of peer-reviewed scientific papers submitted and subsequently accepted for publication by 5 per cent. on the 1997–98 figure.

  To achieve a 2 per cent. real cost reduction in the weighted average unit cost of chargeable staff days in 1998–99 compared with 1997–98.

  To achieve full cost recovery from customers.

  Copies of the agency's corporate plan, which contains more detail about these targets, will be placed in the Library when it is published in June.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he has set for the Scottish Prison Service, as an executive agency for 1998–99. [43589]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have set the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service the following targets:

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The terms of reference are to carry out a detailed audit of the management of safety at Dounreay, including: the effects of contractorisation; the management of reprocessing operations; the management of radioactive waste; the management of decommissioning; the arrangements for dealing with incidents; the interface between Dounreay and UKAEA's corporate management; and to make recommendations and publish a report.

  Nurse Prescribing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has to extend prescribing powers to district nurses and health visitors in the two demonstration sites to the whole of Scotland; and what further expenditure has been planned in order to facilitate this process. [42570]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There is a commitment to continue with the phased roll-out of the nurse prescribing scheme across Scotland.

  We have been proactively extending the scheme from the original two demonstration sites in May 1997, and by the end of May 1998 there will be 550 nurse prescribers in Scotland.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the number of (i) district nurses and (ii) health visitors who are currently able to prescribe from the nurse formulary in Scotland, (b) the locations in which they are currently working, (c) the total public expenditure involved to date and (d) the level of public expenditure per location. [42571]

  Mr. Galbraith
  (a) By the end of May 1998, there will be 550 nurse prescribers in Scotland. A breakdown of this figure into district nurses and health visitors is not held centrally.

  (b) The locations currently covered by those nurse prescribers are:

  Location

  Number

  Ayrshire and Arran

  80

  Borders

  30

  Grampian

  90

  Glasgow

  100

  Highland

  40

  Lanarkshire

  40

  Lothian

  90

  Tayside

  80

  Total

  550

  Table 1: Education authority school pupils receiving free transport 1992–97; number of pupils by sector

  Year (at September)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19972

  Number:

  Total1

  153,114

  155,949

  156,976

  156,953

  145,107

  147,133

  Primary

  46,529

  47,834

  48,003

  47,505

  44,499

  46,458

  Secondary

  94,569

  95,729

  97,910

  98,136

  89,001

  88,040

  1 Includes pupils in special schools and departments and self-governing schools

  2 Provisional

  Table 2: Education authority school pupils receiving free transport 1992–97; number of pupil journeys by type of transport

  Year (at September)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19972

  Number:1,3

  Total

  153,692

  156,587

  157,609

  157,921

  145,543

  148,687

  Bus:

  Public

  45,314

  45,239

  39,857

  40,022

  25,822

  39,835

  EA

  6,017

  4,932

  5,130

  5,217

  4,714

  4,848

  468
  A further 25 nurses each from Argyll and Clyde, Dumfries and Galloway, Fife and Forth Valley Health Boards began training in April 1998 with an anticipated completion date of September 1998. Training for the 100 nurses eligible to prescribe in the three Island Boards will begin in June with an anticipated completion date of December 1998/January 1999.

  (c) The expenditure to end of March 1998 is £123,601.

  (d) Each health board is allocated £100 per capita to help support the cost of staff replacement for nurses undertaking nurse prescribing training. The academic institutions providing the training are paid £85 per capita.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the Scottish Local Government Boundary Commission proposals for the new local government boundaries in the Scottish Borders council area. [42572]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has not yet submitted its report on the electoral boundaries for the Scottish Borders council, although it is expected by the end of June.

  School Transport
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the average number of school children in Scotland travelling by school transport each day and (b) the number of (i) fatalities and (ii) injuries of school children involved in road accidents associated with school transport in each of the last five years. [42421]

  Mr. Wilson
  Tables 1 and 2 show the number of schoolchildren in Scotland provided with free transport. The figures are derived from a survey of school transport provided by education authorities in September each year.

  Table 3 shows the number of road accident casualties in Scotland who were school pupils going to or from school by minibus, bus or coach for each of the last five years for which figures are available. It is not possible to identify how many of these were travelling in school transport provided by education authorities.
  469

  Table 2: Education authority school pupils receiving free transport 1992–97; number of pupil journeys by type of transport

  Year (at September)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19972

  Contract:

  Bus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  71,334

  Minibus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,289

  Taxi or hire cars

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16,938

  Total Contract

  91,046

  94,064

  98,023

  98,348

  98,009

  101,561

  Train

  1,719

  1,691

  1,855

  2,855

  2,193

  1,726

  Other

  9,596

  10,661

  12,744

  12,141

  15,549

  717

  1 Number of pupils

  2 Provisional

  3 Pupils are counted once for each method of transport used

  Note:

  A revised classification of school transport was introduced for the 1997 survey; figures are therefore not fully comparable with those for earlier years.

  Table 3: School child casualties (age 4–16) travelling to or from school by minibus, bus or coach in Scotland

  Year

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Killed

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Injured

  49

  48

  116

  48

  82

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the Scottish Local Government Boundary Commission proposals for the new local government boundaries in the Scottish Borders council area. [42572]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has not yet submitted its report on the electoral boundaries for the Scottish Borders council, although it is expected by the end of June.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the remit of the safety review currently being conducted of the fuel cycle area at Dounreay. [43068]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The review was announced on 15 May and is being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The terms of reference are to carry out a detailed audit of the management of safety at Dounreay, including: the effects of contractorisation; the management of reprocessing operations; the management of radioactive waste; the management of decommissioning; the arrangements for dealing with incidents; the interface between Dounreay and UKAEA' s corporate management; and to make recommendations and publish a report.

WALES

  New Deal Funding
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total estimated amount of new deal funding to be provided in Wales for (i) young people and (ii) disabled people. [42672]
  470
  Mr. Hain
  The new deal is about meeting individual needs, and therefore expenditure will be determined by the number of eligible people taking-up the opportunities and the nature of their requirements.

  On the basis of the planning assumptions for 1998–99, we anticipate expenditure in Wales on the new deal for 18–24 year olds to be around £20 million to £25 million.

  Expenditure on people with disabilities is more difficult to estimate at this stage because the new deal for disabled people includes a number of initiatives which are currently under development. I am delighted that we have recently secured for Wales one of the first six personal adviser service pilots, which will be in the eastern valleys.

  In addition to this, both the new deal for 18–24 year olds and the new deal for those aged 25 and over will provide assistance to people with disabilities who are in receipt of the job seekers' allowance and who join these programmes.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the competitiveness of manufacturing industry in Wales, with particular reference to the steel production centres in Wales. [42447]

  Mr. Hain
  According to the annual census of production 1996, figures indicate that manufacturing productivity in Wales was around eight per cent. higher than in the UK and around 48 per cent. higher for metals manufacturing compared to the UK. Figures relating to the competitiveness of the steel production centres in Wales are not available.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department has taken following the recent redundancies announced at Assi Doran Buckley, and Kimberley Clark, Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [42455]

  Mr. Hain
  The training and enterprise council (CELTEC) and the Employment Service in North Wales are liaising with both companies' consultants to see what help can be given to the staff who are to be made redundant. As a "significant redundancy", employees from both companies can be considered for training for work immediately rather than having to wait six months.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he encourages competitiveness in small businesses in Wales, with particular reference to export-dependent manufacturing businesses. [42450]

  Mr. Hain
  Improving the competitiveness of small firms will be one of the key issues addressed by the economic strategy for Wales which will be published shortly.

  Export-dependent small manufacturing businesses have access to a wide range of overseas trade services provided by the Welsh Office and others. This includes subsidised trade missions, export market advice, and help in identifying potential new customers; and I am keen to see full use made of these important services.

  Automotive Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement as to how he assists the automotive industry in Wales, with particular reference to the Toyota Engine Plant, Deeside, North East Wales. [42448]

  Mr. Hain
  There is a wide range of assistance available to the automotive industry in Wales including, amongst other things, grant aid under the regional selective assistance, regional innovation grant, SMART, SPUR schemes; business advice; export advice; help with training; help with sourcing components; identifying land, property etc. Some of the support mechanisms are restricted to smaller enterprises but the Toyota engine plant at Deeside could avail itself of many of the above sources of assistance.

  Further Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those further education colleges which are currently in deficit; and by how much. [42613]

  Mr. Hain
  The further education institutions in Wales that reported historic cost deficits in their audited financial statements for the academic year ending 31 July 1997 are set out in the table.

  £000

  FE Institution

  Deficit

  Deeside College

  982

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  11

  Gorseinon College

  124

  Gwent Tertiary College

  2,418

  Merthyr Tydfil College

  800

  Pontypridd College

  114

  WEA North

  44

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students were in further education in Wales at the time of incorporation of the further education colleges; and what have been the annual changes in numbers since incorporation. [42647]
  472
  Mr. Hain
  The numbers of full-time equivalent students in further education in Wales for the period 1992–98 are set out in the table:

  Financial year

  Full-time equivalent students

  1992–93

  41,860

  1993–94

  47,068

  1994–95

  50,409

  1995–96

  54,631

  1996–97

  59,228

  1997–98

  61,112

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the budget for further education in each year since incorporation and what the budget will be for 1998–99; and what percentage change has occurred since incorporation. [42646]

  Mr. Hain
  The total resources made available to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales (FEFCW) on an annual cash basis for the period 1993–99 are set out in the table:

  Financial Year

  Total resources to FEFCW (£m)

  Percentage change

  1993–94

  143.0

  —

  1994–95

  169.7

  18.7

  1995–96

  175.9

  3.7

  1996–97

  177.7

  1.0

  1997–98

  180.5

  1.6

  1998–99

  176.0

  (-2.5)

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the nature and scope of his responsibilities in relation to the review of European structural funds in respect of Wales, indicating the timetable for action by his Department. [42473]

  Mr. Hain
  We are fully involved in the formulation of UK Government policy on structural fund reform, and our primary interests are to safeguard the position of Wales. Welsh Office officials form part of the UK delegation, co-ordinated by the DTI, negotiating the draft regulations with the Commission in Brussels. No deadline has been set for the conclusion of the negotiations, but the new funding period (2000–2006) commences on 1 January 2000.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) temporary, (b) part-time and (c) seasonal staff worked in (i) the agricultural department and (ii) other departments of the Welsh Office in (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99. [42435]
  473
  Mr. Ron Davies
  (a) The number of temporary/ seasonal staff who worked in the Agricultural Department and in the other Departments of the Welsh Office as at 1 April 1997 and 1 April 1998 is as follows:

  Date

  Temporary/seasonal staff in Agriculture

  Other departments of the WO

  1 April 1997

  74

  120

  1 April 1998

  95

  125

  (b) The number of permanent part-time staff who worked in the Agricultural Department and in the other Departments of the Welsh Office as at 1 April 1997 and 1 April 1998 is as follows:

  Date

  Temporary/seasonal staff in Agriculture

  Other departments of the WO

  1 April 1997

  37

  240

  1 April 1998

  34

  235

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to notify the economic development non-departmental public bodies in Wales of his strategic guidance and targets for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [43545]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have today written to the chairmen of the Welsh Development Agency (WDA), the Development Board for Rural Wales (DBRW), Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (CBDC), the Land Authority for Wales (LAW) and the Wales Tourist Board (WTB), to inform them of my strategic targets and priorities for 1998–99. Copies of the letters have been placed in the Library of the House.

  With the forthcoming establishment of the economic powerhouse, I will need to reconsider the priorities and targets for the enlarged agency later in the year. I have therefore set targets for the WDA, DBRW and LAW for only the first six months of the current financial year. However, the targets I have set are demanding and include private sector investment of over £400 million and the creation or safeguarding of over 8,000 jobs.

  National Assembly
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the responsibilities in respect of the(a) regulation of and (b) payment of subsidy to the railways to be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. [43131]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Government's policy on devolution is that the National Assembly will take over virtually all of my functions as Secretary of State for Wales. This means that responsibility for the regulation and financial support of the railways will remain with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The National Assembly will, however, assume responsibility for the payment of freight facilities grant under sections 139 and 140 of the Railways Act 1993.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is taking with regard to the introduction of professional Rugby League in Wales. [43086]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  School Transport
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the average number of school children in Wales travelling by school transport each day and (b) the number of (i) fatalities and (ii) injuries of school children involved in road accidents associated with school transport in each of the last five years. [42422]

  Mr. Hain
  The average number of children (aged four to 16) resident in Great Britain in 1992–96 who travelled to school by bus each day was about 1.7 million. Of these, about 0.5 million used a school bus. This centrally available information is from the national travel survey. Reliable estimates are not available separately for Wales.

  Details of reported accidents to 4 to 16 year olds in Wales on their way to or from school as passengers on buses, coaches or minibuses for the period requested are set out in the following table.

  Reported casualties of school children travelling to or from school by bus, coach or minibus (includes motor caravans) in Wales

  Year

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  1992

  0

  65

  1993

  1

  106

  1994

  0

  170

  1995

  0

  99

  1996

  0

  98

  19971

  0

  63

  1 Provisional.

DEFENCE

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and where the next Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition will be held. [41945]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are currently considering the future of the Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates(a) employees of and (b) personnel connected with Sandline International boarded HMS 'Monmouth' during her recent deployment to West Africa. [42558]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: So far as we have been able to establish, at no time did any person identified to be an employee of, or known to be connected with, Sandline International board HMS Monmouth during her recent deployment to West Africa.

  Bulldog Trainer Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make an announcement on the award of the contract to replace Bulldog trainer aircraft. [43022]

  Dr. Reid
  "Best and final offers" have been sought from the bidders in this competition. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement of preferred bidder and choice of aircraft as soon as possible after their evaluation.

  Royal Tournament
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the dates and locations for the Royal Tournament in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000; [43040]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Tournament. [43041]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Royal Tournament will be held at Earl's Court between 20 July and 1 August in 1999.

  For the next Century, the Royal Tournament will need to attract audiences and present the Armed Forces in a modern and effective manner which will assist recruiting. I have therefore commissioned a study to identify the options to meet that requirement for 2000 and beyond. It will report in the summer.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rivers Agency
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rivers Agency for the financial year 1998–99. [43345]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Rivers Agency for 1998–99.

  To construct or refurbish 0.59 km of urban flood defences.

  To increase the length of designated sea defences having appropriate standards of protection to 30.25%.

  To accommodate increased storm run-off from 390 hectares of development land.

  To replace/refurbish 2.0 km of dangerous culverts.

  To complete maintenance works on 265 km of urban watercourses and 1,360 km of rural watercourses.

  To construct 17 new water recreation projects throughout Northern Ireland.

  To issue substantive replies to 80% of written inquiries within 15 working days of receipt.

  To respond to 98% of Schedule 6 applications within 3 months.

  To aim to have all navigation locks operable for at least 90% of the year.

  To control programme expenditure to within 0.5% shortfall of the final control total.

  To control DRC expenditure to within 1% shortfall of the final control total.

  To achieve 3% efficiency savings in the 1998–99 financial year.

  The Rivers Agency Business Plan for 1998–99 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament at a later date.

  Health and Social Services Estates Agency
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes were made to the performance targets for 1997–98 announced on 17 June 1997 for the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency; and what performance targets have been set for 1998–99. [43346]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Modifications to some of the 1997/98 targets for the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates agency were deemed appropriate after due consideration of the changes to clients' specifications for services. The modified targets are as follows:

  Deliver to the Health and Social Services Executive (HSSE) the annual Fire Report on the Health and Personal Social Services (HPSS) estate by March 1998.

  Complete for HSS Trust clients 8 Outline Business Cases of total estimated capital value £29m.

  Complete tender process and move to construction stage 4 schemes of estimated capital value £99.24m.

  Project Manage to completion on site, 11 schemes of estimated total capital value £4.435m.

  Provide lead Clerks of Works Inspection Services on Craigavon Hospital, Causeway Hospital, Altnagelvin Hospital and the Royal Group of Hospitals on projects valued at £126.35m.

  Complete an Electricity at Work Regulation compliance survey, and tender a compliance works contract for one Trust hospital site.

  The targets which have been set for 1998/99 are in line with the Government's policy of seeking to improve the services provided to clients in terms of both quality and value for money. I am satisfied that the targets present a demanding challenge for the agency. They are as follows:

  Delivery of Services
  Provide the Agency's services in accordance with the requirements of the Service Level Agreements with clients.
  Review the Department's fire safety policy documentation for the Health and Personal Social Services and deliver to the HSSE the annual Fire Report on the HPSS estates by March 1999.
  Assess and advise the HSSE on 60% of capital investment business case submissions within 20 working days, subject to a maximum of 15 business cases per annum.
  provide a report on progress towards meeting Government targets on green issues by March 1999.
  Provide the HSSE with a Defects Centre in relation to the HPSS Estate. Investigate and clear 60% of all adverse incidents within 6 months of notification to Health Estates subject to a maximum of 120 adverse incidents per annum.
  Complete for HSS Trust clients 5 Outline Business Cases of capital value £11.0m approximately.
  Project manage the PFI process for one scheme with estimated capital value £9m.
  Complete planning and design team briefing for 3 schemes with estimated capital value £33m.
  Complete the tendering process and move to on-site construction stage for 2 schemes with total value £1.2m.
  Project manage to completion 6 schemes with total capital value £9m approximately.
  Project manage during construction 4 schemes for which final completion dates fall outside the year (total capital value £126m approximately).
  Complete architectural design or manage clients contracts to achieve Practical Completion of up to 15 schemes (value £4.5m approximately).

  477
  Issue Completion of Defects Certificates for 65% of clients schemes within 6 months of Defects Lists being provided to contractor, and for 90% within a further 6 months.
  Issue Final Certificates within 3 months of the issue of Making Good Defects Certificates on 60% of architect led contracts, the remaining certificates to be issued within a further 12 months (except where there are outstanding contact matters or other legal process).
  Complete 80% of periodic specialist sterilise equipment tests and environmental tests by the programmed dates and the remainder within 7 weeks of that date subject to a maximum client request for this service of 465 man days.
  Complete 75% of diagnostic equipment and laboratory equipment acceptance tests, and other tests within 6 weeks of receipt of written request and the remainder within 10 weeks.
  Complete 75% of the initial evaluations for Electro-medical Equipment Projects within 6 weeks of receipt of written request and the remainder within 10 weeks. Complete Electro-medical Equipment Projects within 10 months of clients providing their instruction to proceed.
  Undertake a review of one third of the plans in place for High Voltage, Low Voltage and Medical Gas Pipelines Systems in the HPSS.

  Financial Management and Efficiency
  To operate the Agency within its 1998/99 funding allocation and in doing so ensure its 3 year rolling efficiency programme delivers average annual savings at least equivalent to pay and price increases.
  Ensure that the Agency's financial accounting and information systems are adequate to support the preparation of auditable accounts for 1998/99.

  A copy of the targets is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to publish details of the targets for the Child Support Agency; and if she will make a statement. 43347]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Child Support Agency will publish its 1998–99 Business Plan and Strategic Plan 1998–2001 today. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The targets that I have set for the Child Support Agency for 1998–99 are as follows:
  15.8 million of maintenance to be collected or arranged for direct payment from absent parents to parents with care.
  97 per cent. of payments made to parents with care to be made within 10 working days of receipt from the absent parent.
  The cash value of all assessments checked in the year to be correct in at least 75 per cent. of cases.
  Where a client is dissatisfied with a child support officer's decision and requests a review; 80 per cent. to be cleared in 13 weeks.
  65 per cent. of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 22 weeks and as at 31 March 1999 no more than 0.5 per cent. of work outstanding to be over 52 weeks.
  To manage the Agency's resources so as to deliver its Business Plan within the gross budget allocation as adjusted during the course of the year, this includes the administration of the Belfast CSAC.

  The targets in the Business Plan present the Agency with a challenging but attainable objective which should lead to improvements both in client service and in the maintenance flowing between parents.

  Roads Service
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to improve the competitiveness of the Roads Service; and what performance targets have been set for the agency in 1998–99. [43348]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Following a re-examination of the Roads Service market testing commitments in the light of the Best Value principles, it has been agreed that the Roads Service should adopt a Best Value approach to the delivery of its services, based on performance measurement and the benchmarking of costs and quality of service with other organisations. This is now being developed in conjunction with the restructuring of the Agency. If internal costs prove to be uncompetitive and cannot be improved sufficiently then market testing and contracting out remain as options.

  For 1998/99, the following performance targets have been set for Roads Service:

  Finance

  1. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budget plans.

  2. Within the provision allocated, deliver an overall efficiency saving of 3 per cent. in running costs.

  Output/Effectiveness

  3. To maintain the Motorway network so that at least 85 per cent. has a residual life' of more than 5 years.

  4. To maintain the Trunk Road Network so that at least 75 per cent. has a residual life of more than 5 years.

  5. To maintain the condition of other roads so that the overall Road Condition Index' does not exceed 85.

  6. To reduce by 40 per cent. the total number of injury accidents occurring at treated sites over the 3 years following the works.

  Quality of Customer Services
  7. To achieve consistently the key standards of service set out in the Road User's Charter Statement.

  Efficiency
  8. The unit cost of managing the road network to be 2 per cent. lower, in real terms, than the 1997–98 outturn figure.

  1 The maximum period remaining before the road will require major reconstruction. The higher the residual life figure, the better the condition.

  2 Obtained from analysing the results of inspection surveys covering a sample of the network. The lower the condition index figure, the better the condition.

  Water Service
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what key performance targets have been set for the Water Service in 1998–99. [43349]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1998–99, the following key performance targets have been set for the Water Service:

  1. To achieve 98.2 per cent. compliance with drinking water standards set in the Water Quality Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994.

  2. To achieve 67 per cent. compliance with the wastewater treatment works discharge standards set by the Environment and Heritage Service.

  3. To ensure that fewer than 0.8 per cent. of properties experience unplanned interruptions to water supplies lasting greater than 12 hours.

  4. To issue substantive replies to 90 per cent. of written complaints within 15 working days of receipt.

  5. To deliver water at a unit cost of 62 p per cubic metre.

  479

  6. To treat wastewater at a unit cost of 55 p per cubic metre.

  7. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budget plans.

  8. To achieve efficiency gains of 3 per cent. on running costs expenditure.

  The targets are included in the Water Service's 1998–99 Business Plan, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland in 1998–99. [43350]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1998–99 the following key performance targets have been set for the Agency:Output

  1. To dispatch 96 per cent. of registration books for new vehicles in 16 working days from receipt.

  2. To dispatch 95 per cent. of refunds of vehicle excise duty in 10 working days from receipt.

  3. To dispatch 95 per cent. of vehicle excise licences in 5 working days from receipt of postal application.

  4. To dispatch 95 per cent. of duplicate vehicle registration books in 6 working days from receipt of applications.

  5. To dispatch 91 per cent. of ordinary driving licences in 9 working days from receipt of applications.

  6. To dispatch 91 per cent. of vocational driving licences in 9 working days from receipt of applications.

  7. To dispatch 91 per cent. of provisional driving licences in 9 working days from receipt of application.

  8. To dispatch substantive replies to 96 per cent. of written inquiries for information from the drivers and vehicles registers in 3 working days from receipt.

  Efficiency

  9. To limit maximum waiting time at Local Vehicle Licensing Offices so that 95 per cent. of customers are attended to within 22 minutes during peak periods (the first 8 and the last 2 working days of each months) and within 10 minutes at other periods.

  10. To meet an overall efficiency gain of 2.5 per cent.

  Financial

  11. To reduce the unit cost per vehicle excise enforcement case by 0.5 per cent. in real terms compared with 1997–98.

  Quality

  12. To limit the error rate (errors on any item sent out by the Agency) to a maximum of 0.5 per cent. of total Agency output.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many(a) retail outlets in total and (b) public houses, sell National Lottery scratchcards; [34158]

  (2) how many (a) retail outlets in total and (b) public houses sell National Lottery tickets. [34159]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 12 March 1998]: The type and number of outlets selling National Lottery tickets and scratchcards ("Instants") is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked the Acting Director-General of the National Lottery, who is
  480
  responsible for regulating the operation of the Lottery, to write to the hon. Member and copies of his response will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when his Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [42825]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department's action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what is the average attendance fee of(a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department; [42824]

  (2) what is the average salary of (a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department. [42823]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Most board members of non-departmental public bodies given their time and services voluntarily and receive no payment other than normal travel and subsistence expenses. Where remuneration is payable, it can take the form of an annual salary, an honorarium or an attendance fee (which itself can be a daily or a half-daily rate, or calculated on a per meeting or per case basis). Individuals' remuneration therefore is not directly comparable. Full details of all payments to board members of non-departmental bodies, by gender, are, however, given in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1997" are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42637]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not operate a monitoring exercise of persistent inquiries for information.

  Swimming
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will launch a national media campaign(a) to make children aware of water safety and (b) to encourage them to learn to swim. [41452]

  Mr. Banks
  Swimming has my full support, as it is one of our healthiest recreational pursuits. I am keen to see children participate at the earliest possible opportunity and through the English Sports Council, the Government are encouraging the Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) to provide an opportunity for everyone to learn to swim. The ASA receives £215,000 grant-in-aid from the English Sports Council, and a proportion of this money helps to fund this initiative.

  Indemnity Scheme
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given by departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six-month period ended 31 March; and what was the value of(a) any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remain outstanding as at 31 March, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remain outstanding as at 31 March and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remain outstanding at 31 March. [43579]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non rational institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or bringing into the public domain the conclusions of any study.

  In the six-month period ended 31 March 1998, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions.

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 31 March 1998 is:

  £

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  1,568,106,674

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  34,704,728

  Welsh Office Education Department

  39,141,000

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  9,123,490

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March 1998 is £9,000,000.

  The value of non-statutory Undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March 1998 is £155,667,655.

  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the cost in 1997–98 of the discretionary rate relief for voluntary sports clubs in England and Wales. [42911]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.
  482
  The most reliable figures that are available are estimates for 1998–99, when we expect about £35 million of relief to be granted to non-profit organisations in England and Wales. We do not have any breakdown of this figure between sports clubs and other non-profit making bodies.

  Some sports clubs have charitable status and are entitled to relief under the separate mandatory relief provisions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the responses to the public consultation on the White Paper, "The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change". [43436]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Government have received over a thousand responses to public consultation on the Food Standards Agency White Paper, reflecting the considerable importance that the British public attaches to issues of food safety and standards. The responses show widespread support for the general thrust of our proposals.

  The many useful comments we have received will inform the preparation of draft legislation, which will be published later in the summer for a final round of public consultation. We will also issue a detailed paper for separate consultation on the proposal to charge the food industry for a greater proportion of food safety costs. The Government are considering, alongside the White Paper responses, the comments made by the Agriculture Select Committee in its recent report on food safety, and will publish its response in due course.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of those responses to the White Paper for which confidentiality was not requested by the respondent. These are accompanied by an alphabetical index and a summary of comments on individual parts of the Government's proposals. All will be available in the Library for the next six months.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set criteria to govern the priorities of the research programme of the proposed Food Standards Agency. [42620]

  Mr. Rooker
  The proposed Food Standards Agency will have a substantial research budget to support its work on food safety and standards. It will be for the Agency to establish its research priorities, although it will no doubt wish to consult a wide range of interested parties.

  Genetically Modified Plant Varieties
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish his response to the discussion paper Weed Control of the Farm: Management of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops. [42971]
  483
  Mr. Rooker
  We expect to make an announcement in the near future.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which are the first five applications he has received for National Seed Listing of genetically modified varieties for which his Department will make a proposed listing decision; and when such decisions will be taken. [42970]

  Mr. Rooker
  The timing of applications for addition of plant varieties to the National List depends on crop species. Applications for the addition of two genetically modified spring oilseed rape varieties were submitted in December 1995, under the names "Socrates" and "Archimedes". At the same time, applications for plant breeders' rights were submitted for these two varieties. Applications for plant breeders' rights were also submitted for a further three varieties of spring oilseed rape in December 1995 (reference numbers AFP 35/853,

  AFP number

  Species

  National list applicant

  Trait of genetic modification

  45/798

  Sugar beet

  Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG. Germany

  Glufosinate resistance

  45/822

  Sugar beet

  Novartis Seeds AB. Sweden

  Glyphosate resistance

  45/813

  Sugar beet

  Danisco Seeds, UK

  Glyphosate resistance

  45/774

  Sugar beet

  Hilleshog AB. Sweden

  Glyphosate resistance

  45/749

  Sugar beet

  Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG. Germany

  Glufosinate resistance

  51/833

  Maize

  Van Der Have, Netherlands

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/959

  Oilseed rape

  Plant Genetic Systems, Belgium

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/960

  Oilseed rape

  Plant Genetic Systems, Belgium

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/1016

  Oilseed rape

  Deutsche Saatveredelung GmbH, Germany

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/1062

  Oilseed rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  Glyphosate resistance

  35/1174

  Oilseed rape

  Plant Genetic Systems, Belgium

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/1175

  Oilseed rape

  Plant Genetic Systems, Belgium

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/1176

  Oilseed rape

  Plant Genetic Systems, Belgium

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/1184

  Oilseed rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/1185

  Oilseed rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  Glyphosate resistance

  35/1205

  Oilseed rape

  Calgene Inc. USA

  High laurate

  35/1206

  Oilseed rape

  Calgene Inc. USA

  High laurate

  35/1210

  Oilseed rape

  Plant Genetic Systems, Belgium

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/1211

  Oilseed rape

  Plant Genetic Systems, Belgium

  Glufosinate resistance

  35/1222

  Oilseed rape

  Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. USA

  Glyphosate resistance

  Whaling
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Governments of Norway and Japan to bring about an end to the whaling activities of these countries within the designated whale sanctuary in Antarctic waters. [43090]

  Mr. Morley
  My Government colleagues and I take every opportunity to draw the attention of the Japanese and Norwegian Governments to our continuing opposition to the former' s whaling activities in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and to the latter's commercial whaling in the North Atlantic. The United Kingdom delegation will be making our views very clear at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission that is currently taking place in Oman.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the report of the inter-departmental committee on organophosphate pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [42615]
  484
  35/957 and 35/958), but no applications for addition to the National List were submitted in respect of these three varieties.

  Addition of a genetically modified plant variety to the National List does not, on its own, permit marketing. Appropriate consents must also be obtained in accordance with Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. A decision about whether to add the varieties "Socrates" and "Archimedes" to the National List will not be taken until the necessary marketing consents have been promulgated by the French Competent Authority, to whom the marketing application was submitted.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each application received for National Seed Listing of genetically modified varieties indicating the application number, the company name and the modified trait. [42972]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Rooker
  The report of the interdepartmental committee of officials on organophosphates is being considered by all relevant Ministers. The report and Ministers' conclusions on it will be published in due course.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning changes to quarantine regulations for domestic animals returning from EU countries. [42669]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has received numerous representations from members of the public and various organisations with an interest in the future of rabies control policy. I expect to receive the report of the Advisory Group on Quarantine in June. It will then be published and a full public consultation held.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many environmental
  485
  appraisals were produced by the European Commission to accompany proposals presented to the EU Agriculture Council on 16 and 17 February. [42663]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [42834]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Salt (Labelling)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that consumers are informed of salt levels in processed foods. [42925]

  Mr. Rooker
  The United Kingdom has proposed that EC legislation on nutrition labelling should be amended in order to require most processed food labels to carry quantitative information about sodium content.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the decision on the building of the Central Science Laboratory at Sand Hutton, York, relied upon the closure of the CSC Laboratories at Tony or at Norwich. [42998]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. The decision in 1991 to build the Central Science Laboratory at Sand Hutton, York took no account of the activities at either the Tony or Norwich Food Science Laboratories.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35123]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  At this stage, it is not possible to provide detailed figures for total expenditure on hospitality; engagements will obviously continue to arise up to the end of this month.

  However, the major events to take place during April and May have resulted from the UK's Presidency of the European Union. I hosted the Informal Council of EU Agriculture Ministers in Newcastle on 10–12 May, and there have been a number of related meetings at official level. Estimated hospitality expenditure for all these events is in the region of £275,000.

  Payments
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the deadlines for all payments to be made by his Department where annual claims are required; and if he will give the timescale for payment after receipt of claim for all other schemes. [41608]
  486
  Mr. Rooker
  The statutory payment deadlines for schemes administered by the Department, which require annual claims to be made, are as set out. (These do not include scheme payments by the Intervention Board).

  Arable Area Payments Scheme for cereals, linseed, proteins and set-aside (other than set-aside used for the production of non-food crops): by 31 December of the year of harvest. Payments on oilseeds are made in two instalments; an advance payment by 30 September of the year of harvest followed by a final payment within 60 days of the date of publication of the Regulation fixing the final regional reference amounts in the Official Journal of the European Communities (generally in February or March of the year following harvest). For set-aside land on which non-food crops are grown, the final date for payment is 31 March in the year following harvest.

  Grain Legumes Scheme: 60 days after the date of publication of the final amount of aid, which generally takes place during December of the marketing year in question.

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme and the Beef Special Premium Scheme: except in duly justified exceptional circumstances, by 30 June of the year following the calendar year in respect of which the premium is applied for.

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme: by 15 October following the end of the marketing year in respect of which the premium has been granted.

  Agri-environment Schemes: no later than 4 months after the end of the period to which the payment relates. In England, the schemes covered by this provision are: Countryside Stewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Nitrate Sensitive Areas, the Organic Aid Scheme, the Habitat Scheme, the Countryside Access Scheme and the Moorland Scheme. Payment periods vary both within and between these schemes.

  Apple and Pear Orchard Grubbing Up Grant Scheme 1998: not later than 4 months after the land has been inspected by MAFF officials to establish that grubbing up of the trees has taken place.

  There are two schemes operated by the Ministry for which statutory payment deadlines apply but for which there is no requirement for annual claims. These are, firstly, the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, for which the first annual payment is made during the twelve months following the payment of the first instalment of grant under the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme, and for which subsequent annual payments are made on 16 October in each year or on such other date as my right hon. Friend may decide; and, secondly, the Farm Woodland Scheme, for which annual payments are made on 1 October in each year or on such other date as my right hon. Friend may decide.

  The Department also administers a number of other schemes for which statutory payment deadlines have not been laid down.

  Green-top Milk
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the sale of green-top milk. [43186]
  487
  Mr. Rooker
  I will make an announcement in due course, when we have reviewed the public consultation responses in the light of scientific advice.

  Fur Breeders (Compensation)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans to ban fur breeding; and what estimate he has made of the cost of compensation to fur breeders. [42968]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government remain firmly committed to implementing their pre-election pledge to prohibit fur farming as soon as practicable. Such a ban must be implemented in accordance with national and international law and I am currently considering how our intention can best be implemented. An announcement will be made once I have decided how to proceed and there will be public consultation on any proposals for legislation to ban fur farming.

  Agricultural Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost to his Department of administering grants to agriculture in the last year; and how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff were involved. [42438]

  Mr. Morley
  The information could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. However, comprehensive information about the Department's activities, including details of the administration costs associated with each of its principal spending programmes for the year ending March 1998, is contained within the 1998 Departmental Report (Cm 3904), copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42252]

  Mr. Morley
  As the list is lengthy, the information has been placed in the Library.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county the total number of herds affected by tuberculosis outbreaks in 1997, separately identifying those where no previous outbreak had been recorded for 10 years. [28029]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 February 1998, c. 818]: I regret that some of the information given in my earlier reply was inaccurate. I am now able to give corrected, final data showing the number of herds confirmed by MAFF Divisional Veterinary Managers to have been affected by tuberculosis in 1997.

  The figures include those herds which continued to be affected with confirmed disease from previous years (ie those to which herd restrictions continued to apply during at least part of 1997) and those newly affected in 1997.
  488
  I have written to the hon. Member with the additional information which he requested, and copies of this letter have been placed in the Library of the House.

  County

  1997 total confirmed TB herd breakdowns

  Avon

  24

  Bedfordshire

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  Cheshire

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  Cornwall

  122

  Cumbria

  0

  Derbyshire

  3

  Devon

  114

  Dorset

  15

  Durham

  0

  East Sussex

  4

  Essex

  1

  Gloucestershire

  103

  Greater London

  0

  Greater Manchester

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  126

  Hertford

  0

  Humberside

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Kent

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  Shropshire

  7

  Somerset

  32

  South Yorkshire

  0

  Staffordshire

  29

  Suffolk

  0

  Surrey

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  Wiltshire

  34

  England total

  617

  Clwyd

  0

  Dyfed

  40

  Gwent

  48

  Gwynedd

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  Powys

  4

  South Glamorgan

  0

  West Glamorgan

  3

  Wales total

  97

  Aberdeenshire

  2

  Angus

  0

  Argyll

  0

  Ayrshire

  0

  Banffshire

  0

  Berwickshire

  0

  Bute

  0

  Caithness

  2

  489

  County

  1997 total confirmed TB herd breakdowns

  Clackmannan

  0

  Dumbartonshire

  1

  Dumfriesshire

  0

  East Lothian

  0

  Fife

  0

  Inverness-shire

  0

  Kincardine

  1

  Kinross

  0

  Kirkcudbright

  4

  Lanarkshire

  1

  Midlothian

  0

  Moray

  0

  Nairn

  0

  Orkney

  0

  Peebles

  0

  Perthshire

  1

  Renfrew

  0

  Ross and Cromarty

  0

  Roxburgh

  0

  Selkirk

  0

  Shetland

  0

  Stirling

  0

  Sutherland

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  Wigtown

  3

  Scotland total

  15

  Food (Salt Levels)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he is(a) commissioning and (b) evaluating on the link between high blood pressure and salt levels in food. [42621]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the request of the Department, the Faculty of Public Health Medicine, in collaboration with the British Heart Foundation, hosted a seminar to bring together a wide range of scientific opinion from academia and industry to review the link between high blood pressure and salt consumption, and to consider whether a reduction in salt consumption for the general population is advisable. A report is expected later this year.

  The Department has not commissioned research on the links between high blood pressure and salt levels in food.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what percentage of the construction workers at the Millennium Dome site in Greenwich have suffered from(a) dermatological and (b) pulmonary, including asthmatic, dysfunctions over the last six months; and how many working days have been lost as a result of (a) and (b). [38214]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 6 April 1998, Official Report, column 78.
  490
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to exhibit United Kingdom engineering excellence in the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement. [41103]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The structure of the Dome is already a clear demonstration of the United Kingdom's excellence in architecture, engineering and design, and stands as an impressive new landmark on London's skyline. The exhibits in, and construction of the content of, the Dome will also provide many opportunities to demonstrate the UK's engineering excellence. In addition, a number of state-of-the art designs from the Millennium products award scheme will be featured inside the Dome.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if the Guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment produced by DETR was fully applied in respect of the choice of the air-conditioning system for the Dome. [41775]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998): The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" guidance concerns appraisal of the environmental effects of policies or programmes, not projects. DETR have issued other guidance and advice on green issues that are more relevant to projects. In particular, DETR's "Green Guide for Buyers" recognises that HFCs have a high total equivalent warming impact if they are allowed to escape into the atmosphere and, as a consequence, their use is discouraged where there is a risk of high emissions. High emissions are defined in the voluntary agreement between the refrigeration industry and the Government as those in excess of 10 per cent. loss of initial charge annually from service and/or breakdown. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has set a target of 1 per cent. for the chiller units which they have procured for the Dome. Regular independent audits will be carried out to ensure that the target is met.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio in what ways the Millennium Dome will demonstrate environmentally friendly British technology. [41930]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The exhibit in the Dome currently entitled "Living Island" will explore ways in which individuals can protect and enhance their environment. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is in regular touch with DTI and DETR on science and technology and environmental matters, and is consulting and seeking advice from a number of environmental groups about the content and nature of this zone. The NMEC aims to include a range of features on the Dome site which demonstrate applications of environmental technology. The Millennium Experience will also feature a number of environmental state of the art products and services from the Millennium products award scheme.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what fire prevention measures will be installed in the Millennium Dome; [42654]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the risk of release of toxic gases from the structure of the Millennium Dome in the event of a fire. [42616]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) first concern is with the safety of people visiting and working in the Dome. The Company
  491
  has been liaising closely with Greenwich Council and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority (LFCDA) on fire prevention and safety issues. It has carried out detailed investigations into the potential effects of fire on the Dome's structure, with particular attention to the cladding material. The use of PTFE coated glass fibre cladding has been accepted both by Greenwich Council and by the LFCDA.

  A number of fire prevention and detection measures will be adopted within the Millennium Dome both to minimise the risk of fire and to ensure early warning and the safety of the public in the event of a fire. Sprinkler systems and smoke extractors will be installed to minimise the impact of fire. Detailed studies have been carried out to ensure effective evacuation should this prove necessary.

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what steps he is taking to encourage cheap and concessionary travel to major millennium projects and events. [41480]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 13 May 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is discussing with transport providers ways of enabling them to sell Dome entrance and travel tickets in attractive packages for visitors travelling from all parts of the United Kingdom.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what guidance has been issued to Government departments and executive agencies on the criteria to be employed in the(a) designing, (b) commissioning and (c) interpretation of the findings of focus groups; [43077]

  (2) if he will list the (a) companies, (b) organisations and (c) individuals who have supplied Government departments and executive agencies with information from focus groups and the fees paid in each case. [43076]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 20 April 1998,Official Report, column 536.

  Information on which companies, organisations or individuals have supplied Departments and Executive Agencies with information from focus groups, and the fees paid in each case is not held centrally.

TREASURY

  Inflation
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the latest figures for inflation; and if he will make a statement. [41690]
  492
  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest figures are in line with the Government's forecasts for inflation which were published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (March 1998).

  Work (Financial Reward)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has put in place to increase the financial reward from work. [41691]

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

  Finance Bills (Draft Regulations)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when draft regulations will be published in respect of each Finance Bill provision specifying the need for Treasury regulations. [41692]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Where appropriate, draft regulations will be published throughout the year.

  EU Programmes (Administrative Currency)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the administrative currency for the purposes of the common agricultural policy and other European Union programmes following the introduction of the euro. [41693]

  Mrs. Liddell
  From 1 January 1999, the euro will replace the ecu as the currency of denomination of the EC budget. The Commission has not yet put forward proposals for how currency transactions with the Member States not participating in the single currency should be handled following the introduction of the euro. The Government understand the Commission still has the matter under consideration but that it proposes to set out its views in the Summer.

  Tourism Industry (VAT)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the imposition of VAT on the United Kingdom tourism industry. [41695]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Hotel and tourist accommodation has been taxed at the standard rate since VAT started in 1973, in line with other forms of discretionary expenditure.

  Euro
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the preparedness of British companies for the introduction of the euro. [41696]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The introduction of the euro in 11 European countries on 1 January 1999 will impact upon many UK businesses. We are committed to ensuring that all businesses are made aware of the need to examine their own position, and that those firms which will be affected are fully equipped to respond. This is a major task. A recent Treasury survey of over 1,300 small and medium firms revealed that only 11 per cent. knew that the euro
  493
  will start operating in the participating Member States on 1 January next year. Only 5 per cent. had made any specific preparations for this.

  This survey will provide a benchmark to help gauge the success of future efforts to increase business preparedness. The Euro Preparations Unit within HM Treasury will play a key role in helping to co-ordinate private and public sector activities to this end.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of potential charges made by insurance companies to existing PEP holders for transferring to ISAs. [41697]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  There are no proposals to allow existing PEP investments to be transferred to individual savings accounts. PEPs in existence at 5 April 1999 can remain tax free, outside the ISA, under the existing rules.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the finance industry regarding the new proposals for ISAs and the use of benchmarking for financial products. [41709]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury published a consultation document on 18 May. The document invites contributions from all interested parties. During the pre-consultation period, the Treasury sought the views of a number of firms and organisations on certain aspects of the proposals.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Paymaster General expects to reply to the letter of 9 December 1997 from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on behalf of Mr. D. N. Peck of Swallhook, 19 Mariners View, Amble, about individual savings accounts. [42868]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I have done so today. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman's letter was mislaid by the Inland Revenue.

  Pensioners' Fuel Bills
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has introduced to reduce pensioners' fuel bills. [41698]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In his July 1997 Budget, the Chancellor announced the reduction in VAT on fuel and power for domestic users from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. This cut took effect from 1 September 1997. VAT on the costs of installing energy saving insulation materials where those costs are funded by certain grant schemes reduced from 17½ per cent. to 5 per cent. This will allow more pensioner and low-income households to improve the insulation of their homes and helps to reduce their fuel bills. This tax cut will take effect from 1 July. The Chancellor also announced that the Gas Levy would be cut to zero with effect from April 1998. The levy distorted the energy market and meant higher prices for consumers.

  In his November 1997 Pre-Budget report, the Chancellor announced the introduction of a new Winter Fuel Payment giving additional help for all pensioners with their fuel bills. Last winter, every pensioner household received £20, with
  494
  the poorest pensioner households receiving £50, to help with their fuel bills. Nearly ten million payments have been made to pensioners in seven million households.

  Windfall Levy
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his policy of spending the windfall levy on an extension of the welfare-to-work programme. [41699]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a major extension of the Welfare to Work initiative in his recent Budget. We will provide additional help to young people, the long-term unemployed, lone parents, people with disabilities and partners of the unemployed. This commitment has been welcomed by employers, unemployed people, the voluntary sector and the wider public. The Chancellor's and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's initiative to expand the New Deal for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland, as part of a wider strategy for investment and enterprise, has been particularly welcomed in the Province.

  EMU
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of economic and monetary union on the interest rates in participating states. [41700]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Official interest rates in the euro area will be a matter for the European Central Bank (ECB). The primary objective of the ECB is to achieve price stability in the euro area.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the early entry of the United Kingdom into the economic and monetary union. [41701]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I regularly receive representations from business and other organisations about economic and monetary union.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the yield from the capital gains tax changes resulting from his recent Budget. [41702]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The structural changes to capital gains tax are broadly revenue neutral. They are expected to have a negligible effect in 1998–99; to cost £25 million 1999–2000; and to yield £25 million in 2000–01.

  Saving
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to encourage individuals to save. [41703]

  Mr. Darling
  It is this Government's policy to encourage individuals to save. We have given the Bank of England responsibility for setting interest rates to achieve the Government's inflation target. This, together with the Code For Fiscal Stability, will ensure economic stability and the right conditions in which individuals will be encouraged to save with confidence.
  495
  In addition, we have introduced plans for the Individual Savings Account specifically to develop and extend the savings habit. We re also consulting on the introduction of voluntary CAT standards for ISAs to help ordinary people save with confidence. CAT standards will focus on reasonable cost, easy access and fair terms.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his forecast for the savings ratio over the next two years. [41710]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A modest cyclical fall in the saving ratio is expected over the next two years. Over the longer term, the introduction of ISAs and our policies to promote economic growth and stability will increase the incentive to save for investment.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the working families tax credit. [41704]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Working Families Tax Credit has been welcomed by a wide range of individuals and organisations.

  Charity Taxation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government intend to publish their consultation document in respect of the review of charity taxation. [41705]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are planning to publish the consultation document for the Review of Charities' Taxation in the next few weeks.

  Knowledge-based Industries
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the introduction of new tax incentives to stimulate knowledge-based industries. [41706]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Government are currently consulting on how the UK can improve its research and development performance. The period of consultation runs until 30 June. The results of the consultation will inform preparations for the next Budget and the DTI's Competitiveness White Paper to be published later in the year.

  Banks (Supervision)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to improve the supervision of banks. [41707]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The regime for prudential supervision of banks is kept under constant review, both at home and internationally, in fora such as the European Union and the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision. When changes are needed, to reflect the nature of the markets in which banks operate, they are made. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have announced major reforms to the structure of financial supervision in the UK. On 1 June, responsibility for the supervision of banks will transfer from the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries. [41708]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Debt relief was discussed at the G8 foreign and finance ministers meeting on 9 May and the G8 Summit in Birmingham last weekend. The G8 agreed to encourage all eligible countries to adopt the policy measures necessary to embark on the process of securing a sustainable exit to their debt burdens by the year 2000, and agreed that their export credit agencies would seek to ensure their export credits to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) would be used only for productive expenditure.

  The Chancellor's latest initiative has concerned the debt burden of countries that have recently emerged from conflict. The communiqué issued after the Birmingham summit recognised that the present framework of the HIPC initiative was not able to provide debt relief quickly enough to post-conflict countries. These countries have large arrears to the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and require special assistance in the wake of long conflicts. The G8 urged the IMF and World Bank to look at the possibilities of helping these post-conflict countries—which include Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia and Rwanda—by finding mechanisms for dealing with their arrears payments to the IFIs.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received about third-world debt; and how much money has been sent to him by people making such representations. [41677]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Since 1 January 1997, the Treasury has received over 12,000 letters and postcards on the subject of third-world debt. To date, more than £7,000 has been sent in as part of these campaigns.

  Motor Fuels (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the Financial Secretary to the Treasury declined to meet the officers of the Petrol Retailers Association to discuss the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [42885]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Both the Chancellor and I have received representations from the Petrol Retailers Association via Northern Ireland MPs. These representations cover both the difference in the selling price of petrol and diesel in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and the illegal importations which are taking place as a result. The letters have received replies explaining the measures which are being taken to counter the threat posed by this illegal trade.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts of motor fuels by type sold in Northern Ireland in each quarter of 1997 and the first quarter of 1998. [42883]
  497
  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table:

  Deliveries tonnes

  Year

  Leaded petrol

  Unleaded petrol

  Diesel

  1997

  Quarter 1

  35,515

  88,670

  91,479

  Quarter 2

  33,446

  92,730

  96,101

  Quarter 3

  25,181

  82,349

  76,361

  Quarter 4

  22,570

  85,791

  73,975

  1998

  Quarter 1

  18,749

  78,641

  66,827

  Note:

  Figures supplied by Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations his Department has carried out into illegal importing of petroleum products from the Irish Republic into Great Britain in recent months. [42886]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved in the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland to counter the threat posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community. HM Customs and Excise are taking the lead on this issue but are acting in conjunction with other authorities, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to make seizures of oil tankers and vehicles carrying oil tanks filled with illegally imported fuel for resale. Wherever possible, cases are progressed with a view to criminal prosecution of the individuals concerned.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to raise the issue of the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland at the ECOFIN meeting on 19 May; and if he will make a statement. [42882]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor did not raise the issue of the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland at the Ecofin meeting on 19 May.

  Both the Government and HM Customs and Excise are aware of the situation with the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland for resale and recognise that it is a serious problem which disadvantages legitimate traders. HM Customs and Excise are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved to counter the threat posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Government of the Irish Republic on the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland. [42884]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland for resale is a problem of which the Government are aware. No offences are taking place within the Republic of Ireland where the fuel is sold legally and purchased duty paid. HM Customs and Excise are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved to counter the threat posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community. HM Customs and Excise are taking the lead on this issue but are acting in conjunction with other authorities, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to 498
  make seizures of oil tankers and vehicles carrying oil tanks filled with illegally imported fuel for resale. Wherever possible, cases are progressed with a view to criminal prosecution of the individuals concerned. Where inquiries have extended to the Republic of Ireland jurisdiction requests have been made by HM Customs and Excise under the Convention for Mutual Assistance between Member States of the EC to the Irish Customs Investigation Branch for discovery of documentation at premises of oils suppliers in the Republic of Ireland to support intended criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the meetings of the IMF Interim Committee and World Bank/IMF Development Committee he attended in Washington in April. [43585]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  On 16 April, I attended the IMF's Interim Committee meeting. I also attended the IMF/World Bank Development Committee meeting with the Secretary of State for Development on 17 April.

  One of the key issues we discussed was how to strengthen the architecture of the international system in the light of the Asian crisis. In my speech to the Interim Committee, I placed particular emphasis on the importance of greater openness and transparency to long-term economic stability, and I identified six themes.

  First, enhancing transparency of data. I noted that we need to tighten up and enforce the IMF's Special Data Dissemination Standards (SDDS).

  Secondly, promoting openness in policy making. I welcomed the progress made in agreeing the Code of Good Practice on Fiscal Transparency and recommended that it be supplemented by a manual to provide more guidance on how to construct and present fiscal policies. I also proposed that the IMF should, in consultation with the World Bank and the BIS, prepare a code of Good Practice on Financial and Monetary policy.

  Thirdly, greater transparency by the IMF in providing advice on member countries. I proposed that we should do more to encourage countries to publish the outcome of their Article IV's through Press Information Notices (PINS).

  Fourthly, exploring ways to improve the IMF's own accountability. I noted that it is essential for the IMF to perform its responsibilities in an open and transparent way that enhances public confidence. I proposed that we should look again at the option of establishing a new full-time evaluation unit which would report on the IMF's performance both to the Fund's shareholders and to the public.

  Fifthly, strengthening surveillance of national financial systems. I noted that the IMF's surveillance function should extend beyond its traditional role of looking at macro-economic policy and in particular it should look at the vulnerability of national financial systems. This will involve looking at financial sector regulation, corporate governance and legal issues. The Fund will need to cooperate closely with the World Bank, the Regional Development Banks and the Basle Committee in this area.
  499
  Sixthly, enhancing the role of the International Financial Institutions and cooperation between them. I proposed that consideration should be given to the creation of a new joint department of the IMF and World Bank to deal with financial sector issues in all member countries. This Department would need to work closely with other international agencies and groups. Its tasks would be to help the IMF in its regular surveillance, to support the Bank in its analyses of countries' structural policies and to support both the Fund and the Bank in the advice they give to countries on financial sector restructuring.

  We also discussed Capital Account Liberalisation. I noted that free capital flows can bring benefits to all countries in terms of increased productivity and growth. However, capital account liberalisation needs to be backed by measures designed to put the appropriate supervisory and regulatory practices in place. It must also be properly sequenced.

  I noted that the IMF is the organisation best placed to oversee orderly and sustainable capital account liberalisation and that we should press ahead with the Amendment to the IMF's Articles of Agreement to give it jurisdiction over the capital account.

  The discussions in Washington at the Interim and Development Committees on these themes contributed to the G7 report on Strengthening the Architecture of the Global Financial System, which was published at the Birmingham Summit.

  Additionally, we discussed at the Interim Committee the need to take action at an international level to promote fairness and relieve poverty. I stressed that we should not allow our discussion of Asia to obscure the important work that is still needed in the poorer countries. I welcomed the Fund's recognition of the need to promote high quality growth that results in a permanent reduction in poverty, greater equality of economic opportunity, and respects the environment. In this context, I welcomed the completion of the external evaluators' review of the Fund's ESAF programme and agreed with the external evaluator's view that IMF programmes cannot be viewed in isolation from the rest of the development process.

  There has been some significant and commendable progress with the Mauritius Mandate for the HIPC Debt Initiative which I launched a year ago. I emphasised to the international community the importance of ensuring that progress is maintained so that the Mauritius Mandate targets are met and we have met our objectives by the millennium.

  Copies of my speeches and the Communiques of these meetings have been put in the Library of the House.

  The issues discussed at the Development Committee meeting were outlined in a Parliamentary Question answered by the Secretary of State for International Development, on 29 April 1998, Official Report, column 153.

  Married Couples
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact measures contained in his March Budget Statement will have on married couples. [41689]
  500
  Dawn Primarolo
  Married couples will, on average, see an increase in their disposable income of about £100 a year by October 1999 from the direct tax and benefit changes in the March 1998 Budget.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the receipts generated by taxing child benefit at the higher rate where(a) one parent pays tax at the higher rate and (b) both parents pay tax at the higher rate and both pay tax on the child benefit. [42703]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: Information for 1998–99 is given in the table.

  £ million

  Yield in a full year

  Lone parents or couples with children, receiving Child Benefit, where:

  (a) one parent (but not both) is liable at the higher rate of tax

  425

  (b) both parents are liable at the higher rate of tax and both pay higher rate tax on the full amount of child benefit

  35

  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households receive child benefit where(a) one parent pays tax at the higher rate and (b) both parents pay tax at the higher rate. [42702]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: Under the current system in 1998–99, there are estimated to be about 1 million lone parents and couples with children who receive Child Benefit and where only one parent is liable at the higher rate of income tax. There are an estimated 50,000 couples with children who receive Child Benefit and where both parents are liable at the higher rate of income tax.

  UK Debt Management Office
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the UK Debt Management Office will be publishing its business plan for 1998–99. [43583]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today placed copies of the Debt Management Office's (DMO) Corporate Overview and Business Plan in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available from the DMO.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the progress by pensions firms in providing redress to the victims of mis-selling. [43584]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table shows the progress made in the period up to the end of April 1998 by the 41 firms whose results I have been publishing in the public interest. Most of these firms have continued to make good progress.

  Last May, the regulators published figures showing by 31 March 1997 only 15 per cent. of cases had been resolved. I am pleased to say that the latest reports suggest

  501
  that the largest firms, which together account for almost 85 per cent. of cases, have now dealt with about 74 per cent. of cases.

  When I met the Chairmen and senior executives of pensions firms a year ago, I made clear that I would publish information monthly about the progress being made by each firm toward resolving their cases. In my statement in the House on 18 November 1997, Official Report, columns 155–57, I said that I would remove from this list the name of any firm which achieved its target for resolving priority cases.

  Progress by pensions firms in resolving cases of personal pensions mis-selling in the period to the end of April 1998

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Under 25 per cent. of cases resolved

  DBS

  3,945

  122

  364

  196

  168

  115

  3

  11

  25–50 per cent. of cases resolved

  Burns Anderson

  1,132

  279

  200

  114

  86

  73

  6

  41

  Financial options

  362

  116

  39

  20

  19

  17

  5

  42

  Gan

  11,485

  1,147

  4,999

  608

  4,391

  3,423

  30

  45

  Countrywide

  4,821

  2,090

  266

  166

  100

  76

  2

  48

  50–75 per cent. of cases resolved

  Lincoln National

  13,388

  1,579

  6,435

  1,074

  5,361

  4,105

  31

  50

  Windsor Life

  9,503

  3,129

  2,291

  284

  2,007

  1,634

  17

  53

  Abbey Life

  17,426

  4,381

  6,424

  959

  5,465

  4,491

  26

  56

  IFA Network

  316

  74

  109

  77

  32

  30

  9

  57

  Standard Life

  7,006

  715

  3,804

  939

  2,865

  2,465

  35

  59

  London and Manchester

  8,317

  1,227

  4,291

  519

  3,772

  3,407

  41

  62

  Friends Provident

  6,924

  1,021

  3,642

  547

  3,095

  2,731

  39

  62

  Colonial

  8,337

  2,423

  3,415

  391

  3,024

  2,481

  30

  64

  Hill Samuel

  6,069

  798

  3,501

  642

  2,859

  2,452

  40

  64

  Canada Life

  5,555

  327

  3,822

  584

  3,238

  2,660

  48

  64

  CIS

  43,356

  3,929

  29,336

  13,079

  16,257

  11,013

  25

  65

  Royal & Sun Alliance

  15,904

  2,744

  8,718

  1,043

  7,675

  6,532

  41

  65

  NatWest

  14,971

  4,369

  6,831

  1,076

  5,755

  4,575

  31

  67

  Sun Life of Canada

  27,158

  8,935

  11,130

  2,104

  9,026

  7,499

  28

  68

  Berkeley Independent

  163

  96

  20

  16

  4

  4

  2

  71

  Albany Life

  2,931

  607

  1,879

  177

  1,702

  1,337

  46

  72

  Allied Dunbar

  19,037

  3,914

  11,440

  3,318

  8,122

  6,697

  35

  73

  Sedgwick

  15,663

  7,917

  3,805

  1,460

  2,345

  2,128

  14

  73

  Equitable Life

  7,500

  1,764

  4,068

  1,545

  2,523

  2,243

  30

  74

  Over 75 per cent. of cases resolved

  Britannic

  19,424

  5,119

  11,928

  2,875

  9,053

  6,622

  34

  75

  Guardian

  9,076

  1,192

  6,282

  949

  5,333

  4,779

  53

  76

  M&E Network

  311

  173

  73

  25

  48

  42

  14

  77

  Legal & General

  36,679

  14,667

  17,538

  1,662

  15,876

  12,480

  34

  79

  Lloyd's TSB

  49,678

  11,774

  30,439

  6,259

  24,180

  22,125

  45

  81

  Commercial Union

  7,814

  1,277

  5,433

  787

  4,646

  4,306

  55

  82

  Wesleyan

  4,175

  265

  3,315

  962

  2,353

  2,192

  53

  82

  United Assurance

  13,093

  1,237

  10,846

  1,983

  8,863

  7,707

  59

  83

  Royal London

  12,564

  1,117

  10,479

  1,457

  9,022

  7,975

  63

  84

  Hogg Robinson

  2,145

  804

  1,142

  392

  750

  626

  29

  85

  Pearl

  46,551

  3,871

  39,043

  5,647

  33,396

  30,262

  65

  85

  Prudential

  72,118

  19,429

  52,637

  3,866

  48,771

  39,755

  55

  87

  Barclays

  17,007

  6,126

  9,805

  2,219

  7,586

  6,604

  39

  88

  AXA Equity and Law

  3,969

  774

  2,941

  609

  2,332

  2,174

  55

  90

  Norwich Union

  7,423

  2,248

  4,717

  726

  3,991

  3,719

  50

  90

  Godwins

  1,478

  113

  1,351

  456

  895

  778

  53

  91

  Midland

  4,844

  534

  4,154

  489

  3,665

  3,512

  73

  94

  A: cases identified as requiring review

  B: of A, cases where investor was informed that information gained during assessment excluded cases from review

  C: number of assessments completed

  D: cases where the investor has been informed that no redress is due

  E: cases where redress has been offered

  F: cases where redress has been accepted

  G: cases where redress has been accepted as a percentage of cases identified for review ((F/A)×100)

  H: cases completed, including exclusions, as a percentage of cases identified for review (((B+D+F)/A)×100)
  502
  Information provided by firms to PIA indicates that several firms are close to achieving the targets set for them. If subsequent PIA inspections show that these initial indications are correct, then the firms' names will be removed from the list.

  However, this does not mean that their work will be over. The regulators will continue to monitor firms, even after their targets have been met, to ensure that they follow through on offers of redress in a timely manner and establish the arrangements necessary to honour guarantees. I am asking the regulators to keep me informed.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had about retaining the title nurse; and if he will make a statement. [42994]

  Mr. Milburn
  In August 1997, we commissioned an independent review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, which is due to report this year. This is one of the issues the review team has raised during their consultation, and we await their recommendations with interest.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission research on the effect of changes in(a) staffing levels and (b) staffing mix in NHS trusts on nursing standards. [43008]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1996 the Department commissioned a programme of research which focused particularly on skill mix with an overall spend of £3 million. This includes research on new roles and new responsibilities in nursing and medicine, and explores the implications of developments within the clinical team, as well as skill mix in primary care, diagnostic imaging centres and hospital teams. Many of these projects are now close to completion.

  In addition to this research, there are plans for a major new research programme on human resources. Proposed themes for this research programme include skill mix as one of the five key areas. The tendering process is likely to begin in September and precise details are still under discussion.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 41, if he will list those NHS trusts which have not yet designated a named officer responsible for checking registration before applicants take up a post. [43013]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information is not available centrally. The Department has recently issued guidance on this matter, but it is for employers to ensure that suitable arrangements are in place.

  Health Care Assistants
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to NHS trusts on the types of work to be carried out by health care assistants and on which of their duties should be supervised by a registered nurse. [43011]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is the responsibility of employers to determine the duties that staff carry out. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting gives guidance to registered practitioners on their professional responsibilities for supervision.

  NHS Research and Development Funds
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce greater accountability into the distribution of NHS research and development funds; and if he will make a statement. [43012]
  504
  Ms Jowell
  The new system for allocating National Health Service research and development (R&D) funds has introduced greater accountability. R&D support funding for NHS providers is now distributed through a competitive process with bids assessed against published criteria, and successful providers obliged to account regularly to the NHS Executive for the use of these funds. The NHS Executive has in place, and will continue to develop, mechanisms for identifying and prioritising R&D activity which is best funded directly by the Executive itself. The new system will be the subject of evaluation. The Department's Director of Research and Development plans to publish an annual report on Department of Health and NHS R&D later in the year.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each NHS region, the proportion of NHS research and development funding spent on primary care research for each of the past five years. [43009]

  Ms Jowell
  The research and development (R&D) support funding allocated to primary care led providers in each National Health Service region during 1998–99 is set out in the table. This is the first year under the new R&D funding system that allocations have been made directly to primary care practices. In addition to research carried out by primary care providers, other providers within each NHS region spend some of their R&D support funding on primary care research, and the Department and NHS Executive also centrally commission primary care research projects for the benefit of the NHS as a whole. The total such R&D spending was estimated for 1996–97 at £31 million. Information on the total R&D spend on primary care by NHS region is not currently available.

  NHS region

  1998–99 primary care led allocations (£)

  1998–99 total allocation of R&D support funding (£)

  Percentage of total allocation that is primary care led

  Anglia and Oxford

  161,229

  18,287,835

  0.9

  North Thames

  848,194

  196,391,466

  0.4

  Northern and Yorkshire

  68,584

  15,984,781

  0.4

  South Thames

  372,410

  50,910,686

  0.7

  South and West

  471,279

  15,599,377

  3.0

  Trent

  110,456

  20,500,326

  0.5

  West Midlands

  270,149

  9,637,214

  2.8

  North West

  0

  20,384,272

  0.0

  Total

  2,302,301

  349,370,957

  0.7

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that more research and development funding is spent on primary care research; and if he will make a statement. [43010]

  Ms Jowell
  We gave a commitment in November 1997 to increase spending on primary care research and development (R&D) to around £50 million within five years, and the recommendations of the National Working Group Report on R&D in Primary Care, published at that time, are now being implemented. A Regional Director of Research and Development within the National Health Service Executive has been identified to lead the development of primary care research in the NHS. Primary care practices now have access to R&D funding on the same basis as NHS trusts. Primary care practices and other providers are being actively encouraged to bid
  505
  for funding for primary care research, and the NHS Executive is promoting primary care research and developing capacity through new research programmes, the establishment of new national training awards, and through nationally commissioned research programmes.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 12 February, 18 March and 16 April with regard to Darren Stott of 35 Wisteria Road. [42898]

  Mr. Boateng
  I replied to my right hon. Friend today following receipt of the original letter on 12 May 1998.

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to his Department since 1 May 1997. [25853]

  Ms Jowell
  Since 1 May 1997, 137 staff on fixed term contracts have been and are still employed by the Department. In addition, we have employed 123 casuals who are still employed, and 85 casuals who have left. These figures do not include the National Health Service Estates Agency. We have also employed two special advisers.

  Hepatitis C
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people with haemophilia in the United Kingdom infected with the hepatitis C virus; and if he will make a statement. [29003]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department estimates that around 4,000 people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through blood products prior to the introduction of viral inactivation processes in 1985.

  The latest figure quoted by the Haemophilia Society shows that they now assess the total number of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C at 4,800.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings have been requested with his Department's Ministers by(a) Labour and (b) Conservative hon. Members; and how many meetings have been granted in each category. [31288]

  Ms Jowell
  All members of the Department's Ministerial team regularly meet hon. Members from all sides of the House. Records of Ministerial engagements are not kept in the format requested and the detailed information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Faulty Hip Replacements
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how many faulty hip replacements have been identified in the North West in each of the last 10 years. [31029]
  506
  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally. The successful outcome of a hip replacement operation is likely to be based on an interaction between the surgeon's skill, the artificial joint and the patient's medical condition. Figures showing the number of revision operations carried out in the North West Region between 1991–92 and 1995–96 are shown in the table, but because we do not know when the original hip was implanted, the figures are not an indication of early failure.

  Year

  Revision operations

  1991–92

  507

  1992–93

  515

  1993–94

  513

  1994–95

  505

  1995–96

  529

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  Revision Operation Codes

  37.0, 38.0, 39.0, 46.0, 47.0, 48.0

  37.2, 38.2, 39.2, 46.2, 47.2, 48.2

  37.3, 38.3, 39.3, 46.3, 47.3, 48.3

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a national register of patients who have received hip and other joint replacements implants; and if he will make a statement. [31375]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are considering various options for monitoring orthopaedic implants and systems for controlling the introduction of new implants. A national register is one option under consideration.

  Contraception Devices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has issued to ensure that contraception devices have clear information on their use and rate of success. [32434]

  Ms Jowell
  Contraceptive devices which fall under the remit of the Medicines Control Agency are subject to European Directive 92/27/EEC. This Directive details medicine labelling and patient information leaflet regulations. Mention of efficacy levels in these patient information leaflets or licensed product information is considered promotional material and not permitted.

  It is not generally appropriate for the Government to guide industry on how to communicate about its products. We would, however, expect manufacturers to follow the general principles of ensuring communication is clear, comprehensive and explicit to ensure potential users can make appropriate choices.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list by region the number of NHS bed days taken up by patients with diabetic foot complications in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [41139]

  (2) if he will list by region the number of (a) major and (b) below the knee amputations carried out in the NHS as a consequence of diabetes in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [41135]
  507
  (3) if he will list by region the number of acute medical admissions as a result of diabetic foot complications in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [41138]

  (4) what progress his Department has made in meeting the 1989 St. Vincent's Declaration target in respect of half-limb amputations due to diabetic gangrene; [41137]

  (5) if he will list by region the number of NHS specialist diabetic foot clinics; [41136]

  (6) if he will list by region the number of recorded diabetic foot ulcers treated by the NHS in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [41140]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are committed to improving health services for people with diabetes. The 1995 report of the St. Vincent Joint Task Force for Diabetes made recommendations about good clinical and management practice in eleven key areas. The Department issued service guidance to the National Health Service in November 1997 on "Key features of a good diabetes service" (Health Service Guidelines HSG(97)45). We have also commissioned clinical guidelines and other clinical effectiveness materials for diabetes, which we expect to be completed by the end of 1999. These will cover prevention and treatment of diabetic foot complications.

  The Department welcomes the recent launch of the "Focus on Feet" campaign by the British Diabetic Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. We hope that it will be successful in raising awareness of the importance of preventative foot care for people with diabetes.

  Information is not collected centrally on the number of NHS specialist diabetic foot clinics. The available information on NHS in-patient treatment has been placed in the Library. It is based on episodes of individual treatment by consultants.

  Asthma
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each local authority the total cost and the cost per head of treating asthma and other breathing-related illnesses for each year since 1992. [41946]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Peter Emery) on 22 July 1997,Official Report, column 569. This gave the available information on the costs of drugs dispensed for the treatment of asthma in England by family health services authority for the years 1993 to 1995 and by health authority for 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available). Some of the drugs in question may be used for the treatment of other conditions.

  Information on the other costs to the National Health Service is not available centrally for individual conditions. However, a discussion document "Burdens of Disease" was issued in October 1996 which illustrated one approach to estimating the burdens of particular diseases on the NHS. This suggested that in 1992–93 the total of other, non-prescribing costs of the NHS services for treating asthma was of the order of £150 million.

  Arachnoiditis
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the risk of myelography causing arachnoiditis; and if he will make a statement. [42391]

  Ms Jowell
  Any injury to the arachnoid membrane carries a risk of arachnoiditis. However, all medicinal products, such as the contrast agents used in myelography, are subject to stringent assessment of safety, quality and efficacy prior to being licensed. They are closely monitored by the Medicines Control Agency after licensing to detect any previously unrecognised adverse effects or any change in the balance of risks and benefits.

  National Blood Authority
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that the present terms and conditions of staff employed by the National Blood Authority remain in place. [42678]

  Mr. Boateng
  The terms and conditions of National Blood Authority (NBA) staff are a matter for negotiation between the NBA, their staff and their staff representatives. The new chairman of the NBA, Mr. Fogden, will ensure that negotiations are taken forward with staff and their representatives.

  NHS Premises (Safety)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are taken to ensure that National Health Service trusts have adequate arrangements for recording accidents on National Health Service premises; what encouragement is given to staff to report accidents; and what steps the National Health Service Executive takes to monitor the safety performance of National Health Service trusts. [42461]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 require certain types of accidents to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive. The National Health Service Executive has issued guidance emphasising the importance of effective accident and incident reporting systems for NHS employers, and outlining the characteristics of a good incident reporting system. Ensuring staff are encouraged to report incidents is a matter for NHS trusts. The safety performance of NHS trusts is the responsibility of NHS trust chief executives and their boards.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his duties in respect of ensuring the safety of(a) staff employed in the National Health Service, and (b) patients and visitors to National Health Service premises. [42464]

  Mr. Milburn
  We place a very high priority on the safety of National Health Service staff and of patients and visitors to NHS premises. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 place duties on all employers to assess systematically all workplace risks, and to take all reasonably practicable action to minimise those risks. Chief executives and their boards are statutorily responsible for ensuring the safety of staff, patients and visitors.
  509
  The NHS Security Manual gives advice to all trusts on the use of security measures and the NHS Executive continues to support this guidance by regularly publishing best practice on specific aspects of security.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if National Health Service trusts are required to include reports on their health and safety record in their annual reports. [42463]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Trust Manual for Accounts recommends that trusts should include information on health and safety performance and occupational health in their annual reports. Guidance to trusts on health and safety also commends the inclusion of information on health and safety performance in their annual reports.

  NHS Staff
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days were lost through sickness, ill health or injury by National Health Service staff in the last year for which figures are available; and at what estimated total cost. [42459]

  Mr. Milburn
  The numbers of working days lost through sickness, ill health or injury in the National Health Service are not currently collected centrally.

  Occupational Health
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of National Health Service staff in each region have access to an occupational health service. [42462]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected centrally. National Health Service trusts and health authorities are responsible for ensuring that their staff have access to an occupational health service.

  EU Health Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many environmental appraisals were produced by the European Commission to accompany proposals presented to the EU Health Council on 1 May. [42668]

  Ms Jowell
  None. These are not normally required for proposals for action in the field of public health.

  Health Improvement Programmes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if health authorities will be obliged to consult voluntary sector service providers as partner agencies in the formation of health improvement programmes; and if he will make a statement. [42892]

  Mr. Milburn
  We shall expect health authorities to involve the full range of local partner organisations, including voluntary sector organisations, in the development of health improvement programmes.

  Coeliac Disease
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to improve food labelling to assist sufferers of coeliac disease in identifying which processed foods are gluten free. [29921]
  510
  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes. The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 will be amended on 1 July this year to require ingredients of foods identified as "starch" and "modified starch" to indicate their specific vegetable origin where they may contain gluten.

  We are also promoting agreement at international level on food labelling rules which will identify gluten containing ingredients whenever they are used in processed foodstuffs.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have occurred in each of the last five years as a result of blood transfusions and faulty blood products; and if he will list the causes of death. [42864]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. John Maples, dated 20 May 1998:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on deaths which have occurred as a result of blood transfusions and faulty blood products.
  The table below shows the numbers of deaths registered in England and Wales with either (a) an underlying cause of blood transfusion or contaminated blood products or (b) where blood transfusion or contaminated blood products were mentioned on the death certificate as contributing to the death.

  Blood transfusion

  Contaminated blood products

  Underlying Cause

  Othe mentions

  Underlying cause

  Other mentions

  1993

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1994

  3

  1

  3

  4

  1995

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1996

  2

  13

  0

  1

  1997

  2

  6

  1

  8

  Note:

  The figures for 1993–96 are the deaths that occurred in these years, whereas the figures for 1997 are the deaths registered in 1997

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish and place in the Library the detailed statistical basis for the statement by the Minister for Public Health on 6 May 1998,Official Report, column 700, that more than two-thirds of the public support the fluoridation of water; and if he will publish the particulars of all the areas where consultation has taken place, the identity of the sponsors of the consultation, details of the questions asked, including information as to whether there was any public education of those interviewed, details of the representations received and precise information as to sample sizes. [41982]
  511
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: Since 1980, 5 nationwide opinion polls have been undertaken which included the question "Do you think fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce tooth decay?"

  The results are shown in the table.

  Percentages

  Year

  Research organisation

  Yes

  No

  Don't know

  1980

  NOP

  66

  16

  18

  1985

  Gallup

  71

  17

  11

  1987

  Gallup

  76

  15

  9

  1992

  NOP

  79

  15

  6

  1997

  NOP

  69

  18

  13

  As is the usual practice, the respondents to the surveys were selected according to a systematic probability sample designed to be representative of all adults in Great Britain.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards equipment in the(a) Mid-Essex Hospital Trust, (b) Mid-Essex Community and Mental Health Trust and (c) Essex Health Authority areas being millennium compliant; and when he expects the work to be completed. [42895]

  Mr. Milburn
  All health authorities and National Health Service trusts are working in line with national policy and guidelines set out in Executive Letters EL(96)80 and EL(97)59 and their accompanying guidelines Health Service Guidelines (97)40, and Health Service Circular 1998/091 to address the Year 2000 problem. Copies of the guidelines are available in the Library.

  HSC 1998/091 is the latest guidance and states that all chief executives of health authorities and NHS trusts should submit new interim returns to the NHS Executive's Regional Offices on 30 June and 30 September 1998, and quarterly reports throughout 1999; ensure that by 31 December 1998 they have identified and resourced effective solutions for all Year 2000 problems that would otherwise compromise the safety of patients and staff, and the continuity of services; and to ensure that by 30 September 1999 all parts of the NHS are fully prepared with compliant equipment or effective contingency plans in place.

  Such information as is available on specific trusts will be placed in the Library shortly. I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to seek reimbursement from manufacturers for those hip replacement prostheses which have been subject to early failures. [31378]

  Mr. Milburn
  The question of whether to seek reimbursement would depend on the particular circumstances. In respect of the early loosening associated with the Capital Hip implant, the manufacturer, 3M Health Care, has agreed to bear the full costs of identifying, assessing and treating individual patients.
  512
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relationship between the reliability of hip replacement prostheses and their purchase prices; [31374]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the reliability record of currently available hip replacement prostheses; and what plans he has to issue guidance to the general public on this issue. [31377]

  Mr. Milburn
  Copies of an Effective Health Care Bulletin on total hip replacement are available in the Library. This review found that some of the cheaper established implants had the lowest long-term failure rates over 10–20 years follow-up.

  Two further systematic reviews have been commissioned through our health technology assessment programme: one to review the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of total hip replacement prostheses, and the other to review the factors influencing outcomes and costs of hip replacement surgery. Reports are expected later this year.

  Interstitial Cystitis
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise awareness amongst health professionals of interstitial cystitis, with particular reference to problems in diagnosis. [28113]

  Ms Jowell
  This is a matter for the professions; we have no current plans to do so. Interstitial cystitis is a rare chronic inflammatory disease of the bladder affecting mainly women. Diagnosis is often difficult and little is known about its cause or the most effective treatment. There are already a number of reviews and articles on the subject which have been published in the professional journals.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42250]

  Dr. Howells
  I have placed in the Library a table showing the consultation papers produced by the Department of Education and Employment since 1 May 1997.

  Key State Results
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools did not submit(a) papers and (b) results for (i) the key stage 2 tests and (ii) the key stage 3 tests in 1997. [40940]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 7 May 19981: Twenty-three maintained mainstream schools did not submit 1997 key stage 2 national curriculum assessment results, and two maintained mainstream schools did not submit 1997 key stage 3 national curriculum assessment results. It is not possible to determine the number of

  513
  special schools which did not submit results, as it is impossible to differentiate between those schools whose pupils were all disapplied from the national curriculum assessments, and therefore had no results to return, and those schools which chose not to return results. Participation by independent schools in the national curriculum assessment test is voluntary, so they have not been included in this analysis. It is not possible to differentiate between results and papers.

  Braille Certificates
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will require examination boards to produce certificates in Braille for blind candidates. [42056]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has no powers to require awarding bodies to produce certificates in Braille at present. However, I would expect awarding bodies to consider sympathetically requests for such certificates from blind candidates.

  Special Education Provision
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the Teacher Training Agency-funded higher education providers that deal with special education needs in the south west; and if he will make a statement. [42173]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Teacher Training Agency does not hold information about the higher education institutions that currently deal with special educational needs in the south west. The following are the providers in the south-west which submitted bids to the Teacher Training Agency for in-service training provision which included elements of provision relating to SEN and who will receive funding for 1998–99:

  The University of Bath;

  Bath College of Higher Education;

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education;

  University College of St. Mark and St. John;

  The University of Plymouth;

  The University of the West of England.

  I understand that the Teacher Training Agency reached its decisions on the allocation of the relevant funding on the basis of competitive bids from providers to deliver in-service training for teachers judged according to their quality in meeting identified national priorities. The Agency has issued contracts for the academic year 1998–99. It will be considering shortly the basis of the interim bidding rounds in respect of 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Autism
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of schoolchildren with autism in each year since 1992. [42798]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for local education authorities to identify children with special educational needs and plan provision to meet expected demand. The national figures which the Department collects on the number of children with SEN are not disaggregated by type of special need. The National Autistic Society has estimated 514
  that 5,200 school aged children have Kanner's or classic autism; other children will have autistic spectrum disorders, often in association with other types of SEN.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the Lovaas intensive behaviour therapy; [42793]

  (2) what research his Department has commissioned into the (i) causes of autism, (ii) the treatment methods offered by local education authorities and (iii) the effectiveness of different treatments. [42795]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has commissioned a review of the research findings on educational programmes for children with autism. A report will be published in the near future. It will cover research into the Lovaas programme. The report will inform the design of research the Local Government Association is commissioning, following discussion with DfEE, into the comparative outcomes from a number of these educational interventions.

  Higher Education (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve the availability of higher and further education to residents in rural areas. [42581]

  Dr. Howells
  Our proposals for encouraging lifelong learning for people throughout the UK, including rural communities, are set out in the consultation paper "The Learning Age". Higher education is available in England from over 100 higher education institutions, including the Open University, and from many further education colleges. The Further Education Funding Council has a duty to secure the provision of adequate and sufficient facilities for further education.

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the maximum grant and loan available to higher education students in 1998–99 will be; what the maximum loan available in future years will be; and if he will make a statement. [42374]

  Dr. Howells
  Students living away from home and studying outside London will normally be entitled to a maximum of £3,545 by way of grant and loan in 1998–99. New entrants to higher education in 1998–99 will be eligible for £810 grant and £2,735 loan. This reflects the transitional arrangements for student support that have been put in place for 1998–99 in preparation for the new student support system, based on 100 per cent. income-contingent loans, being introduced for 1999–2000 and beyond.

  Students who are already receiving mandatory awards in 1997–98, together with those new entrants who are exceptionally being treated as continuing students in 1998–99, will be eligible for £1,810 grant and £1,735 loan. The amount of grant available can be enhanced by certain additional allowances, such as the disabled students allowance or the dependants allowance. The rates for 1998–99 were announced in December, and a memorandum giving full details of these rate was placed in the Library.
  515
  The maximum loan rates for 1999–2000 will be announced later in the year, in line with normal practice.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) mature and (b) regular students took up higher education places in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997; and how many in each case are predicted to do so in 1998, in (1) England, (2) Wales and (3) the UK. [42417]

  Dr. Howells
  The information for 1996 and 1997 is given in the table:

  Home entrants (thousands) to HE courses in higher education institutions

  1996–97

  1997–981

  Country of study

  Young

  Mature

  Young

  Mature

  England

  222.1

  290.5

  234.1

  293.1

  Wales

  17.7

  18.5

  17.6

  16.8

  UK

  276.2

  339.1

  290.1

  342.9

  1 Provisional.

  Mature students are defined as postgraduates aged 25 and over, and undergraduates aged 21 and over. The figures include both full-time and part-time students. Figures do not include those entering to study for a higher education qualification in further education colleges.

  The Department does not publish forecasts of entrants by age or by country of study.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage change has taken place in the numbers of(a) mature students applying for courses of higher education and (b) lone parents applying for courses of higher education as mature students in each of the last three years. [42403]

  Dr. Howells
  The available data are given in the table.

  Mature1 home applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK applying via UCAS

  Year of entry:

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Numbers

  97,643

  90,687

  97,401

  Percentage change compared to previous year

  +2.9

  -7.1

  +7.4

  1 Defined as applicants aged 21 or over

  The latest figures from UCAS on applicants for autumn 1998 entry show that, as at 20 March, the numbers of mature applicants are down by 14 per cent. compared with the previous year, though this indicates a recovery from the position earlier in the cycle. This fall in part reflects trends in demographics and the numbers of potential entrants with the relevant entry qualifications. However, these figures are not a particularly good guide to final numbers for mature applicants as mature students tend typically to apply later in the applications cycle. Moreover, the UCAS figures do not cover applicants to part-time or postgraduate courses. Information on the numbers of lone parents who applied as mature students is not held centrally.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many claims have been(a) terminated in each year since the implementation
  516
  of the jobseeker's allowance because of a breach of the jobseeker's agreement and (b) subsequently reinstated following their referral to an adjudication officer; [42386]

  (2) what was the average time between termination of a jobseeker's allowance claim because of a breach of the Jobseeker's Agreement and reinstatement following referral to an adjudicator in each year since the implementation of the jobseeker' s allowance. [42387]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Failure to comply with the terms set out in the jobseeker' s agreement does not, in itself, result in the loss or termination of jobseeker's allowance. It may, however, give rise to a doubt as to whether the jobseeker is available for, and actively seeking, employment. If this is the case, then it is those questions that will be referred for adjudication.

  The Employment Service's quarterly analysis of adjudication officers' decisions is available in the Library.

  Employment Service (Toilets)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons it is the official policy of the Employment Service not to provide public toilets in its buildings. [42768]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Dr. Brian Iddon, dated 21 May 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question regarding the reasons why the Employment Service does not provide public toilets in its buildings. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  Historically, the Employment Service has not provided public toilets in its buildings largely because of the high cost of provision and maintenance which would be needed in our 1,000 plus Jobcentres. The majority of Jobcentres are in fact located in town centres where public toilet provision is available. I would also expect staff to by sympathetic to anyone with an urgent need to use a toilet, especially children, if they were made aware of the difficulty and public toilets were not to hand.
  In addition, in response to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, we are installing toilet facilities for disabled clients on a rolling basis, where it is feasible to do so. More generally, with the introduction of the New Deal programmes including the impending extension of the New Deal programme for Lone Parents later this year, we are reviewing our current policy on the provision of public toilets. The recommendations arising from the review should be available within the next month.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Euro
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to monitor the content of teaching and information materials about the euro currency funded by the European Commission supplied to schools in England and to ensure its compliance with the terms of the Education Act 1996. [42679]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We cannot, and would not wish to, prevent information from being used in schools in a spirit of healthy debate. Under section 407 of the Education Act 1996, however, schools must present political issues to
  517
  pupils in a balanced way. Any complaint of political bias should be made to the school's governing body in the first instance. We can also consider such a complaint, once the local procedure has been exhausted and if the complainant remains dissatisfied.

  Public Bodies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the average salary of(a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department; [42838]

  (2) what is the average attendance fee of (a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department. [42839]

  Dr. Howells
  The majority of board members of non-governmental public bodies give their time and services voluntarily, and receive no payment other than normal travel and subsistence expenses. Where members do receive remuneration, this can vary between an annual salary, an honorarium or an attendance fee (which itself can be a daily rate or a half-daily rate, or calculated on a per meeting or per case basis). Individuals' remuneration therefore is not directly comparable.

  Full details of all payments to board members of non-departmental bodies, by gender, are given in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1997" are available in the Library.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when his Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [42840]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of compliance with the Government's target for reducing class sizes to 30 or fewer on the extra funding attracted by class sizes of 30-plus in circumstances where it is used to support specialist staff; and how schools will be compensated for the loss of this funding. [43099]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government will provide the funding required for schools to implement our pledge to reduce infant class sizes to 30 or below. We intend to bring forward the date of implementation to September 2001 at the latest. We have already allocated £22 million in revenue funding for 1998–99 and are now considering applications for the allocation of a further £40 million for capital work.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the minimum population size eligible for a bid for funding under the new deal for disabled people. [43098]
  518
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There is no minimum population size required for a bid for funding under the new deal for disabled people programme.

  The personal adviser service of the programme will be piloted in 12 areas linked to Benefits Agency districts. In those six areas which are open to competitive tender, the client groups range in size from 11,380 to 22,780.

  Innovative schemes are being developed within this new deal programme to learn more about the most effective approaches for helping disabled people into work. In order to draw valid conclusions about them, we will need about 100 participants in each scheme, although we will consider bids for projects with a minimum of 50 participants.

  Beacon Schools
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have been awarded beacon status; what representations he has received on the decision to award schools beacon status; and by what means his Department will inform hon. Members of proposals to award beacon status to schools in their constituencies. [43103]

  Mr. Byers
  There are no beacon schools at present. I have invited those 177 schools recently identified by HMCI as "best performing" to consider beacon school status and to respond by 1 June. A number of other schools have also expressed interest in becoming beacon schools. A list of schools awarded beacon status will be published before the end of the summer term.

  Pre-schools
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that pre-schools are not disadvantaged by changes to LEA admission procedures for four-year-olds. [42115]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We expect proposals to change admission policies for maintained schools in respect of 3 and 4-year-olds to be discussed in the newly established early years development partnerships which include the private and voluntary sectors as partners in the planning and delivery of good-quality early education. We will consider whether any other measures are necessary to sustain co-operation, collaboration and partnership between sectors.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department is taking to reduce the amount of administrative work having to be undertaken by pre-schools. [42116]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Through abolition of the nursery education voucher scheme, we have substantially reduced the administrative work of pre-schools and other providers.

  Teachers (In-service Training)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy regarding training of in-service teachers. [42172]
  519
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are clear that their targets and agenda for raising standards can be achieved only if there is a substantial programme of re-skilling and updating the knowledge and techniques available to serving teachers.

  For this reason, we are investing heavily in in-service teacher training. The Government are supporting £505 million for 1998–99 through the standards fund, at least a third of which is available for teacher training. Most of this is ring-fenced for specific priorities including the training for raising standards in literacy and numeracy and training for head teachers.

  The Teacher Training Agency also provides approximately £21 million annually to providers of INSET. For the first time this year, this funding was allocated on the basis of competitive bids from providers to deliver in-service training for teachers. The bids were judged according to their capacity to meet identified national priorities.

  Additionally we are investing £230 million from the national lottery between 1999 and 2002 in information and communications technology teacher training. We expect these resources to come on stream from spring 1999.

  Higher Education Provision
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Teacher Training Agency-funded higher education providers there are in each Government office region; and how many will remain in each Government office region following decisions to re-direct in-service funding from some higher education providers. [42134]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the number of HE providers currently in receipt of TTA INSET funding in each Government Office region.

  Government Office region

  Numbers of HE providers with TTA INSET funds 1997–98

  South West

  7

  South East

  1

  London

  10

  West Midlands

  8

  Eastern

  6

  East Midland

  8

  North West

  4

  Merseyside

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  North East

  5

  Other (the Open University)

  1

  The number which will be in receipt of TTA funds in three years' time, at the end of the current allocations cycle, cannot be estimated because there will be interim bidding rounds relating to 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Higher Education (South-west)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the locations of the Teacher Training Agency-funded higher education providers in the south-west region. [42171]
  520
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The providers in 1997–98 are as follows:

  The University of Bath, Bath;

  Bath College of Higher Education, Bath;

  The University of Bristol, Bristol;

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, Cheltenham;

  University College of St. Mark and St. John, Plymouth;

  The University of Plymouth, Plymouth;

  The University of the West of England, Bristol.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Police and Military Forces (Support)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the support currently provided by his Department for(a) police and (b) military forces, broken down by country. [40613]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  FCO support for the police and the military in FY 1997/98 under the United Kingdom Military Training Assistance Scheme (UKMTAS) and through other programme budgets is as listed. The list shows support for personnel of other countries attending training courses in the UK and countries to which UK training teams or loan service personnel were deployed.

  For 1998/99, the UKMTAS programme has been replaced by Assistance to Support Stability with In-Service Training (ASSIST), on which I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 26 March 1998, Official Report, columns 235–36.

  1997/98 FCO spending in support of the police

  Country

  £

  Albania

  750,000

  Anguilla

  2,245

  Antigua

  8,614

  Bahamas

  2,617

  Bangladesh

  6,483

  Barbados

  18,016

  Belize

  12,161

  Bosnia

  9,627

  Botswana

  41,457

  British Virgin Islands

  1,604

  Bulgaria

  9,589

  Chile

  43,555

  China

  13,379

  Colombia

  42,240

  Costa Rica

  14,448

  Croatia

  91

  Cyprus

  37,449

  Czech Republic

  3,950

  Estonia

  400

  Fiji

  26,181

  Ghana

  4,953

  Gibraltar

  86,451

  Grenada

  7,386

  Guyana

  121

  Hungary

  1,319

  India

  21,948

  Jamaica

  10,860

  Kenya

  1,604

  Lebanon

  25,644

  Lesotho

  14,445

  Malaysia

  7,717

  Malta

  11,196

  521

  1997/98 FCO spending in support of the police

  Country

  £

  Mauritius

  15,536

  Mongolia

  715

  Montserrat

  2,180

  Morocco

  23,120

  Mozambique

  502

  Namibia

  1,604

  Pakistan

  2,949

  Papua New Guinea

  28,089

  Paraguay

  27,267

  Peru

  4,255

  Philippines

  43,258

  Poland

  7,860

  St. Kitts

  1,604

  St. Vincent

  1,604

  Seychelles

  8,774

  Sierra Leone

  3,426

  Singapore

  6,698

  Solomon Islands

  17,851

  South Africa

  25,209

  Sri Lanka

  11,251

  Tanzania

  6,870

  Trinidad

  18,449

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  8,212

  Uganda

  22,461

  Uruguay

  16,170

  Vanuatu

  14,236

  Zambia

  14,153

  Zimbabwe

  7,902

  1997/98: FCO spending in support of the military

  Country

  £

  Angola

  207,650

  Antigua

  34,409

  Argentina

  18,344

  Bahamas

  52,528

  Bangladesh

  268,090

  Barbados + BMATT E. Caribbean1

  1,145,316

  Belarus

  26,170

  Belize + BELDA2

  665,365

  Botswana

  176,174

  Brazil

  36,438

  British Virgin Islands

  236,122

  Bulgaria

  89,541

  Chile

  41,365

  China

  52,353

  Colombia

  719,814

  Costa Rica

  1,276

  Croatia

  2,351

  Czech Republic

  222,961

  Ecuador

  5,188

  Egypt

  56,186

  El Salvador

  1,324

  Estonia

  16,232

  Ethiopia

  115,488

  Fiji

  107,104

  Ghana

  1,100,497

  Georgia

  61,741

  Grenada

  28,681

  Guatemala

  97,200

  Guyana

  96,647

  Honduras

  734

  Hungary

  341,016

  India

  306,416

  Indonesia

  225,612

  Ireland

  180,907

  Israel

  1,302

  Jamaica

  218,757

  Jordan

  329,425

  Kazakhstan

  904

  Kenya

  157,108

  522

  1997/98: FCO spending in support of the military

  Country

  £

  Latvia

  86,954

  Lebanon

  30,880

  Lesotho

  31,998

  Lithuania

  63,259

  Macedonia

  34,894

  Malawi

  186,011

  Malaysia

  373,796

  Malta

  80,032

  Mauritius

  212,339

  Moldova

  21,259

  Montserrat

  567

  Morocco

  84,211

  Mozambique

  93,410

  Namibia

  216,182

  Nepal

  98,364

  Pakistan

  826,730

  Papua New Guinea

  49,432

  Paraguay

  37,309

  Philippines

  74,075

  Poland

  336,323

  Romania

  149,335

  Russia

  33,544

  Senegal

  14,661

  Seychelles

  47,990

  Sierra Leone

  114,523

  Singapore

  47,140

  Slovakia

  147,374

  Slovenia

  110,175

  South Africa

  1,369,126

  Sri Lanka

  90,216

  St. Lucia

  7,839

  St. Vincent

  2,725

  Tanzania

  118,592

  Thailand

  268,249

  Trinidad and Tobago

  117,331

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  279,963

  Uganda

  2,462

  Ukraine

  358,814

  Uruguay

  33,571

  Yemen

  18,331

  Zambia

  25,736

  Zimbabwe inc. MBATT

  2,235,784

  1 BMATT = British Military Assistance and Training Team

  2 BELDA = Belize Defence Assistance

  1997/98: Contributions to international organisations

  £

  UN International Police Task Force (Bosnia)

  2,200,000

  UN Trust Fund for the Police Assistance Programme in Bosnia and Herzegovina

  2,000,000

  EU Caribbean Drugs Initiative

  430,000

  South Pacific Police Adviser's Budget

  51,710

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when Lord Avebury's letter reporting allegations that arms had been flown from Bulgaria was(a) received at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (b) seen by officials in the Private Office of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), (c) seen by officials in the private office of the Secretary of State, (d) seen by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central and (e) seen by the Secretary of State; [41723]
  523
  (2) when Lord Avebury's letter reporting allegations that arms had been flown in from Bulgaria was drawn to the attention of the Foreign Office's legal advisers; and who recommended this course of action; [41728]

  (3) pursuant to his oral answer of 6 May 1998, Official Report, column 722, on arms sales to Sierra Leone, what the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), was told on 1 May that he had not been told in mid-April relating to Sandline's involvement in Sierra Leone; [41759]

  (4) if he will publish details of the information received from Britain's High Commissioner to Sierra Leone relating to Sandline, indicating (a) the dates when information was received and (b) if the information was seen by (i) the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and (ii) the Secretary of State; [41730]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my statement in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998,Official Report, columns 604–11, in which I announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. I intend to publish the report of the investigation.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 841, on the tribute paid by President Kabbah to the role of the British Government, if he will list the acts of support and assistance to which he understood President Kabbah to be referring. [41760]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: I refer to the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, during the debate on 12 March 1998, Official Report, column 840, and the statement I made during the debate on 18 May 1998, Official Report, columns 604–11.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates in 1998(a) the issue of Sandline's involvement in Sierra Leone was discussed by ministers and (b) officials raised that issue with ministers. [41725]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my statement in the House in the debate on 18 May 1998, Official Report, columns 604–11, in which I announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. I intend to publish the report of the investigation.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what departmental oral and written briefing material was submitted directly to him before 28 April concerning Sandline's involvement with arms sales to Sierra Leone; [41600]
  524
  (2) what oral or written submissions he received from his Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) before 28 April concerning Sandline's involvement with arms sales to Sierra Leone. [41598]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: None.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which member of his private office is responsible for policy relating to arms sales to Sierra Leone; [41609]

  (2) which member of his private office was responsible for the safekeeping of the letter from Sandline's solicitors to the Foreign Secretary, noted by his special adviser on 28 April. [41597]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: The Principal Private Secretary, assisted by two Private Secretaries and the other staff of the Private Office oversees the handling of all papers received in Private Office.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the letter from Sandline's solicitors concerning arms sales to Sierra Leone, first noted by his special adviser on 28 April, was contained in a departmental file within a ministerial box. [41599]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998,Official Report, columns 604–11, in which I announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. I intend to publish the report of the investigation.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance was offered by the Government to President Kabbah of Sierra Leone during his period of exile. [41801]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 13 May 1998]: I refer to the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate on 12 March 1998, Official Report, column 840, and the statement I made in the debate on 18 May 1998, Official Report, columns, 604–11.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if helicopters supplied by United Kingdom firms were used to assist military intervention in Sierra Leone. [41964]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I am aware of reports that the helicopter used by the local commander of the ECOMOG troops in Sierra Leone was operated by Sandline International.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he first consulted Treasury Ministers concerning arms sales to Sierra Leone contrary to UN resolutions. [41823]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I did not consult Treasury Ministers on this matter.
  525
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he first consulted the President of the Board of Trade and officials from the Department of Trade and Industry concerning arms sales to Sierra Leone contrary to UN resolutions. [41824]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I did not consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, or other DTI Ministers or officials on this matter.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way official telegrams are recorded in(a) his Department and (b) British missions overseas. [42457]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: All FCO telegrams are numbered sequentially in annual series to and from each post. The FCO's communications centre generates and records the numbers for outgoing telegrams and records the numbers on incoming telegrams from each post. Posts do likewise for telegrams they receive from the FCO.

  Some small Posts are not connected to the telegram network. These rely on facsimile for their communications.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), met representatives of Sandline International in Sierra Leone on 31 March. [42287]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: No.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions he has(a) met (b) spoken to Mr. John Flynn, his special representative to Sierra Leone since 9 January; and what was discussed on each occasion. [42285]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: I have not met or spoken to Mr. Flynn since my last meeting with him on 9 January. He has kept in regular contact with the FCO and met my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 19 March 1998.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), discussed the activities of Sandline International with representatives of NGOs at their meeting on 1 April [42283]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: No.

  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 May 1998,Official Report, column 164, if the telegram of 6 February was copied to (a) his Private Office and (b) other ministerial private offices. [42311]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: It was copied to my office and to that of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd).
  526
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister in his Department approved the terms of the Sierra Leone (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1997 before it was laid before Parliament. [42601]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]: The Minister of State my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd).

  Engagements
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his engagements for(a) 28 January, (b) 21 February, (c) 30 March and (d) 23 to 30 April. [42126]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information is as follows:List of Secretary of State's engagements for the following dates:

  Wednesday 28 January 1998
  am: attended Parliamentary Labour Party Meeting in House of Commons
  Lunch with Sun Editorial Board
  pm: Meeting with Bahraini Foreign Minister and Crown Prince
  Office Meeting concerning the forthcoming meeting with Gibraltar Chief Minister Caruana
  Drinks with Will Hutton of the Observer
  Dinner with Gibraltar Chief Minister Caruana

  Saturday 21 February 1998
  No official engagements

  Monday 30 March 1998
  Attending General Affairs Council in Brussels

  Thursday 23 April 1998
  am: Cabinet meeting at No. 10
  Meet the families of Chechen hostages
  pm: Office meeting on Gibraltar
  Preparation/telephone calls for General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on Monday 27 April
  Attend Lord Mayor's Banquet

  Friday 24 April 1998
  am: Office meeting to discuss possible visit to Copenhagen
  Interview with New Statesman
  Prepare speech for opening of "In Flanders Fields" Museum in Ypres
  pm: Office meeting on G7/G8
  Interview with Mike Rawthorne, BBC TV News
  Interview with John Kampfner

  Saturday 25 April 1998
  am: Travel to Belgium to attend the opening of "In Flanders Fields" Museum and deliver speech
  Attend lunch with Belgian Foreign Minister Derycke
  pm: Travel to Luxembourg for the General Affairs Council

  Sunday 26 April 1998
  pm: Council briefing
  Dinner with Finnish and Swedish Foreign Ministers

  Monday 27 April 1998—Tuesday 28 April 1998
  Attend General Affairs Council, Luxembourg

  Wednesday 29 April 1998
  am: Briefing session for EU/GCC Ministerial meeting with officials
  Bilaterals with Kuwaiti and Saudi Foreign Ministers
  Host EU/GCC Ministerial Meeting in Lancaster House
  pm: EU/GCC Reception
  527
  Thursday 30 April 1998
  am: Presidency meeting
  Cabinet meet at No. 10
  Launch of Lisbon Expo
  pm: Preparation/meetings/telephone calls for forthcoming meetings with US Secretary of State Mrs. Albright, and Prime Minister's meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Arafat
  Interview with Robin Oakley, BBC
  Attend Reception for 50th Anniversary of the Independence of Israel
  Travel to Edinburgh for Constituency programme.

  Sandline International
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time and on what date the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), first saw a copy of the letter addressed to the Foreign Secretary from S. J. Berwin & Co. on behalf of Sandline International dated 24 April. [42131]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Friday 1 May.

  UNSCR
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the report to the UN Secretary-General requested by paragraph 13 of UNSCR 1132 about the steps taken to implement the measures set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of UNSCR 1132. [41965]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the 30-day reports of ECOWAS to the Committee of the UN Security Council established by paragraph 10 of UNSCR 1132. [41966]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: ECOWAS reports to the Committee of the UN Security Council are not public documents. I do not have the authority to publish them.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the United Nations Special Commission on Rwanda in each of the last three years. [42389]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK's annual contribution to the UN Regular Budget in 1996–97 was 5.32%. Expenditure on the United Nations Commission of Inquiry into Arms Flows to Rwanda from the UN Regular Budget in the biennium 1996–97 was $520–506. The Commission completed the first phase of its work in November 1996. It was reactivated by Security Council Resolution 1161 of 9 April which encouraged UN Member States to make voluntary contributions to finance the work of the Commission. In response, the Government have announced a contribution of £100,000.

  Mr. Gerald Bull
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he or his officials have had with the Belgian authorities concerning the investigation into the murder of Mr. Gerald Bull; and if he will make a statement. [42608]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Belgian magistrate who is investigating the death of Gerald Bull has recently been informed on official channels that a visit to Brussels by a team of British scientific and technical officials had been planned for 19–21 March 1990 but did not in fact take place.

  Kashmir
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to encourage the international community to broker a resolution of the Kashmir issue. [42764]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to her on 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 363.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of his Department's energy usage was from(a) renewable energy and (b) combined heating in each year since 1989–90. [42552]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the quantity of(a) oil, (b) gas and (c) electricity purchased for the heating, lighting and powering of all accommodation occupied by his Department within the UK in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total cost in real terms of (a) to (c) in each year. [42549]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The quantities and costs of oil, gas and electricity purchased by my Department since 1990–91 are as follows:

  Year

  £

  kWh

  Electricity

  1990–91

  704,368

  11,901,826

  1991–92

  926,380

  12,624,474

  1992–93

  817,900

  12,638,949

  1993–94

  543,310

  8,007,072

  1994–95

  841,154

  13,127,261

  1995–96

  720,091

  13,825,100

  1996–97

  774,350

  17,205,125

  1997–98

  833,213

  17,881,626

  Gas

  1990–91

  28,201

  2,338,322

  1991–92

  38,895

  2,711,615

  1992–93

  36,000

  2,398,471

  1993–94

  40,280

  2,599,388

  1994–95

  28,631

  2,656,756

  1995–96

  22,006

  2,966,406

  1996–97

  35,683

  5,028,945

  1997–98

  52,015

  6,717,265

  529

  Year

  £

  kWh

  Fuel Oil

  1990–91

  69,304

  5,226,871

  1991–92

  78,285

  5,207,250

  1992–93

  72,400

  5,514,067

  1993–94

  1,240

  101,760

  1994–95

  49,487

  375,808

  1995–96

  27,287

  2,457,552

  1996–97

  65,033

  4,514,612

  1997–98

  56,059

  4,524,791

  Note:

  No figures available for 1989–90

  India
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Indian counterparts on India's defence policies. [42564]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no recent discussions with Mr. Vajpayee on India's defence policies. I summoned the Acting Indian High Commissioner on 13 May to register our dismay and concern at the nuclear tests in India. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement to the House on 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 312, that the UK condemns the tests. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to Mr. Vajpayee in similar terms during a telephone conversation on 15 May.

  Sudan
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Sudan; and if he will facilitate discussions between the Khartoum Government and the SPLM/SPLA. [42346]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Sudanese Government and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army meet at the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace talks, the last session of which was held in Nairobi on 2–6 May. We support these talks. To maintain their momentum, we are presently discussing with members of the IGAD Partners Forum, the convening of an urgent meeting of the Forum. The intention will be to follow up on the outcome of the 2–6 May talks.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors his Department is taking into account in the relocation of GCHQ. [42491]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]: GCHQ' s PFI project is being operated in accordance with standard public sector procurement practice in order to ensure value for money. The main factors taken into account are operational flexibility, the requirement for a single site within 10 miles of Cheltenham town centre, environmental considerations and the impact of planning restrictions. The results of the evaluation process are expected to be announced later this year.

  Deportations
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens convicted of murder or homicide abroad have been deported back to the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. [41737]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: Foreign jurisdictions are not required to inform us of the deportation of a British citizen. The information in the following table on the number of British citizens deported to the UK after completing a sentence for murder or homicide is therefore incomplete and relates only to those cases where we have become directly involved.

  Year

  Number

  1990

  4

  1991

  1

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  1994

  2

  1995

  3

  1996

  1

  1997

  2

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens, convicted of criminal offences abroad, have been deported back to the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. [41734]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: Foreign jurisdictions are not required to inform us of the deportation of a British citizen. The information in the following table on the number of British citizens deported to the UK after completing a sentence for a criminal offence is therefore incomplete and relates only to those cases where we have become directly involved:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  245

  1991

  213

  1992

  256

  1993

  345

  1994

  270

  1995

  293

  1996

  237

  1997

  293

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the file of Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Nandra, ref IMM/ECR/98/S, whose wife resides in Burfield Street, Leicester will be passed to London. [43082]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our High Commission in New Delhi for a detailed account of the position. The Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  BBC World Service
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future funding for the BBC World Service. [42899]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are examining with the Treasury how we deploy all our resources, including those dedicated to the World Service, as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the safety and security measures being taken to move UK nationals from their homes in Jakarta to the airport for evacuation; [42921]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the evacuation of British citizens from Jakarta. [42920]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Statement I made in the House on 19 May 1998,Official Report, columns 731–32.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the safety of Clare Brooks, a constituent, currently in Jakarta. [42922]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We understand Clare Louise Brooks left Jakarta for the United Kingdom on 19 May.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the Argentinian Government to provide compensation to fund the clearance of mines laid in the Falkland Islands. [43044]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Argentine Government offered in 1993 to assist with demining and to meet the cost. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has asked them if, as a first step, they would be willing to help fund a British-led study to assess the feasibility and cost of demining the Falklands.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request compensation for the Falkland Islands from the Argentinian Government for devastation caused during the Falklands conflict. [43043]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no plans to ask the Argentines for compensation for the damage done during the Falklands conflict.

  Argentina
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new exceptions there have been to the arms embargo on Argentina. [43580]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department has recently granted two exceptions to the embargo, one in respect of the sale of two hunting rifle barrels to a private individual in Argentina, another in respect of the sale of twenty deactivated weapons to an Argentine importer. These represent exceptions but not changes to the embargo.

  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom submitted its 1997 return to the UN Register of Conventional Arms; and if copies of the return will be placed in the Library. [43581]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department submitted its return to the UN Register covering conventional arms transfers in calendar year 1997 on the 7 May. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Our return includes information on types of weapons transferred, details of procurement from national production and details of military holdings which, for the first time, include the types of weapons held in six of the seven categories of weapons included on the Register.

  We attach great importance to the Register as a confidence building and transparency measure. We will continue to work with our EU partners to encourage as many countries as possible to make a return to the Register.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the approval of a licence for the temporary export of aeroengine parts to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [43582]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department has approved a licence for the temporary export of aero-engine parts to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for machining and assembling into more complete units. These units will be returned to the UK for inclusion in engine kits for export to Italy. As the export of the goods concerned is controlled under Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, this licence was an exception to our interpretation of the EU arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This decision does not affect the Government's continued support of the EU common position on arms exports to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the President of the European Commission concerning the future size of European structural funds; and if he will make a statement. [42430]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government believe that the Structural Funds need to be fair, affordable, durable, simpler, and more efficient. The overall budget should be well below the 0.46 per cent. of Community GNP proposed by the Commission, before and after enlargement.

  Representations by UK Ministers and Officials have been made to the Commission, outlining our support for containing the cost of the Funds.

  Discussions on finance are likely to take place towards the end of the year and will continue into early 1999. It is too early in the negotiations to comment on the size of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will publish the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission and announce her response to its recommendations. [43102]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Low Pay Commission was asked to make its recommendations by the end of this month and it is on course to do so. We will publish its report and the Government's response as soon as possible once we have considered the recommendations.

  More Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received in respect of the takeover bid by J. C. Decaux for the More Group; and how many of these were from local authorities. (43039]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Director General of Fair Trading have received a considerable number of representations, for or against the merger, from competitors, customers, and others. Many of the representations from customers have been from local authorities.

  Secondments
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her policy on the secondment of individuals from private companies to her Department. [41069]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: It is DTI policy to encourage the use of temporary secondments to bring into the Department specialist expertise or experience to assist the Department in achieving its objectives.

  All inward secondments from industry are arranged in accordance with the Civil Service Commissioner's recruitment code. Secondees fulfil roles within the Department's management structure and report to Civil Servants. Our agreements with their employers set terms and conditions which closely mirror those of Civil Servants.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role individuals on secondment from private companies to her Department have in advising Ministers; and what access such individuals have to Ministers on issues concerning their company. [41070]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: A secondee may, from time to time, contribute to advice put to Ministers by Civil Servants and meet Ministers during the course of their work. Measures are in place to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individuals are currently on secondment from private companies to her Department; and if she will list them, indicating their responsibilities. [41071]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: There are, at present, 138 individuals on temporary secondment into the DTI from private companies. I have two lists; the first lists those working under the Department's Export
  534
  Promoter Scheme, the second lists those seconded elsewhere into the Department and includes the Directorates within which they are working. Details of precise responsibilities are not held centrally.

  Company

  Title

  Export promoter

  Alan Paine Knitwear Ltd

  Mr.

  Turley

  Anglian Water International UK

  Mr.

  Martin

  Bank of Ireland

  Mr.

  Jordan

  Barclays Bank plc

  Mr.

  Bristow

  Barclays Bank plc

  Mr.

  Watford

  Barclays Bank plc

  Mr.

  Speirs

  Beaumont Colson Ltd

  Mr.

  Williams

  British Nuclear Fuels

  Mr.

  Slawson

  Cable & Wireless plc

  Mr.

  Wilson

  Cookstown Enterprise Centre Ltd

  Mr.

  Parke

  CRL

  Mr.

  Ross

  Crosrol Ltd

  Mr.

  Banfield

  Crown Agents for Overseas Governments & Administration

  Mr.

  Lidderdale

  Delamore Associates Ltd

  Mr.

  Wotton

  Drinks Marketing Consortium

  Mr.

  Hall

  Drinks Marketing Consortium

  Mr.

  Warren

  Epinet Communications plc

  Mr.

  Gazeley

  Eschmann Bros & Walsh Ltd

  Mr.

  Jones

  Etrl Europe Ltd

  Mr.

  Steer

  European Gas Turbines (GEC Alstrom)

  Mr.

  McClafferty

  Ferryfast Produce Ltd

  Mr.

  Gorin

  Frank Roberts & Sons Ltd

  Mr.

  Roberts

  GEC Marconi Avionics Ltd

  Mr.

  Sharp

  General Accident

  Miss

  Forbes

  General Traffic Ltd

  Mr.

  Suleiman

  Genesis Communications

  Mr.

  Eadie

  Glaxco Wellcome plc

  Mr.

  Blythe

  Guinness Brewing Worldwide Ltd

  Mr.

  Salmon

  Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Holdings

  Mr.

  Cooke

  Hyder plc

  Mr.

  Rosser

  Hydro Technologies Ltd

  Mr.

  Seaton

  ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd

  Ms

  Lynch

  ICI plc

  Mr.

  Twist

  Institute of Export

  Mr.

  Manning

  John Laing International Ltd

  Mr.

  Bayne

  John Laing International Ltd

  Mr.

  Blackwood

  John Swire & Sons Ltd

  Mr.

  Nightingale

  Jones Cranes Limited

  Mr.

  Burton

  Lancashire Enterprises plc

  Mr.

  Rathwell

  LG Mouchel & Partners

  Mr.

  Sproston

  M.A.I.D. plc

  Mr.

  Thacker

  Madge & Hoyle Ltd

  Mr.

  Taylor

  Marks and Spencer plc

  Mr.

  Cohen

  Matheson & Co Ltd

  Mr.

  Reid

  Meggitt plc

  Mr.

  Mather

  Morris Singer Limited

  Mr.

  Pearson

  NatWest Markets

  Mr.

  Smith

  NatWest Markets

  Mr.

  Smeaton

  Natural Animal Feeds Ltd

  Miss

  Moore

  NHS Supplies

  Mr.

  Johnson

  North Cape (Scotland) Limited

  Mr.

  Burnham

  Ove Arup & Partners

  Mr.

  Marsh

  Ove Arup & Partners

  Mr.

  Khosla

  Pirelli Cables Limited

  Mr.

  Pape

  Prince Associates

  Mr.

  Scott

  Reyrolle Projects Ltd

  Mr.

  Grew

  River Don Castings Ltd

  Mr.

  Cookson

  Rover Group Limited

  Mr.

  Simmons

  Russo-British Chamber of Commerce

  Mr.

  Simpson

  Russo-British Chamber of Commerce

  Ms

  Fitzgerald

  Siemens ATM

  Mr.

  Flaxman

  Sonic Communications (International) Ltd

  Mr.

  Bunting

  Texaco Ltd

  Ms

  Lapczynska

  The British Petroleum Company plc

  Mr.

  Wood

  The British Petroleum Company plc

  Mr.

  Haymes

  535

  Company

  Title

  Export promoter

  The British-Israel Chamber of Commerce

  Mr.

  Cohen

  The Export Association

  Mr.

  Fuga

  The Export Association

  Ms

  Fairbanks

  The Hosiery Manufacturing Co Ltd

  Mr.

  Layden

  The Hosiery Manufacturing Co Ltd

  Mrs.

  Ritchie

  The Institute of Export

  Mr.

  Evans

  Company

  Secondee

  Directorate

  Matra Marconi Space

  Mr. Christopher Lee

  British National Space Centre

  Matra Marconi Space

  Dr. David H. Parker

  British National Space Centre

  Unilever

  Mr. Richard Bartholomew

  Chemicals and Biotechnology

  EPSRC

  Mr. Mark Claydon-Smith

  Chemicals and Biotechnology

  Ericsson Ltd

  Mr. Trevor Baker

  Communications & Information Industries

  BT plc

  Mr. David Steward Baxter

  Communications & Information Industries

  Reuters Limited

  Mr. Peter S. Williams

  Communications & Information Industries

  Herbert Smith

  Mr. James Quinney

  Consumer Affairs & Competition Policy

  MITI

  Mr. Hideo Suzuki

  Engineering Industries

  Rover Group Ltd

  Mr. Keith Jordan

  Engineering Industries

  GEC Marconi Avionics

  Mr. Kevin Moore

  Engineering Industries

  Lockstair Ltd

  Mr. Michael Hyatt

  Engineering Industries

  Westcountry Development Corporation

  Ms Suzanne Bond

  Government Office—South West

  Tensator Ltd

  Terry Green

  Innovation Unit

  Duggan Creative

  Richard Duggan

  Innovation Unit

  The Oxis Partnership

  Richard Bahu

  Innovation Unit

  Richard M. Excell

  Richard Excell

  Innovation Unit

  Cameron & Cameron

  Jim Cameron

  Innovation Unit

  Raybould Price

  Norman Price

  Innovation Unit

  Northern Quest

  Tony Capewell

  Innovation Unit

  NCL Ltd

  Nigel Crouch

  Innovation Unit

  IMH Ltd

  Ian Handley

  Innovation Unit

  Artel Rubber Co Ltd

  Graham Telling

  Innovation Unit

  Shawnee Associates Ltd

  Bob Duncan

  Innovation Unit

  Reginald Maude Ltd

  Michale Maude

  Innovation Unit

  Zeneca

  Brian Lever

  Innovation Unit

  IC1

  Stephen Aitken

  Innovation Unit

  Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering

  Martin Print

  Innovation Unit

  Nuclear Electric

  Ed Brown

  Innovation Unit

  Anglian Water

  David Revitt

  Innovation Unit

  NatWest Bank plc

  Tim Hoad

  Innovation Unit

  Sunalex

  Alex Pratt

  Innovation Unit

  Arthur Andersen

  Mr. Stephen Goodlud

  Insurance

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Mrs. Simone J. Finn

  Insurance

  British Telecom plc

  Mr. Colin Thompson

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  BT International Business

  Ms Debra Blundell

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  Arthur Andersen

  Miss Melissa Jane Bartlett

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  Price Waterhouse

  Miss Sarah Gibbins

  Investigations and Enforcement

  Silver Altman

  Mr. Andrew Marks

  Investigations and Enforcement

  Lee & Allen Consulting plc

  Mr. Luke Steadman

  Investigations and Enforcement

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Mr. Richard Szczepura

  Nuclear Industries

  AWE plc

  Mrs. Pauline M. Macdonald

  Nuclear Industries

  British Computer Society

  Mrs. Peta Walmisley

  Office of Science and Technology

  ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd

  Mr. Christopher Hamlin

  Office of Science and Technology

  FINA plc

  Mr. David Morgan

  Oil and Gas

  Price Waterhouse

  Mrs. Julia Culshaw

  Regional Assistance Directorate A

  Deloitte & Touche

  Mr. Nick Sharman

  Regional Assistance Directorate A

  Hambros Bank Ltd

  Mr. Stuart N. Robins

  Regional Assistance Directorate A

  CERN

  Mr. Michael Anthony Doran

  SITPRO

  Grant Thornton

  Mr. James Austin

  Small and Medium Enterprise Policy

  Lloyds TSB Group plc

  Mr. Guy Herrington

  Small and Medium Enterprise Policy

  Ernst & Young Services Ltd

  Miss Jean Quinney

  The Insolvency Service

  Kidsons Impey

  Mr. Stewart Wright

  The Insolvency Service

  Alexander Blackford Communications

  Mr. A. Hicks

  Government Office West Midlands

  DTZ Debenham Thorpe

  Mr. R. Greenwood

  Government Office West Midlands

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  Mr. L. Charlton

  Government Office West Midlands

  The National Grid

  Mr. S. Drummond

  Government Office West Midlands

  Unilever plc

  Dr. A. Price

  Government Office Merseyside

  Latag

  Mr. David Cadwallader

  Government Office East Midlands

  Waters Company Ltd

  Mr. S. McKenna

  Government Office Yorks & Humberside

  Calderdale and Kirklees TEC

  Ms A. Eastwood

  Government Office Yorks & Humberside

  536

  Company

  Title

  Export promoter

  The West India Committee

  Mr.

  Burckhardt

  Thomas Chislett

  Mr.

  Chislett

  Toyoboshi UK Ltd

  Mr.

  d'Aronville

  Turner & Newell plc

  Dr.

  Sabberwal

  Unipart International

  Mr.

  Thorning

  World Trade Development Limited

  Mr.

  Mitson

  Astra
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters were covered by the public interest immunity certificates used in connection with the disqualification proceedings against Mr. Gerald James and the directors of Astra Holdings. [41874]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No public interest immunity certificates were sought by my Department or were issued in connection with the disqualification proceedings against former directors of Astra Holding plc. Despite press reports that it was intended to use a PII to suppress the 'Moulsdale letter' in that case, the letter was in fact brought to the attention of the court by my Department.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice DTI inspectors have given on the prosecution of Mr. Gerald James. [38920]

  Mrs. Beckett
  DTI inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Astra plc offered views on disqualification but not on prosecution.

  EU Industry Council
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Industry Council held in Brussels on 7 May. [43434]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I chaired a meeting of the EU Industry Council on 7 May.

  The Council adopted a Regulation on new rules on aid to shipbuilding. Operating aid will be eliminated from end 2000 and remaining forms of support will be re-focused to improve the industry's competitiveness. There will be new aid for innovation and the opening up of regional aid. A strict limit will be placed on restructuring aid and strengthened monitoring provisions will be introduced. These measures will lead to an overall reduction in the level of European shipbuilding subsidies. The new aid regime is an achievement for our Presidency and meets the interests of UK shipyards.

  The main outstanding questions before the Council were the date when operating aid should be abolished and the restrictions that should be placed on the existing system of regional aid to reduce distortion in competition. After a long and thorough discussion, a compromise was finally agreed with the abolition of operating aid at the end of 2000 and regional aid ceilings of 22.5 per cent for "A" regions and 12.5 per cent. for "C" regions (the so called "A" regions are Europe's poorest and "C" regions are less poor). The regulation does not affect the treatment of FPSOs. There will also be Commission declarations on the following: the strict application of the regional aid rules; the aid cumulation rule; and the viability criterion for restructuring aid, and a Council statement that the agreement on regional aid is without prejudice to the Community regional state aid policy.
  538
  The Council had an in-depth discussion on a proposed Regulation laying down detailed rules for the application of state aid rules in general. The Presidency put forward a compromise text and the debate focused on the three main issues still to be settled, namely; time limits for Commission action; Commission powers in respect of recovery of unlawful aid and a period of limitation on Commission action.

  Good progress was made with a clear political will in favour of a Regulation and the Presidency concluded that further work should be undertaken by officials to enable the Council to reach a political agreement.

  As a new initiative, I invited Industry Ministers to have dinner with representatives of industry, on the eve of the Council to discuss competitiveness. I see this as an important step in developing a real dialogue between industry and the Council of Ministers. The Council meeting held a debate on the competitiveness of European Industry, mainly focusing on the key factors at national and supra-national level influencing competitiveness of EU industry and how they can be achieved. The meeting also discussed one of the key factors, namely the availability of appropriate finance for innovative companies.

  I concluded that there had been agreement on the importance of competitiveness and on the key factor as identified by the dinner and confirmed by the Council's discussion, namely: encouraging competition, efficient functioning of the Internal Market, a framework for innovation, continuous development of skills and labour adaptability, efficient markets for risk capital, improved environment for business start-up and entrepreneurship. There was strong support for continuing the Council's work on competitiveness with Austria and Finland pledging to do so in their forthcoming Presidencies.

  The Council took note of a progress report by the Commission on the Business Environment Simplification Task Force (BEST) and a Commission communication on Fostering Entrepreneurship in Europe. The Presidency noted that there was agreement on the importance of entrepreneurship for competitiveness, growth and jobs.

  The Council also agreed conclusions on the competitiveness of the Construction Industry and a plan of action to increase the competitiveness of the European Textile and Clothing Industry.

  There were Commission presentations on a proposed directive on late payment, the year 2000 computer problem, delocalisation, restructuring of the steel industry in Central and Eastern Europe, Six-monthly report on the monitoring of steel aid cases and a report on the work of the high level group dealing with the implications of industrial change.

  Civil Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Department of Trade and Industry recruitment for calendar year 1997, with particular reference to the use of permitted exceptions to the principles of fair and open competition
  539
  and selection on merit, as required by the Civil Service Commissioner's Recruitment Code. [43433]

  Mrs. Beckett
  It is DTI policy that recruitment is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit, subject to the exceptions permitted by the Civil Service Commissioners. My Department has systems in place which ensure that the principles of fair and open competition are understood and followed, in

  Recruitment information Number of staff recruited 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997

  Gender

  Ethical background

  Grade

  Permanent

  FTA

  Recurring temp

  Standby

  Short notice

  Other

  Male

  Female

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Not stated

  Disability

  Grade 6

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Grade 7

  4

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  5

  2

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  8

  —

  2

  1

  Executive Officer

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  8

  —

  —

  1

  Administrative Officer

  11

  2

  2

  —

  —

  31

  22

  24

  34

  7

  5

  1

  Administrative Assistant

  4

  8

  —

  —

  —

  12

  12

  12

  17

  4

  3

  1

  HEO D

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  HSO D

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Legal Trainee

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Legal Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Assistant Economists

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  2

  8

  —

  —

  1

  Assistant Statisticians

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1

  Senior Research Officer

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  1 includes numbers of casuals and sandwich course students

  Notes:

  1. ethnic data have been suppressed for those grades where numbers recruited are 5 or less, to avoid the possibility of identifying individuals

  2. from 1 August 1997, the department's grades became expressed as pay ranges. For consistency, we have used grades for this exercise. Information will be presented as Ranges next year

  The number of occasions on which the permitted exceptions to fair and open competition and selection on merit have been used at each level (except for appointments of up to 12 months), are categorised as below. Please include details of any exceptions underneath the relevant category:
  extensions of appointments of up to 12 months up to a maximum of 24 months: none
  recurrent short term appointments

  1 EO former civil servant brought in for a few weeks at a time when needed

  2 AOs and 1 EO in Queens Award Office where the work is seasonal

  short term appointments where highly specialised skills are required:
  2 Grade 7s and 1 Grade 6 on standby appointments, I Grade 7 on a fixed term contract. All were for specialist posts that would have been difficult to recruit from industry and it was regarded as too expensive to employ consultants
  extensions of short term appointments beyond the initially publicised period, including conversions to permanency:
  1 EO on a fixed term contract and 1 AO casual appointment converted to permanency
  secondments: none
  extensions to secondments: none
  re-appointment of former civil servants:

  1 Grade 7 previously employed by Crown Prosecution Service

  1 AO now employed on a fixed term contract

  2 EOs and 2 AOs on recurrent temporary appointments

  transfers of staff with their work (not under TUPE):
  1 AA, 3 AOs, 4 HEOs transferred from Cabinet Office with their work
  540
  accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioner's Recruitment Code. These systems are subject to internal check by The DTI's Internal Audit and to external check by the Commissioner's approved auditors.

  The DTI's Executive Agencies and the Government Office network make separate arrangements for publishing recruitment data, and the following table and narratives describe only Headquarters recruitment:

  transfers of staff from other public services without work (unless from a public body staff exclusively by civil servants): None
  appointments of disabled candidates under modified selection arrangements any use of the exceptions reserved for the Commissioners: None.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export contracts she estimates have been cancelled because of the withholding of export licences as a result of the ethical foreign policy; and if he will estimate the number of jobs lost in consequence. [42578]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: Where an application for an export licence is refused, applicants do not routinely inform the Department whether such decisions have resulted in the cancellation of contracts. I am not therefore in a position to make the estimate requested. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when announcing the new export licence assessment criteria on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29, we are committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry which is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as our defence effort. Defence exports can also contribute to international stability by strengthening bilateral and collective defence relationships in accordance with the right of self-defence recognised by the UN Charter, but arms transfers must be managed responsibly, in particular so as to avoid their use for internal repression and international aggression.

  European Structural and Cohesion Funds
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the recently published proposals by the European Commission for reform of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds. [43435]

  Mrs. Roche
  The draft regulations for the Structural and Cohesion Funds covering the operation of the Funds from the years 2000 to 2006 were published on 18 March as part of a wider Agenda 2000 package.

  It is important that the Structural and Cohesion Funds be reformed to make them more effective and to provide better value for money. The Funds' procedures are in need of substantial simplification and the prospect of enlargement of the EU to include Central and Eastern European countries makes this reform vital in any event.

  During the long negotiations ahead we will be striving to achieve three main aims for the UK and its regions—these are fairness, affordability and durability.

  Fairness means that no Member State should receive more than at present. Regions which continue to be eligible under the reformed criteria should not see an increase in per capita receipts while others face cuts. The cost of enlargement must be shared fairly between all Member States. It is not clear that the Commission's proposals achieve fairness. The UK is willing to take its fair share of cuts but could not accept an obviously unfair allocation.

  In order to achieve affordability and durability, the total budget for the Funds should be well below the 0.46 per cent. of GNP proposed by the Commission. It will be vitally important to reduce the cost and per capita receipts before accession in order to make enlargement of the EU affordable and therefore long lasting and durable.

  The Commission has proposed that the current 7 Objectives be reduced to 3 new ones. The proposed Objective 1 eligibility criterion is 75 per cent. of average EU GDP. The Government agree that a cut off is needed. There should, however, be flexibility around this level to allow for statistical margins of error. We also feel that any special cases should be translated across the EU. For example, the Scottish Highlands and Islands Objective 1 area, with a population density of about 9 people per sq km, should receive the same treatment as similar areas in northern Sweden and Finland.

  The special circumstances of Northern Ireland and the ongoing political developments there should be recognised. Northern Ireland should certainly receive treatment at least as good as the richer Republic of Ireland.

  For the new Objective 2, the Commission is proposing using unemployment as the main eligibility criterion. The last-minute concession of safety net limiting the reduction of population coverage to one third is an improvement on the initial proposals. But in our view GDP would be the most equitable and transparent basis for distributing Funds between Member States and determining total eligibility in each Member State.

  Regional unemployment and other factors are better used to allocate money within Member States. There is a far greater range and quality of deprivation indicators for
  542
  local areas available nationally than at EU level. The length of reference period is important; measures of unemployment should take account of business cycles.

  Transition periods for those areas losing eligibility under the new regime should be of equal length for all Objectives—six years for Objective 2 and 5b, the same as for Objective 1.

  The new Objective 3 would apply only outside Objective 1 and 2 areas. It would provide a policy framework for the development of human resources across the UK. We believe that Objective 3 must support Member States' employment strategies as set out in their National Employment Action Plans.

  We support the objective of simplifying the Funds and making them more effective and better value for money. The Commission proposals are a good starting point. Administration must be improved, ensuring adequate appraisal monitoring and evaluation, and more subsidiarity should be introduced.

  The Funds make an important contribution to economic development in the UK regions. The Government are consulting widely and will be working to ensure that the detailed arrangements for the allocation of the Funds take account of the UK's regional interests, and that they are fair to the UK as a whole. It is, however, too early to estimate the impact on individual UK regions. Publication of the Regulations marks the start of a long negotiation initially under the UK Presidency and continuing possibly into 1999. The Regulations will have to be agreed in the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list(a) the number of safeguards visits made, (b) the reports made and (c) the duration of each visit by (i) Euratom and (ii) International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards inspectors, to (1) D1202, fuel fabrication facility, (2) D1203, highly enriched uranium recovery plant, (3) D1204, research reactor reprocessing unit and (4) D2700, radioactive materials cementation plant, at the UK Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Dounreay since 1980. [40671]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 19 December 1997,Official Report, column 342.

  The safeguards reports made by all UK nuclear operators, including Dounreay, are in accordance with the procedures set out in Commission Regulation (Euratom) No. 3227/76. Copies of the Regulations are available in the Library of the House.

  No facilities at Dounreay are currently designated for inspection by the IAEA.

  The detailed information sought on safeguards inspection visits could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Radioactive Isotopes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much material was available in the United Kingdom on 23 April to make medical radioactive isotope
  543
  targets for use in cancer treatment; and how many such targets could be manufactured from that quantity of materials. [40752]

  Mr. Battle
  On 23 April, the UKAEA held sufficient Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) of the necessary enrichment, greater than 90 per cent. to produce 7,800 targets which will then be used to produce 39 million doses of Technetium-99m for use in the treatment of cancer and other diseases. This inventory comprised 39 km of HEU in a number of different forms; only 7 km was available as stock material for immediate target manufacture. The use of Technetium-99m continues to grow, currently some 30,000 procedures per day are carried out in Western Europe using this isotope. A wide range of other radioisotopes are used in the treatment of cancer, however the UKAEA play no part in their manufacture. The Government do not have central records of the overall amounts of radioisotopes used for medical purposes.

  European Structural Funds (Wales)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the scope and nature of her responsibilities in relation to the review of European structural funds in respect of Wales, indicating the timetable for action by her Department. [42470]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department of Trade and Industry is the lead Department on the reform of European Structural and Cohesion Funds. Our responsibility is to co-ordinate UK policy on the reform for all Government Departments including Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Ireland offices.

  Administration of Structural Funds programmes within Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh office. The Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for co-ordination of issues affecting the UK as a whole.

  During our Presidency, we intend to take the negotiations forward as efficiently and effectively as possible, focusing on the general regulations which deal with administrative simplification of the Funds. Discussions have started on the proposed regulations by

  Consultation paper

  Start date for consultation exercise

  End date for consultation exercise

  Number of responses to completed exercises

  First stage of Pensions Review

  17 July 1997

  31 October 1997

  over 2,000

  Stakeholder Pensions: A Consultation Document

  19 November 1997

  31 January 1998

  over 200

  Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: a New Contract for Welfare"

  26 March 1998

  31 July 1998

  —

  Joint Green Paper with the Department for Education and Employment, "Meeting the Childcare Challenge"

  19 May 1998

  28 July 1998

  —

  In addition, the Department has undertaken a number of consultations with interested organisations and people on specific technical issues.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to reply to the letter of 7 January from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on behalf of Mr. M. Gee of 38 Gloster Park, Amble, about benefits for disabled people. [42867]
  544
  Member States at working group level. These will then need to be negotiated in the Council of the Ministers and approved by the European Parliament.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will make it her policy to ensure that home visits remain a major feature of the New Deal for lone parents when it becomes a nationwide scheme; and if she will make a statement; [40206]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the effect on the number of home visits under the New Deal for lone parents of the move to a nationwide scheme under the primary responsibility of the Employment Service. [40210]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government intend that the quality of the nationwide service will be at least as good as that currently available in the prototypes, within a service tailor-made to individuals' needs. Home visits are currently a feature of New Deal for Lone Parents and will continue to be so.

  Pension Review
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she intends to announce the conclusions of the current pension review. [43087]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 24 April 1998,Official Report, column 731.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42255]

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

  Mr. Field
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 18 May 1998.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps she is taking to reform employers' national insurance contributions. [41711]

  Mr. Denham
  In his Budget statement on 17 March, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the most radical reforms of National Insurance
  545
  contributions for over 20 years; reforms which support the Government's welfare to work policies and cut red tape for employers.

  From April 1999, the level of earnings at which employers' contributions become payable will be increased from the lower earnings limit (£64 a week for 1998/99) to an amount equivalent to the single personal tax allowance (currently £81 a week). Employers' contributions on earnings below this new threshold will be abolished, and the four different rates of contributions they currently pay for employees not contracted-out of the State earnings-related pension scheme will be replaced by a single 12.2 per cent rate. Contribution rebates for employers with contracted-out schemes will not be affected. They will continue to be entitled to contribution rebates on earnings between the lower earnings limit and the single personal tax allowance. These changes, which are revenue neutral for employers as a whole, are contained in the Social Security Bill for which we will be seeking Royal Assent today.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when her Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [42813]

  Mr. Field
  This Government are committed to widening the range of candidates applying for public appointments and encouraging more women and members of the ethnic minorities to put themselves forward for public office. This Department is currently drawing up an action plan which will set robust targets for increasing the number of women and members of the ethnic minorities holding public appointments. This will be published shortly and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the progress of the DLA/Benefit Integrity Project in the Hereford constituency. [40775]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to 546
  introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and the confidence in, benefit decisions made by the project.

  The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 21 May 1998.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for a statement on the progress of the Disability Living Allowance Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) in the Hereford constituency.
  Information on the BIP is not available in the format requested. To provide geographical information routinely would incur high costs and disrupt the processing of ongoing casework.
  As at 31 March 1998, a total of 172,026 cases, including 27,991 renewal cases, have been selected for action under the BIP. A total of 72,470 cases have been examined. Of the total cases dealt with 1,699 have resulted in an increase in benefit, 56,272 have remained unchanged, 9,168 have resulted in a reduction in benefit and 5,331 have resulted in benefit being stopped.
  The total includes 14,815 renewal cases, of which 462 have resulted in an increase in benefit, 7,633 have remained unchanged, 3,992 have resulted in a reduction in benefit and 2,728 have resulted in benefit being stopped.
  A monthly statistical report can be found in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Social Fund Commissioner
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she has appointed a new Social Fund Commissioner to succeed Mr. John Scampion when his appointment ends on 31 May. [43578]

  Ms Harman
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. John Scampion has agreed to serve as Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a further period of three years from 1 June 1998.

  Since taking up the post of Social Fund Commissioner in June 1995, Mr. Scampion has successfully developed the Independent Review Service (IRS) into a customer focused organisation which aims to get the decision right first time. An important step for the IRS in this new approach has been the development of staff to realise their full potential, leading to the award of the Investors in People accreditation in July 1997.

  Mr. Scampion has also agreed to take part in the general monitoring of the effectiveness of the new Budgeting Loan scheme.

  I am confident that I can rely on Mr. Scampion to maintain and even improve upon his excellent record to date.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: Personal Statement
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I wish to make a personal statement. In a debate on Wednesday, 6th May on euthanasia, I ascribed the authority for a statement I made on a question of the award of costs in the Annie Lindsell case to the President of the Family Division of the High Court. I now understand that I should not have reported the terms of a conversation that I had had with the learned judge. The statement was made without his authority or knowledge. I should therefore like to apologise unreservedly for any embarrassment that I may have caused the President of the Family Division.

Estonia: EU Membership Negotiations
11.7 a.m.
The Earl of Carlisleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will press for the attachment of Estonian officials to the European Commission while the Republic of Estonia is conducting negotiations for entry into the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we support arrangements designed to prepare officials from Estonia and other candidate countries for the realities of EU membership. We are determined to be fully involved in the European Commission's proposals for institution building through twinning between government departments in central Europe and those in member states. Attachments to the Commission would fit naturally with this process. But decisions on such attachments would be a matter for the European Commission.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her most helpful reply. Is she aware of the speech made by the Foreign Secretary of Estonia, Mr. Toomas Hendrik Ilves, on 31st March this year when Estonia started its negotiations for entry into the European Union? In that speech he stated that the attachment of officials to the Union would be most helpful in facilitating the negotiations. Will the noble Baroness press the Commission to ensure that the five plus one nations have exactly the same rights as those
1756
enjoyed by Austria, Finland and Sweden when they started negotiations some years back for entry into the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret that I was not aware of the specific speech to which the noble Earl refers but I think we can agree with the general terms on which he reports it to have been based. The twinning aims to strengthen the institutions and the administrative capacities of the applicants. The centrepiece of the twinning will be secondments between an applicant and a member state. We and other member states will inform the Commission by the middle of June of the expertise that we can offer and we will then firm up the arrangements with the applicants with the aim of getting the first twinning arrangements into place by October or November this year.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, if Estonia is admitted in due course, Estonian will be one of the official languages of the European Union. As only 5 million people speak Estonian—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—will there not be a campaign by the Catalans, whose language is spoken by around 6 million people. who will wish the Catalan language to be an official language of the European Union as well? Is there not a danger of an extraordinary proliferation of languages as some of the smaller countries are admitted?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the question of official languages will have to be discussed during the course of the negotiations between the applicant counties, member states and the Commission.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that questions of numbers will not dominate her mind in relation to Estonia and the other Baltic states but rather their heroic tradition of suffering and their fidelity through the years to democratic ideals? Can we be assured that the Government will be supporting the application of these states for membership of the Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the criteria used for all the applicant countries will be the same. Those criteria will have to fulfil the requirements in relation to human rights, in relation to the economic position of the country and in relation to political institutions. The criteria will be the same for all countries. It is not a question of numbers; it is a question of fulfilling the criteria.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on that point, Estonia has made major progress towards the integration of Russian minorities into its society. In the light of the Government's policy on human rights, do they support the amendments to Estonia's naturalisation laws'? If so, does the Minister therefore foresee a smoother passage of entry for Estonia into the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I refer to the answer that I just gave on the question of

1757
human rights. The criteria applied in respect of human rights will be the same for all countries. As the noble Lord is aware, Estonia, along with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Cyprus, began accession discussions at the end of March. As far as we can see, the basic criteria are already in place and we are now in negotiations with those countries.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are 1.5 million people living in Estonia of whom many speak three or four languages, including English? Is she further aware that our present excellent ambassador to Estonia, Mr. Timothy Craddock, was recently interviewed on Estonian television and spoke fluently in Estonian? Will the noble Baroness offer him her congratulations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, not for the first time the noble Earl's intimate knowledge of Estonia considerably outdistances my own. I shall be very pleased to convey his congratulations to the ambassador.

Kosovo
11.13 a.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will propose to the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in order to stop Serbs killing Albanians in the province of Kosovo.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, no role is envisaged for the Stabilisation Force, the SFOR, in Kosovo. SFOR was established in accordance with the Dayton Agreement for peace in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Its mandate does not cover action in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Does it not immediately lead to the question as to whether the mandate should be changed to cover, if necessary, action either in Kosovo within Serbia or on the Albanian frontier between Kosovo and Albania? Is not the fact of the matter that the present measures being taken, such as sanctions, show at this stage very little sign whatever of succeeding? Indeed, Commissioner van den Brock, at a conference last week, described the sanctions as little more than an act of helplessness of last peaceful resort? Are we not really in great danger of making the same mistakes as were made in 1991 and 1992? Is not the fact of the matter that as long as Milosevic is president of the Federal Republic of Serbia, the western world can make as many declarations and pass as many sanction rules as it likes, but effectively we are whistling in the wind?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the situation in Kosovo is increasingly dangerous as the noble Lord and indeed I am sure the
1758
whole House, will be aware. A pattern of virtually unbroken, low-intensity fighting has now developed in western Kosovo and in border areas. There are growing concentrations of Serb security forces and Yugoslav army units which are very worrying. But NATO has expressed its concern at these recent events and has pledged to continue to monitor the situation very closely. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that this is not an issue that has been placed to one side, but that it is being monitored and that NATO's concern has been expressed on that point.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, before anyone at the Ministry of Defence or anyone else takes a decision to commit British soldiers to this part of the world, first, will they make sure that they read a simple history of that area over the centuries which has been pretty bloody? Secondly, will they consult the Germans who became ensnared there between 1941 and 1945, with great casualties, and ask them why they made jolly sure that they did not get involved in that area?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the utmost care will be taken before there is any question of pledging British troops anywhere. We should note that the recent visit to the region by the Secretary-General underlines the importance that NATO attaches to preventing the escalation of conflict. NATO is currently considering possible further measures to promote stability and security in the region. I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to note that Mr. Milosevic met Mr. Rugova, the leader of the opposition, on 15th May. That was a very welcome first step. The meeting was made possible by sustained pressure from the European Union, the contact group and others in the international community.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, following the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers on 27th April when the decision was taken to bring in sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, there was reference to additional measures. Can the noble Baroness say what they might be or have they been agreed? May I also ask the Minister about the crisis which has just blown up in part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; namely, the attempt by President Milosevic to appoint Mr. Momir Bulatovic as the new president of the Federal Republic which has been rejected by the Montenegran Parliament and is now leading to a serious political crisis in that part of the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Can the noble Baroness tell us something about that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness any further specific information on the last point that she raised. My general point is that there is considerable worry about what appears to be a continuing armed conflict in that part of the world and continuing difficulties caused by the lack of stability. The noble Baroness must be reassured that this matter is being monitored not only by the United Kingdom Government but through the contact group and the EU.

1759
The noble Baroness asked about further measures. These are under consideration at the moment. The question of sanctions has revolved around the freezing of assets in this country and investment in Kosovo. As regards money going into Kosovo, that matter was put on one side for the time being on 16th May, given the meeting that had just taken place between Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Rugova. It was hoped that that meeting would lead to a quieter, more stable position in Kosovo. The other issues will be considered at further meetings within the next couple of weeks or so. I hope that we shall have more information at that stage as regards the first point that the noble Baroness raised.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important that the frontier between Albania and Kosovo is monitored to prevent the infiltration of arms and people from Albania into Kosovo?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree that it is enormously important to monitor what is happening at the borders. Five monitors are currently attached to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We are giving as much support as possible to ensure that we are monitoring what is happening on the borders because of the tension that may well escalate if the level of hostility rises in Kosovo. We are well aware of the possibility of a spill-over of the conflict outside Kosovo, to which the noble Earl referred.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as normal chaos returns and re-establishes itself in the Balkans after the break-up of Yugoslavia, would the Government consider an arrangement under which NATO, which was set up for a completely different purpose and has a membership which is only partially appropriate to these operations, would make available to the OSCE its own facilities in terms of international co-operation for future military action in that part of the world with the aim of defusing the possible American/Russian and Western European/Russian tensions that will continue to arise as long as this is left to NATO under its own direct command?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been pursuing the question of Kosovo through a number of different forums. The House will probably be most aware of the contact group through which we are trying to ensure the maximum degree of international agreement, involving both the United States and Russia in our approach to the problems of Kosovo. I believe that in the first instance we should be considering the role of the contact group to see what can be done to de-escalate the difficulties and hostilities in Kosovo rather than leaping down the path of assuming that our only course of action is to bring in full NATO forces. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord was suggesting, but I hope that I have got over to him the point that the Government will want to continue to pursue the option of the contact group.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the recent report by the Council
1760
of Europe which looked into the question of Kosovo, and particularly its recommendation that any potential long-term settlement of the issue should be within the existing borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and that there should be no question of Kosovo somehow seceding from those existing borders?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the report and agree with its major conclusions about Kosovo not seceding. The position of the EU contact group is clear on this point. It supports enhanced status and a greater degree of autonomy for Kosovo within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, that has to include meaningful self-administration. The status quo is clearly not sustainable.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the Minister will know that no one on either side of this House wishes to mitigate the extraordinary difficulty of the circumstances in Kosovo at the moment, but history certainly does repeat itself in the Balkans as elsewhere. Having been to Mostar, Bihac and Sarajevo within the past 11 months and seen the horrific damage done in recent years in those cities and the country around them, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind, and to pass on to her colleagues, the fact that we must try to avoid repeating the mistakes that were made in the early 1990s?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. Having heard that acknowledgement of his views from all sides of the House, I am sure that all noble Lords agree with his basic premise. A few moments ago I mentioned the meeting between Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Rugova earlier this month. That meeting was made possible as a result of sustained pressure from the EU and the contact group and others in the international community who are pressing for a dialogue within Kosovo itself. We must look to both sides in the conflict to use the opportunity to establish a political process which we hope will lead to an enhanced status for Kosovo. There is a particular responsibility upon President Milosevic as head of the government to seek that negotiated settlement.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, given that the Minister has informed the House that there are only five monitors, what information can she give us about the extent and effectiveness of the monitors who were deployed by the European monitoring mission in Kosovo?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would not wish to be misunderstood. Five may not be the total number. I believe that five monitors were looking particularly at the border arrangements. I shall write to the noble Lord on that point because I would not want any imprecision on my part to be misleading. I hope that it is understood that the Government's position is that it is enormously important to monitor

1761
what is happening. I believe that that monitoring position changes as the difficulties are perceived to be more or less acute. As I have said, I shall write to the noble Lord on the particular point that he raised about monitoring.

Dounreay: Processing Activities
11.25 a.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglasasked Her Majesty's Government:
When work will start on (a) the enriched uranium and (b) the irradiated material sent from Georgia to Dounreay.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the 4.1 kg of unirradiated highly enriched uranium will be processed into targets for production of medical isotopes once the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have completed a review of the management of safety at Dounreay and are satisfied that processing activities in the fuel cycle area can be carried out safely. The 600 grams of irradiated uranium is now in safe storage at Dounreay. It will not be reprocessed before the HSE is satisfied with the safety of the reprocessing line. The quantities of highly enriched uranium are slightly smaller than announced immediately after the arrival of the material because those figures were for the total Uranium 235 in the consignment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Can he reassure the House that when it comes to future reprocessing proposals, an environmental impact assessment will be made first in the best interests of health, safety and the environment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, safety is absolutely key in these matters. There are requirements in relation to the environment and adherence to the regulatory process. I do not think that a specific environmental impact assessment is required in the circumstances, but I shall look further into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may précis the Minister's Answer by saying that the Government do not have a clue about when the material might be reprocessed. Is it not a fact that the irradiated material cannot be reprocessed because Dounreay does not have a certificate allowing it to reprocess, and that the non-irradiated material cannot now be reprocessed because Dounreay's certificates have been withdrawn and the whole fuel cycle area has been shut down? Is it not a fact that without some years passing and many millions of pounds being spent, neither of the materials
1762
can be reprocessed? Does not that call into doubt the Prime Minister's assurance that Dounreay was the safest place to take Georgian nuclear material?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord is uncharacteristically going overboard a little. He knows that I have quite a high regard for his abilities, including now his ability to go overboard. Although I appreciate the noble Lord offering to help by précising my Answer, I thought that I had done that when I approved it.
It will not necessarily take years. As the noble Lord is well aware, this matter is under careful investigation by independent and responsible authorities. I cannot say when the work will be able to go ahead; it will be only when safe to do so and only when the necessary compliance has been given by the organisations concerned. That is the responsible approach. I do not know why the noble Lord draws the conclusion that it will take years. He does not have a vestige of evidence to support that proposition. It will be done as soon as possible, but the most important element is safety. As to the noble Lord's assertion about the Prime Minister, there was no reason to suppose at the material time that there was a problem about safety.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I lived in Caithness when the nuclear station was built. Can the Minister inform the House whether there is a cluster of leukaemia cases in that area? Given that this more powerful uranium has been sent there, what is the risk of seepage into the sea and contamination of water and fish?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the point that the noble Baroness raises goes very much wider than the Question tabled. I am not aware that there is any danger of leukaemia. However, because this falls outside the scope of the Question I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can the Minister assist as to the length of time that the environmental audit may take? The Minister will be aware that similar problems have arisen at Sellafield which is very professionally run and where safety is paramount. Will this environmental audit or checking of both highly irradiated and normally irradiated material be out of the ordinary? Will it take years or can one expect some good news before the millennium?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is not just an environmental audit but an investigation that is being reliably and authoritatively undertaken. The essential requirement is not speed but thoroughness. To return to the conclusion drawn by the noble Lord who spoke from the Front Bench, there is no reason to suppose that this matter will take years. The noble Lord will understand that what is important here is that it should be done thoroughly. I am sure that no one in this House expects anything else.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, referring to the Minister's earlier response to my noble friend Lord

1763
Selkirk, will the normal rules concerning return to sender of irradiated material be enforced in this instance?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, not in this instance because the amount involved was very small indeed. It would not be appropriate to return it to its source because it has no means of dealing with the matter. It would have been completely irrelevant had we insisted on it in this case.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is much safer for this material to be kept in this country where it is under control than to leave it in Georgia where it can easily fall into the wrong hands?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is substance in that point. At the heart of the matter is the question of taking action in the context of non-proliferation. I believe that by undertaking this particular contract this country also did the right thing in that respect. I believe that that is a very important point to underline, and I am grateful to the noble Earl.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the importance to the local economy of Dounreay? Can he assure the House that while this investigation is going on there will be no dismissals or suspension of workers at Dounreay?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is not a matter for the Government. No doubt the authority will note from its diligent reading of Hansard the point made by the noble Lord. As far as I am aware, the local community has not expressed deep concern about the matter. In the past Dounreay has been very diligent in ensuring that the local community is aware of what goes on.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that the cousin of my wife is dying of cancer having been a nuclear engineer at Dounreay. Can my noble friend inform the House who will pay for the storage and reprocessing of the material from Georgia?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is a matter for the contracting parties. I am sure that all noble Lords are sorry to hear the information that my noble friend has disclosed. I am sure that he does not wish to imply that there is any necessary connection between what goes on at Dounreay and the unfortunate condition that afflicts his relative.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, the Minister has said that he will write to me on the specific point that I raised. Will the Minister bear in mind that other countries carry out environmental impact assessments to the highest standards before they make key decisions of great importance?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in one of my earlier answers I referred to the need for compliance with three
1764
essential criteria: safety, environmental requirements and regulatory requirements in another respect. I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [H.L.]
11.25 a.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hardie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (66) as first printed for the Commons]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
(""(a) in a case where a statement of facts as mentioned in subsection (3)(b)(i) above was served on the accused with the summons, that statement;
(aa) in a case where a statement or statements as mentioned in subsection (3)(b)(ii) above was served on the accused with the summons and the court does not otherwise direct, that statement or those statements;";').
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. It may be helpful if I speak also to Amendment No. 2 and explain the changes the two amendments jointly make to Clause 1 and how they improve the procedure which the Bill establishes. Both amendments reflect discussion with experienced practitioners. The Bill found favour in your Lordships' House as a practical measure to reduce delay in summary proceedings under Section 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, particularly those for the less serious motoring offences.
Clause 1, as sent to the Commons by your Lordships, amended Section 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act to allow a guilty plea to be given by the defendant in response to a summons served with a statement of facts as at present or a written witness statement conforming to Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Service of the summons with a written statement is the key procedural change. The considerable advantage of that change is that the written statement can be used in two ways. First, it may be used as an account of the facts of the case when the defendant wishes to plead guilty. In those circumstances the witness statement serves the same purpose as the statement of facts does at present and will be read by the court clerk. Secondly, when the defendant does not respond to the summons the evidence in the statement may be used by the prosecutor to prove the case in the absence of the defendant on the first listed hearing thus avoiding the need for an adjournment.

1765
In the first set of circumstances—when a witness statement is used to give an account of the facts following a plea of guilty—the original draft of Clause 1 would require the court clerk to read out the whole statement. Reading a witness statement will take longer than reading a statement of facts because it is a full account of what the witness saw, heard and did and will have been prepared to prove the case. The statement will include detail which is not required for a guilty plea. In a speeding case, for example, the statement will describe the steps taken to check the accuracy of a calibrated speedometer in a police vehicle. That evidence may be required to rebut any challenge that the equipment is faulty, but it is not needed when the defendant has already pleaded guilty.
Clause 1 as originally drafted would undoubtedly reduce the number of adjournments but each guilty plea will take longer than it does presently if the court clerk is required to read each witness statement verbatim. The cumulative effect of reading each statement in full could reduce the time and costs savings created by the new procedures. That would be an undesirable outcome in a Bill designed to save time and reduce delay.
A number of practitioners, including senior magistrates and justices' clerks, drew the Government's attention to the problem of Clause I as first drafted. The Government considered most carefully the points made by practitioners and accepted that in a guilty plea case a full reading of the witness statement was not necessary and could lead to court time being wasted. Requiring the statement to be read in full after a guilty plea would also mean that the court clerk would very likely have to do more than the prosecutor when proving the case. The prosecutor may, where the court so directs, give an oral account of what is said in a witness statement. Provision for the prosecutor to summarise in this way is made in Section 9(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. For those reasons the Government brought forward the amendments which are for consideration today. The practical effect of the two amendments will be to allow the court clerk to give an oral account of, or to summarise, the witness statement when the defendant has pleaded guilty.
Amendment No. 1 stipulates what shall be read by the court clerk in a guilty plea case. This will depend on whether the summons served on the defendant is served with a statement of facts or a witness statement. When the summons is served with a statement of facts the clerk will read that statement of facts to the court. When the summons is served with a witness statement or statements and the court does not otherwise direct, the clerk will read that witness statement or statements to the court. The nature of the direction by the court is the subject of Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 2 does two things. First, it provides that when a witness statement has been served with the summons and the court gives the direction mentioned in Amendment No. 1, the court shall cause an account to be given orally before the court by the clerk of the court of so much of any statement as is not read aloud.
1766
The second part of the amendment preserves the provision in the original Bill, that when a written statement is read out, the declaration at the beginning of the statement need not be read out. This is the declaration by the person making the statement to the effect that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he made the statement knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, he would be liable to prosecution if he wilfully stated in it anything which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true.
The requirement for the court to give a direction means that the court will control the proceedings and that the clerk may only summarise what is in the statement with the express authority of the court. The Bill as introduced in this House was an eminently practical measure to tackle delay in summary proceedings. The changes made by these amendments reflect the concerns of practitioners. They will further improve the procedure which the Bill establishes and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Hardie.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, about 97 per cent. of cases heard in our courts are heard in magistrates' courts. A high percentage of those cases are minor summary cases. Nevertheless, they sometimes suffer a number of adjournments. The Bill seeks to reduce those adjournments, and does so successfully. The amendments tabled by the Commons further enhance the effectiveness of the Bill. They are supported by this side of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 25 and insert—
(""(7A) Where the court gives a direction under subsection (7)(aa) above the court shall cause an account to be given orally before the court by the clerk of the court of so much of any statement as is not read aloud.
(7B) Whether or not a direction under paragraph (aa) of subsection (7) above is given in relation to any statement served as mentioned in that paragraph").
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to which I have already spoken with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Hardie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill
11.42 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this Bill represents the first step towards achieving the Government's aim of the introduction of new tax credits—the working families tax credit and the disabled

1767
person's tax credit. It provides authority for preparatory expenditure by the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security for the introduction of the tax credits.
In his recent Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the introduction of the WFTC, a central part of the Government's major programme of tax and benefits reform. It will provide a very real incentive to move from welfare into work by significantly boosting the earnings of low income families with children, and providing extra help with childcare costs. It will build on and replace family credit, and similarly, a new disabled person's tax credit will build on and replace disability working allowance. Both these new tax credits will be introduced in October 1999. They will be assessed and administered by the Inland Revenue, and from April 2000 will be paid in the main by employers through the wage packet.
The WFTC proposal is designed to make work pay for families, by guaranteeing them a minimum income, above and beyond the level of the minimum wage. It aims to demonstrate the rewards of work over welfare by providing a clear link with employment. We hope that it will reduce any stigma associated with claiming in-work support by changing it from a welfare benefit into a tax credit. We believe that this will encourage higher take-up and help encourage people to move off welfare and into work.
The WFTC, when it is introduced, will provide around £5 billion of help to about 1.5 million working families, equivalent to £70 per family per week. That represents approaching £1.5 billion more in-work support than family credit.
The WFTC represents an important step towards greater integration of the tax and benefit systems. In particular, it will reduce the current wasteful overlap between the tax and social security systems whereby almost 500,000 families pay income tax to the Inland Revenue while receiving FC from the DSS.
Although the purpose of the Bill is to allow preparatory work in developing the details of the scheme to go ahead, the basic structure of the tax credits is already clear. It may be helpful if I describe the outline scheme as it stands currently.
In general, families on low incomes where the main earner works more than 16 hours a week will be entitled to a tax credit of £48.80 in respect of the adults (or adult) in the household. They will also be entitled to a tax credit in respect of each child, which will range from £14.85 to £25.40 a week, depending on the age of the child. There will be an additional tax credit of £10.80 where the main earner works for more than 30 hours a week, to encourage people to move from part-time to full-time work.
The cost of childcare can be a major obstacle to work, and the WFTC will include a childcare tax credit. This will be an integral part of the WFTC and will be paid in addition to the basic, child and 30-hour credits to make up the whole WFTC package. The childcare tax credit is designed to make support for childcare through the tax system more generous and more transparent than is currently the case with family credit.
1768
The childcare tax credit will be worth 70 per cent. of eligible childcare costs, subject to an overall limit on those costs of £100 a week for one child and £150 a week for two or more children. As a result of this, the WFTC will provide support for childcare costs up to a maximum of £70 a week for a family with one child, and up to a maximum of £105 a week for a family with two or more children. This will be a significant increase on the maximum support, currently provided by the childcare disregard in family credit and it will, unlike that disregard, be paid to those on very low incomes.
The WFTC will begin to be withdrawn when the family's net income (before adding the WFTC) exceeds £90 a week. But WFTC will be withdrawn more slowly than family credit. After the £90 threshold, for each additional pound of net earnings 55 pence of WFTC will be withdrawn, as compared with 70 pence per pound under the current family credit rules.
The structure of the disabled person's tax credit will be broadly similar, and it will include an adult credit (for single people and those who are married), child credit, and the childcare tax credit to help with childcare costs.
The structure of the new tax credits reflects the priority the Government attach to getting those who are out of work into work—and keeping them in work and on the ladder of opportunity. It unambiguously improves the return to work, and will improve work incentives for families and those with an illness or disability, by making work pay. For example, by targeting the greatest increase in support on those earning between £100 and £300 a week, the WFTC will provide support for the sort of jobs people moving from unemployment and inactivity are most likely to take. The reforms to national insurance paid by employees and employers will reinforce this effect.
The WFTC alone will also ease the poverty trap—another significant discouragement to work—by reducing marginal rates for over half a million families, currently receiving family credit. The reduction is created by the lower withdrawal taper of 55 per cent. compared with 70 per cent. under family credit; the increase in the withdrawal threshold to £90 per week; the increase in child credits; and changes in the interaction with housing benefit which can currently lead to marginal rates of over 100 per cent.
Further details of the new tax credits will be fully developed in the coming months. Both the credits will be administered by the Inland Revenue on their introduction in October 1999, and from April 2000 will be paid in the main by employers through the wage packet. This will help to reinforce the link with work.
It is particularly important to ensure that the system works effectively from the start in view of the significant benefits it will provide for so many people on low incomes. This, and prudent management, means that there must be meticulous preparation. And if it is to be thorough, the preparatory work needs to begin well in advance of the introduction.
There is much to be done to bring about the smooth introduction and operation of the tax credits. The computer systems and processes need to be designed

1769
and ready to begin on the date of the introduction of the credits. Other necessary preparatory work includes the training of staff in new procedures and responsibilities, redesign of forms and leaflets, and the provision of information to employers and potential claimants. None of this can be done overnight.
Both the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security fully recognise the need to work closely together and to start work straight away to develop the necessary business processes. Indeed, an Inland Revenue project team, working jointly with the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security, has been set up to plan the new processes.
However, until the legislation introducing the credits has been sanctioned by Parliament, the costs for these aspects of development work are outside the current accounting remits of both departments. That is why we need the Bill. It will allow the department to expend money in preparing for the introduction of the credits. This authority is essential to enable the development work to begin now, in order to meet the timetable.
In seeking this authority the Government are behaving entirely correctly in bringing the matter to Parliament for approval. This will make sure that there is no doubt about the propriety of spending the necessary money in preparation for the tax credits. This type of legislation is not without precedent. Bills of this kind are more commonly used to facilitate privatisations where, for example, agencies are wound up and, incidentally, need to expend money on winding themselves up. This is normally outside their powers and requires specific legislation for the necessary expenditure to be incurred by them.
It is important also to bear in mind that while this Bill extends the authority to incur expenditure for the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security, it does not relax the controls upon them. Both departments will be accountable for this expenditure in the normal way, through their Permanent Secretaries in their role as Chief Accounting Officer. This Bill merely allows the work to go ahead in developing the credits. The substantive legislation will be brought before the House, probably in the next parliamentary session, when this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details carefully.
This is an important Bill which will allow necessary work to begin in preparation for the introduction of these credits which are central to the Government's programme of tax and benefit reform, and I therefore commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
11.53 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the purposes of this short Bill. I was a little concerned on, I think Tuesday, that the Minister would no longer be answering for the Treasury when I discovered that he was taking through the education Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord on his versatility and brilliance. When he
1770
has to be parachuted in to help, I am not sure whether it is a reflection on the versatility and brilliance or a reflection on Ministers. I believe that my noble friend Lady Blatch, considered it a distinct honour that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, had to be reinforced by the strength and ability of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, I am just relieved that I am not deprived of his excellent explanation of Bills. I fear that he is about to beat my record for the number of Bills taken through in one parliamentary Session; I suppose I can do nothing to stop that.
This is a small Bill, as the noble Lord said. It deals with preparatory expenditure for the new proposals for tax credits. I was a little surprised to hear the Minister say that the main Bill would be introduced probably next Session. I wonder how that squares with introducing the new tax credits by April 1999. I should have thought that the measure had to be introduced next Session. It seems a little odd that some doubt is creeping into the Government's mind. The only reason why Parliament should pass such preparatory legislation is if Parliament is absolutely sure that the main Bill for which the expenditure is designed will be passed.
The proposal for tax credits builds on the success of the family credit scheme. We are not opposed in principle to a shift from the benefit system to a tax credit system. Many of the points the Minister made are absolutely valid. When we were in government, it seemed odd to us as well that some families paid tax on the one hand and received benefits on the other. However, when we considered moving to a system somewhat like that proposed here we discovered that there were major administrative and other difficulties. When we judge the main Bill, and the prospectus set out by the Minister, we shall ask some questions. Is it simple to operate? Is it transparent? Does it impose unnecessary burdens and expense on business? Does it erode the principle of independent taxation? We considered the possibility of this system ourselves, but the complications are considerable.
Currently family credit has a considerable virtue: it is relatively simple to administer. The person goes to the Benefits Agency with which she is probably dealing anyway. Some checks are made; a payment book is brought forward; and, in general, the mother goes to the post office and picks up the family credit. That will be changed. Other players will be introduced. The Inland Revenue will have to come in. I suppose the Minister will say that it replaces the Benefits Agency so it is a one for one. More importantly, the employer will have to become involved in a way that does not happen now. At present the employer does not necessarily know which of his employees is claiming family credit. He does not need to know. In future he will need to know so there will be a relationship between the employee and the revenue, the revenue and the employer, and the employer and employee—perhaps even between the employee and employer so far as concerns tax credit.
Employers will need to know who is entitled to family credit. They may even need to know what an employee's spouse earns, and how many children he has. Employers will need to know this for the very first time. They will obviously know who is so entitled.

1771
I fear that too much bureaucracy may be involved on the part of the employer. There is also the impact on the employer's cash flow. If he is paying out money in tax credit, for how long will he be without that money before he receives it back from the Inland Revenue? It is a difficult question. It could become more difficult. An employer interviews two people for a job. If he discovers that one will be eligible for tax credit and the other will not, will he be more sympathetic to the fellow or lady who does not have a tax credit and therefore will not add to his workload or problems with his cash flow? It is a serious problem that we shall undoubtedly have to consider. It will have to be addressed to an extent in the preliminary work. I understand that much of the expense is in developing the computer system. I strongly suspect that it will be more expensive to develop than the Government think if experience with the Benefits Agency is anything to go by. One needs to know what questions the computer has to answer and ask, as it is engineered. Many of those issues will have to be decided before the main Bill comes before the House. Therefore I imagine that the Government have answers to some of these points.
An important aspect arises in respect of the employer's workload and his discovering details about the employee's personal affairs; for instance, his spouse's income, his children and whether he is eligible for tax credit. When the Social Security Select Committee in the other place took evidence on that the Institute of Directors stated:
"No employer will want to have to collect that information",
that is, information about the earnings of employees' spouses and the number of children they have. It continued:
"Furthermore, many employees will be reluctant to supply such information to their employers. Claimants currently supply that information to the Benefits Agency only on the clear understanding that it will not go any further".
Indeed, security of information is an important aspect of the work of the Benefits, Agency.
I wish to repeat a point that I made previously about transparency of the expenditure. Help given to working families will no longer be shown in the Red Book as an expenditure of the Department of Social Security, but will appear in the figures of the Inland Revenue. It will be tax forgone. That is a difficult issue. A huge error was made in the Government's Red Book because of such difficulties. Four of its tables were wrong; they were tables B5, B8, B9 and B24. Indeed, a parliamentary Answer was needed to a "planted question", as they call it, on 27th March to enable the Financial Secretary to correct the errors in the Red Book.
The errors were significant. The original tables assumed that the value of the income tax credits would be 0.3 per cent. of GDP. The correction was that they would be 0.8 per cent. of GDP. Your Lordships may be forgiven for believing that 0.5 per cent. of GDP does not add up to much. But it adds up to an awful lot; to £15 billion between the start of the scheme and the year 2002-2003. Therefore, it was a significant error.
1772
The shift to being scored as negative taxation and not social security spending is an odd sleight of hand. When I previously challenged the Government the Minister answering pointed to MIRAS as being something similar which they could pray in aid. Whereas MIRAS has never been counted as social security expenditure, family credit has. Therefore, this large item of expenditure will be Tipp-Exed out of the Government's income and expenditure accounts. One will need to burrow deeply into the income figures in order to discover exactly how much tax has been forgone by the family credit.
My final question is equally important in the context of how the computer system is set up. Who collects the money? The Minister said he trusted that by April 2000 in the main the money would be paid via tax credits. Currently, family credit is largely collected by the mother, a little like child benefit. That is the great strength in both family credit and child benefit. If the mother is the only earner in a household of two adults or is a single parent, nothing will change; she will collect the tax credit as she collects the family credit from the post office. Nothing will change. Even if the father is the earner, by and large the mother usually collects the money. However, under the new system the father can collect the money via the tax credit. What puzzles me is: who decides? What is the fallback position? Does the mother decide that she wishes to continue to collect the money as a family credit? Does the father decide that he wishes to collect it as a tax credit? Alternatively, must they have a family meeting to make the decision?
I wish to know who has the veto on the matter because it is important. If there is inertia and no one makes a decision what will the Government do? My wager is that the Government will pay the money as a tax credit. They do not want to pay it as a family credit because they do not want it to appear in the accounts as an expenditure. Therefore, I suspect that in the circumstances I have outlined the father will be given the tax credit.
I and many people are concerned about the pressures which will be brought on the mother to ensure that she gives up her right to collect the money at the post office. Will she and the children see the money if it is paid to the father? When child benefit was introduced, one of the great debates was that it would go to the mother. One of the worrying aspects which stopped us proceeding with this proposal, apart from the bureaucracy, was the question of who is paid. These are difficult social issues, and I wish to warn to Government that in Committee and at later stages we shall wish to explore them. However, it may be too late because the engineering of the computer system will have been designed to deliver the benefit either to the father or to the mother.
I hope that the Minister can give me some reassurance on these issues, in particular the last issue. In many of the families which need such help, the financial relationships between the father and the mother are not—let me put it this way—on a good footing. I can see that money which is currently paid to the mother through the post office will turn up in the husband's

1773
wallet and will not see its way to her purse. I do not believe that a transfer from the purse to the wallet will help achieve our purpose of assisting all members of families in work.
12.7 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches support the principle behind the substance of the working families tax credit. We have a number of concerns about the Government's approach and I hope that the Minister will deal with some of them today. First, we are surprised that we have an open-ended money Bill to deal with the issue. The Bill makes no suggestion of the cost and we and our colleagues in another place are being asked to give the Government an open cheque. That is not a good general principle.
In another place, we expressed concern about the fact that a supplementary estimate had not been adopted. That seemed to us a more normal way of proceeding. Today the Minister gave us some precedents for money Bills, but I am not sure that the privatisation precedent is relevant to a tax and benefits change. The Minister in another place said that she believed that this was the correct legislative route for the somewhat unusual circumstance whereby two departments were required to work together. We were sorry to hear that the situation is so unusual that we need a special Bill to help them to do so. We wondered mischievously whether there was a certain amount of passing the parcel between the departments in respect of which was to bear the cost. Perhaps a money Bill is seen as a way of dealing with a potential conflict as to which will foot the bill.
We have a further concern relating to the components of the expenditure. The Minister explained what they might be. We hear about computers, training and information. We also hear about staffing costs, but I do not believe that we need a money Bill to set up a working group of Inland Revenue officials to look at a tax change. Tax changes take place all the time and in the Finance Bill following the Budget we see a huge amount of putative work that has had to be done on tax changes.
The one matter which is really likely to cost money is in relation to computers. It is impossible for the Inland Revenue to be spending money at this stage on information because there is nothing about which to inform people. There are no proposals. It is very difficult to see how it can be spending very much on training because there is nothing to train people on. Indeed, even as regards computers, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has just said, you can only do a significant amount of work when you know what is to be the structure of the new benefit.
That brings me to our main concern, which relates to timing and consultation. Both here and in another place much has been made of the need to consult widely on this Bill because it is extremely complicated and affects millions of people. And yet we have heard nothing about the timetable for pre-legislative consultation.
I believe that the Minister said that he expected the Bill to be in the next Session. I assume that the only other alternative is that we shall have the Bill in a
1774
fortnight, in a month or before the Summer Recess; but I suspect not. If that is the case and we are talking about a Bill in the next Session, it would be helpful to know what procedure the Inland Revenue now intends to follow in terms of consultation on the structure of the new benefit. When can we expect a consultative document; what form will it take; and will it be issued in plenty of time for all those who have a legitimate interest in the issue to make substantive comments on it before legislation is in such a form that those comments cannot be taken on board? In particular, we express the hope that the document does not emerge in the middle of the summer period with a very short timetable for comments to come in.
While in one sense we are pleased that the Government are getting on with the introduction of this benefit, we are sensible of its extremely complex nature. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has spoken at length about a number of the complications. It seems to us that this measure will affect the lives of millions of people in a fundamental way, where even a week's problem in terms of the flow of income to low income earners may have a devastating effect on their family income and their capacity to manage their affairs in a sensible way. Therefore, it is crucially important that from the day this credit is introduced it is fully formed and operating efficiently. We must not find ourselves dealing with a large number of errors. Therefore, the whole question of consultation and timetable becomes crucially important.
On balance, we believe that setting a tight deadline and October next year is an extremely tight deadline for a change of this magnitude—is good because if a longer deadline is set it may take longer to achieve it. However, I should welcome any assurance which the Minister can give about an orderly timetable for consultation, legislation and implementation between now and next October. We should welcome also the assurance that the Minister is confident that the Inland Revenue has the measure of that change and will be able to introduce it in an orderly way which will be crucially important if this much-needed change is to take place successfully.
12.14 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may make two points. It is clear from the speeches to which your Lordships have listened that the main Bill next Session is likely to be extremely complicated. Both for that reason and from past experience, it is extremely unlikely to be easily comprehended. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, used the current fashionable phrase "transparency". It is not likely to be very transparent.
There is an unofficial body which has been generally acclaimed and has had official support both from the previous government and from the present Government concerned with the rewriting and clarification of the fiscal law generally. Arising out of what has been said, and particularly after the last speech that was addressed to your Lordships, I suggest that before we have the main Bill, it should be processed through the Fiscal Law Reform Committee.

1775
That was a committee under the sponsorship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and it will be easily identified. It would certainly be helpful if the Bill could be vetted and drafted under the aegis of that committee rather than having an extremely complicated and untransparent Act which subsequently had to go to the committee.
The other point is very short arising from Clause 1(4)(b) which states:
"for the reference to money provided by Parliament there shall be substituted a reference to money appropriated by Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
That relates to the Northern Irish impact of the Bill. Is that a reference, as the Bill stands, to the present set-up or does it refer to what we hope will be the outcome of the referendum tomorrow?
12.16 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short Second Reading debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for their support in principle both for the proposals and for the Bill. My gratitude is even greater to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, because he carried the twin burdens of representing both the Treasury and the Department of Social Security in this House for a very long time. Therefore, he understands the issues concerned with this legislation and the forthcoming legislation more clearly, I suspect, than anybody else in the House.
However, he should know by now that we do not stand up in this House or anywhere else and give commitments as to what will appear in the Queen's Speech. He knows perfectly well that the words "probably next Session" is the standard precaution which we take in those circumstances.
The noble Lord referred to the burdens on business which may flow from this change to tax credits. Of course, such burdens are very much in the mind of Government. I reassure him about the amount of work that employers will have to do. Instructions to employers will come from the Inland Revenue only in the form of an amount which must be paid to a given employee in the given payment period, whether it is a weekly or monthly payment. There will be no calculation for the employer to make and, more important, there will be no way in which the employer can find out how the calculation was arrived at.
In other words, the employer will not know whether there is a spouse or a partner because those credits apply to unmarried as well as married couples. There is no need for the employer to know anything about the employee's personal affairs; for example, the number of children or any of the other elements in the calculation. The employer will merely be told that he must pay so much per week to that employee.
I hope that that in turn addresses some of the problems which the noble Lord anticipates as regards intrusion into the employee's affairs by the employer. For example, there is no reason at all why an employer interviewing two people should know, before deciding
1776
which person to employ, whether or not a person is receiving the working family's tax credit. Of course, the instruction to pay is exactly comparable to the instruction to pay in the case of MIRAS, although I hesitate to say that because it would, perhaps, raise more complications than those raised by the noble Lord and, indeed, more than we need to raise. But, certainly, PAYE and national insurance contributions are instructions to employers to pay and it is no different in that respect.
The noble Lord asked me about the reimbursement of employers. Where the amount paid out in working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit is less than the amount which the employer receives as a result of withholding tax under the PAYE system, the two will be netted off against each other. I acknowledge that that will make a difference in the employer's cashflow. But, historically, since the introduction of PAYE, the employer has always had a timing benefit from withholding tax before he has to pay that tax withheld on a monthly basis. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever been an employer, but I was one for 30 years. I found that the withholding of PAYE and national insurance contributions enormously easier to organise than I did my VAT returns, with which I always had huge difficulties.
The noble Lord rightly said that a very significant part of the expenditure under this Bill will be in computer systems. But the computer systems will not be starting from scratch. The reason for our needing this power for the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security is that we are building on the department's computer system and it is best that it should be involved in that process rather than trying to start entirely from scratch.
The noble Lord made a point about the transparency of expenditure and the fact that tax forgone can be presented—as, indeed, I believe it is in the United States—as not being part of public expenditure on social security. I believe that the Americans also count it as being a tax cut, which we are certainly not attempting to do. Whatever government do for internal purposes is a matter of presentation and is relatively neutral. However, I can assure the noble Lord that, so far as concerns the national accounts, the Office for National Statistics would not stand for any nonsense even if the Government were to propose it, and will be presenting these tax credits as they are, correctly in the national accounts.
The noble Lord made perfectly responsible and worthwhile points about the purse-to-wallet transfer and the danger of the husband taking the money for childcare and child benefit for that part of working families tax credit where the expenditure really ought to go, as it has in the past, to the mother. Where there is a husband working and a wife who is not working, there is no presumption, despite the noble Lord's wager, that the money will go as a tax credit to the working partner rather than as a direct benefit to the non-working partner. That matter will be resolved by agreement between the two partners. If there is disagreement between them, the presumption will not be that it goes

1777
to the working partner, whether male or female, but that it will go to the partner who has the most responsibility for looking after the child.
I hope that that will alleviate some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord and those which were correctly expressed by those interested in family welfare when the proposals of the previous government were put forward. We are not trying to pull a fast one, if I may put it that way, and there is no sleight of hand here either in the national accounts or in the actual mode of payment where there is one working partner and one non-working partner.
The noble Lord's final point was that it will be too late to do anything about it when we actually come to the main Bill. I do not believe that that is the case. We need this paving Bill—and this takes in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—because the work being done is outside the current accounting remit of both the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security. That is why it cannot be done as a statutory instrument. Similarly, because it is being done outside that accounting remit, the existing procedures for paying family credit and disability working allowance will continue, as they have to continue until any changeover takes place. If by any chance the main legislation were not possible, then nothing would have been lost other than the expenditure provided for under this Bill.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is not open-ended expenditure; this is expenditure for which both the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security will be responsible. Their accounting officer and their Permanent Secretaries will be responsible to Parliament in exactly the same way as for other expenditure. The fact that we cannot say at present what the exact quantum is does not mean that there is no responsibility in that respect.
As my honourable friend the Economic Secretary said in another place, we should have the power to enable departments to work together. It is not that it is unusual; indeed, that is not the reason for having a paving Bill. The reason is the accounting remit. The noble Lord is quite right to say that, in designing the computer systems, we need to have an understanding of the structure which those computer systems are designed to implement. That is why I took care in my opening remarks to set out the fact that we do know the structure and we know a lot of the amounts which we are going to propose in legislation as a result of the Budget. Therefore, the noble Lord can be reassured that the instructions to those who are preparing the computer systems will be clear and that they will be prepared in time.
The noble Lord also referred to the timing of consultation because, as he rightly said, there is a tight time-scale involved. We have already begun consultation. We have consulted representatives of employer groups, payroll organisations, practitioners and business. Indeed, we announced all of this in the pre-budget report in November of last year, which is further evidence of the transparency of our legislation and of our implementation of changes to our tax and welfare system. I hope that that, in turn, reassures the
1778
noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the nature of the preparations that we are making for what he rightly described as this much-needed change.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, anticipated that this would be a very complicated Bill. I shall not say that he is wrong. The noble and learned Lord made suggestions about the way in which this Bill might be scrutinised in terms of the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. We are grateful to him for his comments and we shall certainly consider the suggestions that he made.
The Bill provides for a Northern Ireland assembly, although that provision will not be necessary during a period of direct rule. When this legislation is actually brought into force and implemented, we hope that we will have a Northern Ireland assembly and that we will, therefore, need the provisions in the Bill which have been made in anticipation.
I hope that I have responded to all of the questions that have been raised by noble Lords.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 18th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
12.30 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON SUBSIDIARITY PROVISIONS
(". No later than one year after the passing of this Act, and at annual intervals thereafter, a Minister of the Crown shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing details of the application in the United Kingdom and in the European Union of the Protocol to the Treaty establishing the European Community on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we debated the deceptive subject of subsidiarity in Committee, I tried to show that it is one of the fundamental frauds of the Euroland adventure—one of the fundamental frauds brought about by the Treaty of Rome. That debate took place on 28th April at cols. 170 to 191 of the Official Report. We have inevitably touched on it at other stages of our debates, because subsidiarity lies close to the heart of the disagreement between those of us who see the Treaty of Rome as well intentioned but potentially disastrous for the whole of Europe, and those of your Lordships who see it as a glorious enterprise which will bring everlasting peace and prosperity to our much loved continent.
Your Lordships will recall that subsidiarity was introduced into the treaty largely at the instigation of the then Conservative government in the Maastricht amendments of 1993—it was then Article 3b. We were

1779
assured that it would be our shield and defence against further erosion of our sovereignty. I have no doubt that most of the civil servants and Ministers who gave that assurance were in good faith, but not perhaps quite all of them. The trouble was that one did not have to be a great constitutional lawyer to see that the wording of the new clause was Delphic to say the least, and open to exactly the opposite interpretation, confirming the Community as all powerful in the areas covered by the treaty. The result was that all the main political parties in this country were keen to extol the clause's virtues because they all took the position that they did not want to see the United Kingdom absorbed into a European superstate. The governments of most of the other signatories at Maastricht, on the other hand—who, alas, are determined to create that superstate—were free to interpret the clause as conducive to that,
"ever closer union of the peoples of Europe"
which is required by the Treaty of Rome in Article A.
If there ever was any doubt about the meaning of the original subsidiarity clause at Maastricht—some of us did not think that there was—that doubt has been clearly removed at Amsterdam by the protocol which is the object of this amendment. I refer to Protocol 30. Any Delphic ambiguity has been firmly decided in favour of the interpretation put upon the clause by the majority of European nations who wish to create the very superstate which both the Conservative and Labour Parties say they wish to avoid. The Liberal Social Democrats will forgive me if, as usual, I have not quite grasped where they stand on this one, but I am sure that is my fault.
That is why this amendment is so important. It will not of itself do anything to stop the Euroland juggernaut from lumbering down its fateful path, but it will at least allow the British Parliament once a year to consider that progress in detail. I can but hope that the British people will thus become more aware of the true nature of the juggernaut, and that perhaps they may come to see that they should stand aside and let it continue without us.
I should of course justify the interpretation I have put on this matter. I am afraid there is no other way of doing it than to quote once again the relevant parts of the original Maastricht subsidiarity clause, and then from the new Amsterdam protocol, which clarifies it.
It is at this point that I urge noble Lords in the Chamber, and any noble Lord who might have struggled thus far in his reading of Hansard, not to switch off. The word "subsidiarity" itself is one of those Eurospeak words which alone is capable of switching most normal people off the entire debate about Euroland. But the devil is in the detail. When we cannot be bothered to examine the detail, the bureaucracy advances effortlessly against our democracy. So here goes, again, Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be … achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
1780
The only way to understand the intended meaning of this clause is to concentrate fiercely on the first 10 words, and then to indulge in only a few seconds of lateral thinking. Those 10 words are,
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence".
Perhaps it helps to paraphrase the clause into more normal language. It would read something like this,
"In areas which the Community does not want to control the nation states can do their own thing".
The point to grasp and never relinquish about this clause is that it is the Community which decides the areas which fall under its own control, not an individual state such as the United Kingdom. It is the Community which decides whether some proposed action is justified by its pan-European or international nature. That is why in our debates in 1993 some of us said that the clause did not afford the protection for which the Conservative government hoped. Indeed the Labour opposition agreed. And so it has proved. My right honourable friend Mr. John Major, then Prime Minister, surely was in good faith when he hoped that some 25 per cent. of existing Euroland legislation would have been repealed under this new clause, but not one single item has been so repealed. We are told that the clause has prevented the Community from producing perhaps a dozen or so regulations which would otherwise have been enacted to our detriment, but we are not given examples. Anyway, the point is that the Community could have gone ahead with those regulations if it had wanted to, because in all those areas of our national life where we have not retained the veto, the Community alone decides when it takes control.
It has to be said again that we have abandoned the veto in huge areas of our national life which are therefore now controlled by the Community. They include all of our commerce and industry, our environment, the workings of the common agricultural and fisheries policies and many other areas, including "European culture", which we now see flooding into our schools and universities as flagrant pro-Euroland propaganda.
So we now come to this new protocol agreed at Amsterdam, all of which underlines and confirms the interpretation I have given of the original clause. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the protocol are perhaps the most important. I apologise to your Lordships for the Eurospeak. Paragraph (2) states,
"The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article 6(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies"'.
So that paragraph in the new protocol confirms that subsidiarity can do nothing to withstand the other provisions of the treaty. It is powerless to diminish the acquis communautaire which, as your Lordships will recall, is the law which decrees that once the Community has acquired a power, it never gives it up. Then paragraph 2 goes further, and ordains that whatever subsidiarity may mean, it is subservient to

1781
Article 6(4) of the Treaty on European Union, the catch-all article which gives the Community the power to do what it wants to achieve its aims.
Paragraph 3 then rubs all this in by starting as follows:
"The principle of subsidiarity does not call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice",
which I would have thought was the final coup de grâce.
I shall not weary your Lordships with the other paragraphs of the protocol. There is nothing in them which goes against what I am saying; in fact, they all confirm the dismal picture. The Community is left in charge of all the decision-making and all the bogus half-protections which are sewn into this protocol.
So I fear I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he said in Committee:
"the changes between Maastricht and Amsterdam do not weaken the position. … We have not gone backwards".—[Official Report, 28/4/98; col. 185.]
The only way in which the noble Lord could be correct is if one accepts that the original Clause 3b was so weak as to be entirely useless, as many of us said it was. But if one held out any hopes for the original clause, this protocol must dash them completely.
We have indeed gone backwards, and the Community has gone forwards, as it always does. So I very much hope that your Lordships will support this amendment, which will afford Parliament the chance of monitoring the progress of this sorry tale in the years to come. It will thus give the British people an opportunity to discover the nature of the enterprise to which their political leaders have so foolishly committed them. And, when they come to understand it, their wish to leave it will become irresistible. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I deeply regret my inability to explain the position of the Liberal Democrat Benches to the noble Lord. It is not for lack of trying; however, I must apologise for what is obviously a muddled presentation. I shall continue to try to persuade the noble Lord. I shall therefore take the opportunity in a few moments to explain exactly where we stand in relation to this amendment.
Among the Prime Ministers with whom we have been blessed in recent years, there was a very great difference between the characteristics of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher of Finchley, and her successor, Mr. John Major. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, often declared victory while the war was still raging. Mr. John Major frequently failed to declare a victory when he had actually achieved one. The issue of subsidiarity is a perfect example. There is almost no area in which the Community and the Commission have moved further to meet the precise objections raised on subsidiarity by the honourable gentleman as Prime Minister when he represented this country at Maastricht. I must therefore tell the House that I find this amendment extraordinarily strange, perhaps even perverse. Let me give noble Lords a few published
1782
facts—and I shall stick entirely to published facts—which I believe indicate how misconceived the amendment is.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred to some of the sections of the protocol attached to the Amsterdam Treaty—and it is the Amsterdam Treaty that we are discussing today, not the Maastricht Treaty. The Amsterdam Treaty in fact moved on from the Maastricht Treaty, not least in the area of subsidiarity. Perhaps I may quote one or two of the statements in that protocol.
Paragraph (5) states:
"For Community action to be justified, both aspects of the subsidiarity principle shall be met: the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States' action in the framework of their national constitutional system and can therefore be better achieved by action on the part of the Community".
Again, paragraph (1) states:
"In exercising the powers conferred on it, each institution shall ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is complied with".
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and those who think as he does, will doubtless say that those are merely words, and that they are meaningless. They are not meaningless. They have indeed already been given a very clear meaning. Let me adduce a few examples.
First and foremost, in the case of all new legislation reasons must now be given as to why that legislation is being put forward. Those reasons must indicate why the legislation is necessary to meet Community objectives, and must place that necessity clearly within the terms of the treaties—all of which have gone through ratification procedures either according to the parliamentary structures that we favour in this country, or in some cases, including in this country, through a referendum. In other words, at each stage of these treaties, the views of the people have been taken on them. The treaties must therefore be borne in mind all the time, and legislation that is not within that test will fall.
Next, the test must include that objectives cannot be met by member states' national action. If they can be met by national action, then the legislation does not pass the test of subsidiarity. The Commission has clearly indicated that it now strongly favours directives over regulations, because directives allow each member state to choose its own means of accomplishing the objectives that have been agreed at the Council of Ministers or the European Council. So directives are becoming the chosen method of legislating within the Community, instead of more heavy-handed regulation, whereby the Commission itself is directly responsible for the outcome.
Next, the Commission has accepted the requirement for wide consultation. It now issues many more Green Papers than White Papers on matters of significance—as many as 13 last year. I would dare to say that it is increasingly becoming a Commission which tries very hard indeed to consult widely before bringing forward any serious legislation. I can speak about this matter at first hand, having on a number of occasions been directly involved in consultation with non-governmental organisations, in particular the platform of European

1783
non-governmental organisations on a scale which is in this country virtually unprecedented. The same is true of consultation with the so-called social partners, the trade unions and the employers.
Another fact makes the amendment, to use an old-fashioned term, otiose, or to put it more crudely, straightforwardly perverse. The Commission has now in every single year since 1994 produced a report, which is available in the Library for anybody who cares to read it, giving, unlike the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, precise details of legislation that has been withdrawn, legislation that is going ahead, and the reasons for it.
Perhaps I may give the House a few important figures. In 1990, 61 proposals for legislation were put forward by the Commission. In 1995, a year after Maastricht was fully ratified, 25 proposals were put forward. In 1997, seven were put forward, of which only three fell outside the exclusive competence of the Community. So only three raised the issue of subsidiarity in any form. A fall in the number from 61 in 1990 to three in 1997 is, I suggest, a very substantial achievement. I am surprised that those who are critical in this debate do not take credit for that achievement.
I have a slight argument with the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. In answer to a Written Answer on 26th March 1998 raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, she stated:
"Each year the Commission withdraws a number of proposals. There is no specific list of those withdrawn on grounds of subsidiarity".—[0fficial Report, 26/3/98; col. WA 255.]
There is at least a list. In 1995, 61 such proposals were withdrawn; in 1996, 48 such proposals were withdrawn; in 1997, the latest year, 30 such proposals were withdrawn. I imagine the reason that the noble Baroness did not give the exact details was that some were withdrawn on grounds of proportionality, some on grounds of subsidiarity, and some on both grounds. But the figure is far higher than that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and far more examples were clearly stated.
If any noble Lords wish to see them, I have before me the three reports for 1995, 1996 and 1997, giving full details of proposals withdrawn and proposals that remained after subsidiarity tests had been met. Nobody could sensibly call for yet another report when this report is readily available, and when UK representatives sit on the committee responsible for it. This is an area in which there has been a profound impact by the United Kingdom on the behaviour and practices of the Commission, which I believe to be wholly good. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches deeply believe in subsidiarity and consider that it should be made to work. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, may be unaware that the Liberal Democrats have fought for devolution of power from Europe to the member states and from member states to the regions for many years: but I am only too happy to enlighten the noble Lord.
This is an area in which there have been huge advances. We have the right to take some credit. The previous government have the right to take some credit
1784
and it is sad that they are not willing to do so for reasons caught up with a dogmatic desire to present Europe as she is not rather than as she is and is becoming.
There remains a problem area. It lies, as much as anywhere, with member states. According to reports on subsidiarity, 25 per cent. of existing agreed, ratified and approved legislation has not yet been implemented. That is a serious difficulty for law-abiding member states. It is high time that countries implemented the legislation, greatly cut down as it is. I say with a note of mild irony that in 1997 no less than 670 technical regulations were put forward by member states, many of them almost certainly unnecessary, while there were three items of legislation proposed by the Commission. Perhaps we should look elsewhere for the areas about which we should complain, take some credit for what has happened and indicate that the amendment is neither necessary nor borne out on the basis of the facts I have presented to the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness paid tribute to what Mr. John Major and Mr. Douglas Hurd achieved in Maastricht by negotiating some important amendments to what had been proposed before the deliberations began. Perhaps the most important change was the introduction of the subsidiarity rule, Article 3b, to which reference has been made. I believe that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is right to suggest that the outcome of the application of that rule should be reported to both Houses of Parliament from time to time. I was very surprised that the noble Baroness described the suggestion of reporting to both Houses of Parliament as "perverse". That is not correct.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I must make it plain that I regard the amendment as perverse. I indicated that the report was already available to both Houses of Parliament. That is why I said I thought the amendment perverse.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, I suggest that the amendment is not perverse. Although reports are made, and can be obtained from the cellar below the Printed Paper Office, they are not reports to the Houses of Parliament; they are reports issued within the European Community for use by the Council of Ministers, and so on. That is not the same as reporting them to Members of both Houses of Parliament, which is what my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has so wisely and convincingly proposed.
One could make a long speech about this matter; I have been into it in some detail over the years. However, I shall add little to what my noble friend said. Great hopes were raised when the subsidiarity rule was introduced. But, alas, on 27th October 1992 officials of the Commission issued a paper 22 pages long which sought to explain how the principle of subsidiary should be applied. The confusion created by that paper was appalling. In the European Court of Justice the then British learned judge, Lord Muir MacKenzie, described it as "gobbledegook".

1785
There have been great difficulties, confusion and sometimes opposition to the application of the excellent principle of subsidiarity. Until it is presented to us in a form which will give effect to what is proposed in the amendment, our Parliament will not be conscious of what has gone on.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the results have up to a point been encouraging. But they need to be more so. I do not want to go into detail on the disadvantageous process of harmonisation, but that is where the problem lies. It was all right for the original six countries which signed the Treaty of Rome. The word then used was "assimilation". When we entered, we insisted that that should be modified to "harmonisation". When we entered that was just about feasible; but, with 15 countries and 11 different languages and the prospect of a further seven countries and another half dozen languages, harmonisation is not only impossible but nonsensical. Senior lawyers of the Commission have done their best, but it is now impossible to achieve. If we lose sight of subsidiarity, which is a modification of harmonisation, we shall add to the confusion.
My noble friend has done a great service. I hope that the Government have taken it on board and will give a sympathetic answer.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the situation in 1992 was very confused as far as subsidiarity was concerned. But the outstanding characteristic of this protocol is that it is set out in much plainer language. That is its real quality. I therefore find it rather strange that we should be spilling belated tears over what happened in 1992 when we now have a protocol which very adequately clarifies the situation with regard to subsidiarity and in fact largely improves it.
I draw attention, as I have done in previous debates, to the fact that the protocol provides stronger guarantees than anything a Conservative government were able to achieve. We must remember that when the Conservative Government negotiated the Maastricht Treaty, they had negotiated fully on the issue of commitment to the full maintenance of the acquis communautaire. It is a little late now to say that all that was a great mistake.
I stress once again what I consider to be the key issue in the new protocol, which is paragraph 4. That paragraph states:
"For any proposed Community legislation, the reasons on which it is based shall be stated with a view to justifying its compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; the reasons for concluding that a Community objective can he better achieved by the Community must be substantiated by qualitative or, wherever possible, quantitative indicators".
That is a major step forward. I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, seems to regard it as being of no importance at all. To me it is the key to the improvement of the subsidiarity regulations. It will give us a great deal of comfort when we have to consider the situation in the future. I entirely agree that we should have reports on what has been achieved and on what is happening under the subsidiarity rule. They
1786
are available. I do not mind going down into the cellar of the Printed Paper Office, if necessary. It is also open to any noble Lord to ask an Unstarred Question, a Starred Question, to call for a debate or anything else. If they feel that these are issues that need to come before the House, it is well within the powers of any Member of this House to bring them forward.
1 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I regretted slightly the tone of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. It is a little unfair to suggest that, merely because my noble friend Lord Pearson and I are Conservatives, we are in some way to blame for the Maastricht Treaty. His memory must be a little short to believe that. Had we been listened to, rather than others in our party, there would have been no such treaty.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I do not blame the noble Lord for the Maastricht Treaty; I congratulate his government on having signed up to some sensible provisions.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord makes matters worse by attempting to be funny. He should understand that in both parties there are those of us who disagreed with the Maastricht Treaty and those who took it through. Some of us at that time voted against it. I suspect that there are now a good many who did not but wish they had.
I was fascinated to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, say that we had moved on from Maastricht, not least in subsidiarity. Moved on we certainly have. The noble Baroness displayed enormous enthusiasm for, and is obviously overwhelmed by, the idea that reasons must be given for the legislation that is proposed. I am old fashioned enough to think that that has always been a good idea. They may be perverse reasons, to use the noble Baroness's own words. They may be reasons with which one does not agree. But to suggest that we have made a step forward because reasons must now be given for legislation suggests that the noble Baroness is too easily satisfied on this front.
The noble Baroness reminded us that the principle of subsidiarity is that in future the rules, regulations and legislation should only come from Brussels in the event that the objectives cannot be accomplished by our own country. She was extremely keen on that. We were told how the Liberal Democrats had fought for the devolution of power. Did they fight for the devolution of power? They fought to ensure that only matters which could not be dealt with in our own country, which we were not competent to deal with ourselves, should go to Brussels. It is only a matter of a week or so ago that the noble Baroness was expressing her delight that in this treaty there are provisions for Europe to take over such matters as legislation on sex discrimination and discrimination on grounds of race or religion.
As I look around Europe and consider the record of most of our friends and partners on the Continent, I doubt whether their record on discrimination, on grounds of religion or of race, is such that we should regard ourselves as incompetent to manage these matters

1787
and that they should be handed over to those who know more about them. They may have more experience of them, but whether or not they would deal with them more competently is another matter. Indeed, why are we no longer competent to deal with these matters? Are they not ideal matters, not for subsidiarity, but matters which should be ruled out entirely of any mention in these treaties? After all, what is the doctrine of subsidiarity? When one comes down to it, it is the doctrine which is used in the Army: that the decisions best taken by the generals should be taken by the generals and they authorise down the ranks the colonels, the majors and even the lance corporals to take the action which is appropriate to them. It is not a system of democracy; it is a system of autocracy which is implied by the whole concept of subsidiarity. The mind set assumes that all power should be in Brussels or in the general headquarters of the Army and that such power as is necessary to make the thing work is passed down the line.
It is extraordinary that the noble Baroness should look at it in that way. However, she may be helped out of the hole which she dug for herself and her opposition to this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he replies to the debate. I am sure that he has a list which he will give to us of all those matters which, since the Treaty of Maastricht was enacted, have been handed back to the nation states. I am sure that there must be dozens of matters which, until the day of Maastricht and subsidiarity, were handled by Brussels, where Brussels had the powers and where those powers have now been renounced. I look forward to him giving us that list.
Indeed, I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, what more is to come back to us. After all, there should be some trade-offs as we hand over foreign and defence policy progressively to Brussels? What will we get back? What powers will come back to us? What powers have already been given back to us since Maastricht? It is in the light of that reply that noble Lords might judge the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Maastricht Treaty was sold to the people of the United Kingdom and the people in the rest of the EEC, as it was then known, on the understanding that new, intrusive laws, regulations and directives and an extension of qualified majority voting would be counter-balanced by the introduction of the principle of subsidiarity. That promise must have been critical in tipping the scales of public acceptability, not least in France and Denmark.
Although nebulous and ambiguous in many respects, and although philosophically dubious, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointed out, subsidiarity seemed to represent an advance of sorts. One remembers how exultant the last government were after the Edinburgh Summit, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, reminded us. But what a damp squib that turned out to be. How little of substance has been repatriated to the people. Indeed, if the people of France and Denmark had realised that they had been sold subsidiarity on a false prospectus, would they have voted respectively for the Maastricht Treaty on the narrowest of margins? Almost certainly not.
1788
A Danish MEP has discovered that legally binding EU diktats—regulations and directives—have soared from 680 in 1973 to 14,071 in 1996, the last year for which statistics are available. Moreover, such diktats increased during the period of subsidiarity from 8,507 to the aforesaid 14,071. That is an increase of 65.4 per cent. in less than four years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, says that subsidiarity has meant that many draft directives have been withdrawn. Thank goodness for that! The position would have been even worse otherwise. I calculate that these directives and regulations have increased by 13.5 per cent. per annum compound before subsidiarity was introduced and by just over 18 per cent. per annum since.
Apologists for this state of affairs will argue that changed circumstances necessitate new or changed laws and regulations. But even if one were to accept that argument, what about old and arguably redundant laws, directives and regulations which conflict with subsidiarity? Can one round up all those escaped horses and herd them back into the stable, the doors of which were left open for 20 years or more? The answer of course is no. The villain of the piece, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, reminded us, is the acquis communautaire, the ground conquered—or, less emotively, occupied—over the years by the EEC, the EC or the EU, in its various manifestations.
Until the Amsterdam Treaty it was still not 100 per cent. certain how rigid and immovable the acquis was. There was still some hope that the occasional loophole could be found. But, unhappily, this treaty now declares the acquis to be totally sacrosanct. Such a proposal demonstrates, like nothing else does, the immense gulf between the Community élite and the people of the EU. Of the hundreds of millions of voters in the Community, one can confidently predict that at least 95 per cent., were the question put to them, would see no reason for the acquis to be set in tablets of stone. One can also confidently predict that if the question were put to them 80 per cent. or more of voters across the Community could visualise at least one area where they would dearly like to see the occupied ground re-conquered by their own country for the benefit of themselves and their fellow countrymen, and quite possibly others as well.
By supporting this amendment one can strike a blow, albeit in a small way, not merely for ourselves but for the great mass of ordinary people, as distinct from elitist zealots, right across Europe.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wonder at the modesty of this new clause. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is asking that a Minister of the Crown shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing details of the application in the United Kingdom and in the European Union of the protocol to the treaty establishing the European Community on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. All he is doing is asking that Parliament should have laid on the table before it what is happening under subsidiarity and be able, if it so wishes, to discuss

1789
what is happening to its own powers. Subsidiarity means that our Parliament and our Government are subsidiary to the institutions of the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, apparently is an ogre because he wishes Parliament to be informed of how subsidiarity is going and how Parliament's powers are being undermined.
I think it is altogether a good thing that this amendment, modest though it is, should have been moved. It will give the House the opportunity to decide whether it wants to know what is happening to its powers, to the powers of the House of Commons and to the powers of the Government as more powers are transferred in this and other treaties to the institutions of Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, criticised the Conservatives, and presumably Mr. Major in particular, because they did not take credit for subsidiarity. I seem to remember that Mr. Major came back saying that on this particular issue and on others he had won "Game, set and match". I know that he is a cricket enthusiast and not a tennis enthusiast. But I really do believe that he should have understood what "Game, set and match" means. It means that he won everything; but, as we have found, he did not win very much at all.
In 1997 there was a net increase of 721 in Community instruments. So there has not been much subsidiarity there. Every instrument that the Community passes is an instrument which Parliament here does not have to pass. We really have to wonder where it will all stop and how Parliament will be able to decide just what it is here for. After all, who decides whether a matter is within Community competence or whether it is a subsidiarity matter? It is not Parliament which decides; it is not this House or the House of Commons which will decide whether or not the matter is subsidiary. It will be the Commission and, in the last analysis, the European Court of Justice. So Parliament will have nothing to say, except in so far as it will be allowed to say it, although do very little about it, if this amendment is passed. It is a modest amendment to which we should really all agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, when he was Foreign Secretary, said that he was fed up with the European Community getting in to the nooks and crannies of our affairs. What is certain is that since he made that statement, which is a very good one, the European Union has intervened in even more nooks and even more crannies of our national life. There is the question of duty free goods. That will be decided not by Britain but by the European Union. These people are supposed to be concerned about building the people's Europe, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is to have a conference on 6th and 7th, or 7th and 8th, of next month. But far from listening to what the people are saying about duty free goods, an issue which will affect tens of thousands of British jobs, they have ignored public opinion, they have ignored the newspapers, they have ignored the trade unions and they have even ignored the British Government. They have said that they are not even prepared to reconsider the matter. Some subsidiarity there!
1790
I urge noble Lords to think very deeply on this matter. I feel sure that if they do think deeply on it they will come to the conclusion that this is the least they can do to ensure that Parliament knows what is happening. I support the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, there is a large gulf between those of us who believe that one should mistrust other governments on principle as setting out in combinations to do down the interests of the British people and those who see international co-operation as in the British interest. It is of course the case that we have given up some of our sovereignty to a number of international organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to losing British sovereignty over defence. We have been a member of NATO which has steadily grown more integrated over the past 50 years. To that extent we have shared our sovereignty although perhaps we have given it up to the Americans rather more than to others. That is part of the process of international co-operation.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, NATO is a group of countries freely discussing together, each taking their national interests into account, and very often reaching a common decision by consensus. What we are concerned about now is not that, but a group of unelected, unappointed officials, one might say—I am speaking about the Commission as distinct from the Council—who make the decision first whether or not subsidiarity should be required and whether or not proportionality is appropriate. As has been said before, this is coming from the top down and it is not a free discussion between equals coming to a decision, which is the situation in NATO. That is a very different situation.
Lord Wallace of SaltaireMy Lords, the noble Baroness and I clearly differ in our understanding of the decision-making procedures in NATO and the European Union. The annual report on subsidiarity and proportionality to which my noble friend Lady Williams referred, comes from the Council Secretariat and not from the Commission. That secretariat operates for the Council of Ministers which consists of elected ministers of national governments. It is they who take the decisions that the Commission proposes.
The largest area in which business has grown in the past five years in the European Union—I have this from people in the Council Secretariat who service committees—has had very little to do with the Commission. It has been under the third pillar and it has been to do with police, asylum, etc. The British Government, under our previous Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard, were very actively concerned with pushing forward closer co-operation in that area. That has nothing to do with the Commission grabbing powers; it has to do with responding to international developments. I recall Michael Howard saying to a Committee of this House some months ago that he regarded that as part of his normal business as Home Secretary.

1791
When one talks about subsidiarity and proportionality we are concerned with the question of what should best be done at which level. I and many of my colleagues—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord should not be allowed to get away once again with this piece of absolute nonsense of comparing NATO and the European Union. Can NATO legislate over the head of this Parliament? Does NATO have a supreme court? Does NATO even interfere in whether one should compensate, and in what sort of manner, and provide legislation over sexual discrimination in the Armed Forces of NATO? No, no, no and no in every respect. They are totally and completely different even to the extent that NATO has a provision within it for the renunciation of the treaty, and the Treaty of Rome has no such provision.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's quotation from the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. May I remind him that NATO has a common budget and command structure. There is also a common services budget to which all of us make our own proportionate contributions. As regards subsidiarity and proportionality, we have a problem throughout the European Union.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have given way a great deal—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the great difference between the European Union, as it involves sovereignty, and NATO is that votes are taken by consensus and not by a qualified majority? That is the difference.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I entirely agree with that. I am conscious of the fact that at one point last year the majority of NATO members were in favour of enlargement to include Romania and Slovenia. The United States was against that and a decision was taken as the United States wished. If that is a definition of consensus, which we all have to accept, in effect that is how NATO operates. Let us not be too silly in how we define these things.
In terms of subsidiarity and proportionality, I strongly support what my noble friend Lady Williams has said. We have gained a great deal. Of course, we are in a political process in which each government and each national public wants to tell people in other countries what to do, but not to be told what to do within their own. We have pressure groups in this country who are anxious that the European Union should take steps to ban bull fighting, but not to interfere with the right to hunt foxes. It is a normal process in which we all have to play our part.
I strongly support the proposals which this Government should be pressing further, to reform the Commission and to cut down the number of different Directorates-General. I believe that there are still too many things which come out of the directorates with
1792
numbers above 20 which push forward their proposals. But the majority of proposals which come from the Commission have been started by one government or more which wanted to push something on to the European Union agenda. It is not the case that Britain is against all the other 14 governments. Other governments are also concerned about subsidiarity. My wife and I wrote a paper for the Dutch Government two years ago on the principle of subsidiarity and how to apply it. I have also been involved in a Finnish study on how we implement the principles of subsidiarity.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that my party wishes to see the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality applied within the United Kingdom as well as at a European level. We see this new Government setting out rather hesitantly and being unsure how they wish to apply the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to Scotland and Wales let alone restoring power to local government. This clause is not necessary. We have made quite good progress, but it is a political process which we need to continue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with care to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, making the case about NATO. I have heard it many times before. I understand very well that that is the way things work in normal times. But it is of the essence of decisions about peace or war that they may sometimes fall to be made in what are not normal times. In fact, warnings of possible nuclear attack, hypothetically, and possibly not only hypothetically, might fall to be made within as little as four minutes. The amount of consultation that one can do within that space of time is necessarily limited.
I concede to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that NATO is not about to require us to have gay soldiers. But much as I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, minds the prospect of gay soldiers, even he might possibly mind total annihilation just that little bit more. The power of war and peace is the most supreme mark of sovereignty and is even above the power to make law. Necessarily, where there are nuclear weapons, in an emergency that cannot be a matter for consultation between all the governments concerned in an alliance. That is why I believe my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has been making a very valid point.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, we stray, but I shall not stray very far. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that the nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom remain subject to the requirement of the dual trigger. What he forgets is that day after day after day, the liberty of the people of these islands is being eroded through the European Community. It was not NATO, which is responsible for our defence, which required this House—without option—to enact an amendment to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. That is the extent of the subsidiarity argument. It is subsidiarity that we are arguing about today.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I shall resist the Liberal Democrat temptation to be drawn into the all too clear debate of the distinction between NATO and the European Community. I wish to focus very briefly on the subject of subsidiarity and how far we got with it in Committee. Key points on the subject were left unanswered at that stage. It will be helpful to the House if they can be clarified this afternoon. It is already beginning to feel like this evening! In so doing, I shall attempt to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that neither this amendment nor my position is strange or perverse. I hope that I succeed.
In Committee, we had a long and interesting debate about the way in which European law is made, touching on the whole complex question of European Union law-making and who is ultimately responsible for it, as well as on the qualified success of the principle of subsidiarity in general and, more specifically, on the effect that the new protocol on the applications of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality contained in the Amsterdam Treaty will have on that success.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to reiterate the Opposition's support for the principle of subsidiarity. Decentralised decision-making is at the very core of what we believe is the best vision for Europe—a vision of a partnership of nation states in a competitive, decentralised and efficient Europe.
From these Benches, we welcomed the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to the concept of devolved law-making in the Union and to ensuring that it works effectively, as well as his confident assertion that this protocol will help the law-making to work better. I thank the noble Lord for acknowledging the importance of the principle and for the recognition that it was the previous administration's initiative which led to proposals being brought forward to entrench subsidiarity further into European decision-making, and his acknowledgment that before Maastricht there was no general presumption in favour of action at national level contained in any of the treaties.
The recognition of the need to reinforce this presumption established at Maastricht led to the decision to include in the Amsterdam Treaty elements of the detailed rules for the application of subsidiarity, which had been agreed at the 1992 Edinburgh European Council.
From these Benches, we also echo the need for further clarity on how subsidiarity should be applied, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Renton. That seems to be the key issue today because clarity has not yet emerged on this question. In this context, I raised in Committee some issues about the unsatisfactory nature of the wording of the new protocol, in particular paragraph 2, and I expressed fears that despite the new protocol's length, far from strengthening this important principle to ensure that the European Union makes laws only when individual member states are not better placed to do so, it will, in fact, weaken it.
I welcomed the noble Lord's assurance that the application of the principle of subsidiarity has not taken a backward step, thanks to the complex Protocol 7, but
1794
I still have important questions about the assertion that subsidiarity has become a more effective safeguard as a result of the Government's negotiations at Amsterdam.
I compared the effect of the general principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as set out in Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty, which was the first step towards establishing the principle, which the Amsterdam Treaty was then intended to reinforce, with the potential effect of paragraph 2 of Protocol 7. That paragraph makes the concept of subsidiarity subject to the acquis communautaire, the European Court of Justice and Article F(4)—those very principles, pillars and institutions that created the supranational activity in the first place. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, believes that the protocol simplifies and clarifies the position. It does not do that for me and I am glad that we have this opportunity for the Minister to respond on this point.
Far from clarifying and tightening the application of subsidiarity, I believe that this key paragraph, paragraph 2, could ensure that the sum effect of the protocol is that the principle of subsidiarity will mean what the Council, Commission and Court of Justice intend it to mean at any one time. Therefore, the concept of subsidiarity will be held hostage to the way in which the institutions—the ECJ in particular—choose to interpret the confused and contradictory provisions of the protocol. It is that specific point which brings me to the Dispatch Box this afternoon in order to seek clarification from the Minister.
I take on board the important points that have been made in this debate about the role of the former Prime Minister, John Major, in pursuing the important issue of subsidiarity. I hope that the questions that I have posed do not in any way undermine the respect that I have for his important work on that issue. Indeed, that is why I sought reassurance that the Government would ensure that paragraph 2 does not prove to be a fertile ground for the centralising tendencies of the European Court of Justice, which will be able to interpret the protocol according to its vision of, and attitude towards, European Union development. If not, the Government will run the risk of giving free rein to dominance by the institutions of the European Union, which will serve to confuse and undermine the principle.
The noble Lord responded to the legal points that I raised in Committee, but I should like some further clarification. The noble Lord said that, as regards subsidiarity, "ultimately" there must be a role for the Court of Justice, but that it would be a "longstop" role. The noble Lord further expressed his confidence that the European Court of Justice would implement the protocol effectively in line with the general view across the European Union that the principle of subsidiarity has to be enforced, and that, "in the last resort" the ECJ will be better able to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is properly applied on the firm legal basis of the explicit protocol written into the treaty. Perhaps today the noble Lord will elaborate a little on that point and reassure the House that that "longstop" role will not lead to the Court of Justice effectively becoming the arbiter of what is, or is not, subsidiarity and proportionality.

1795
I conclude by saying that we welcome the Government's recognition of this very important principle. From these Benches, we shall strongly support them in the efforts they make to find new ways to ensure that the definition of "subsidiarity", which the previous government pioneered, is effectively followed by the institutions of the Community. This amendment, formally requiring such a report to Parliament, would be a beneficial step towards that objective, adding significantly both to the body of knowledge available to both Houses and to keeping Ministers of the day on their toes and yet more accountable to this Parliament.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with many noble Lords that subsidiarity is a vital issue, but this amendment is both unnecessary in terms of achieving the modest aims which my noble friend Lord Stoddart ascribed to it, and flawed for reasons that I shall explain in a moment.
First, I must stray a little into philosophy. I suppose that I should have cottoned on at an earlier stage, but it seems that some noble Lords are under a serious misapprehension about what "subsidiarity" actually means in terms of both a general concept and what was written into the Maastricht Treaty and built into this treaty after the Edinburgh agreement.
The original concept of subsidiarity was evolved within the Catholic Church rather than in the political or legalistic arena. Whatever one's confessional allegiances, I suppose that that could be slightly alarming because the Catholic Church is a slightly centralised operation. However, in relation to the Army, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred, and in relation to a unitary national state, the concept of "subsidiarity" is different from when it applies to the European Union—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, absolutely right in saying that the concept of subsidiarity originated in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, but I am sure that the noble Lord will go on to agree with me that there is a greater degree of subsidiarity in the Roman Catholic Church today than in the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not going to be drawn into that one. I am saying that the Catholic Church and a unitary national state are different organisations from the European Union and that subsidiarity therefore applies differently because in those organisations power rests at the centre, at the top—that is, in the Pope or in the parliament of the national state. Almost the opposite is true in the European Union in the sense that the EU is not based on a unitary constitution; it is based on a treaty.
Therefore, the treaty defines where sovereignty lies in the sense that the powers given to European institutions are spelled out in that treaty. All other powers are presumed to rest with the member states. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, implied, for the first time that presumption was written in clearly to the treaty itself thanks to the negotiating position of the previous government. That presumption was always there but it
1796
is not there in relation to a national state. Sovereignty rests with this Parliament and sovereignty is devolved from this Parliament to a Scottish parliament or local government. That is an entirely different concept. If I were to pursue the earlier request of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and spell out precisely what issues applied at each level, I should be falling into a trap which he otherwise asks us to avoid; namely, to specify a federal constitution of the European Union. I had thought that the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Tebbit, wished to avoid that.
The concept of subsidiarity in the treaties is not a definition of different levels of competence in that sense but a test that is applied to areas of competence which are shared between the member states and the institutions of the European Union, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell indicated. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and other noble Lords are worried that we are pooling more and more sovereignty through these treaties. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is perhaps in a slightly weaker position in that he was, after all, a member of a Cabinet which probably pooled more sovereignty than any of its successors. Nevertheless, I understand that argument. But the presumption is that, where not specified in the treaty, the member states shall have competence and where there are shared competencies the test of subsidiarity as expressed in Article 3b of the treaty applies. Therefore, subsidiarity as in the treaties is not, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others, about the repatriation of powers. They may wish that to be so but it is not and never was. It is concerned with how powers should be exercised in those areas where competence is shared between the Community and member states. I believe that it is important to be clear about the matter from the outset. I had the impression that the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, started from an entirely different point.
I turn now to the wording of the amendment. The amendment would require a report on what effectively are two alleged aspects of the new subsidiarity protocol: its application in the European Union and its application in the United Kingdom. I should like to address each in turn. I deal first with a report on the application of the protocol in the European Union. This amendment is unnecessary. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others, the Commission already reports to the Council on the application of the principles of subsidiarity, together with the principles of proportionality, simplification and consolidation of European law in its annual Better Law Making report. This is routinely provided for scrutiny in the parliament of each member state. In our Parliament it is provided under cover of a clear explanatory memorandum on the subject by the Government. It is considered by the scrutiny committees of this House and another place.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. My noble friend is really arguing that it is not necessary. I could see his arguing that case effectively in relation to reporting to the European Union. But the Commission is itself mandated under

1797
Clause 9 of the protocol to make an annual report, clearly because that is of great importance not only to the European Council but to the Council of the Regions and the Economic and Social Council. After all, it deals with one of the most sensitive issues of all: the distribution of powers between this country and the European institutions. If it is considered important for that purpose, how on earth can a Minister of the Crown say that it is not equally important to have an instruction laid down in the Bill itself to report to the United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster?
1.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, first I welcome back to this debate the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. The exchanges during the latter stages missed his sharpness of intervention. No doubt this will be the first of many such interventions today. However, I disagree with the noble Lord. I do not say that the report and its consideration by Parliament is unimportant but it does not have to be specified either in a treaty of the European Union or a Bill that ratifies a treaty of the European Union in this Parliament. The provision is already there. Not only does the report of the Commission have to be given to the institutions of the Union; it must be provided to national governments. Under our procedure that report goes from national government to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, it is up to the Houses of Parliament to consider the report through their scrutiny committees. If required, both the scrutiny committee of this House and noble Lords can request a debate on the report. We do not need to provide for separate annual reports by the United Kingdom Government because that is provided on the basis of the Commission report in an explanatory memorandum to the scrutiny committees. I do not believe that it is necessary to specify in legislation that that is required. Noble Lords from all parties could ensure that such a debate took place. The provision for the report is already there and is prescribed under parliamentary procedures.
As to the Commission report, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell indicated, for the first time it spells out clearly that the provision of that report will be a formal and binding obligation on the Commission, as is said in paragraph 9 of the protocol. In those circumstances, I believe that a report separate from the parliamentary procedure that already exists will not add to the process.
I am not sure it was intended by the drafters of this amendment, but as written the second part of it, which is flawed in terms of this Bill, appears to relate to a report on subsidiarity within the United Kingdom. Important though that issue is, I cannot see how that is relevant to a debate on the Amsterdam protocol. The protocol is not concerned with the allocation of responsibilities within member states. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, unlike the Official Opposition, have taken a strong, coherent and consistent line on subsidiarity in its general sense in the context of the programme of devolution for Scotland, Wales, local government and the English regions, including Greater London. We have a pretty active
1798
devolution programme. Subsidiarity is being pursued by this Government. However, that is not a matter for this Bill nor for a European treaty.
I turn to the detail of some of the speeches. It is clear that some noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, oppose the Maastricht provisions on subsidiarity as inadequate, misplaced or misapplied in the first instance and therefore have taken a consistent approach throughout. Other noble Lords are perhaps more disappointed as to how the Maastricht and Edinburgh principles have since been applied. I understand the consistent principle that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has pursued. But I do not see consistency in the approach adopted by the Front Bench of the Official Opposition. As many noble Lords have indicated, it was the previous administration who signed up to many of the words repeated and elaborated upon in the protocol. The previous government were exultant in their achievements at Edinburgh and Maastricht in this respect. I do not believe that the previous government regarded the achievements on subsidiarity as inadequate; nor did they pursue a campaign for the repatriation of powers. Occasionally, they resisted the extension of powers but they did not call for their repatriation. Therefore, I do not believe that it is credible now for the Official Opposition to oppose the improved form of subsidiarity found in the protocol.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, there has been substantial progress in the application of subsidiarity since Maastricht. It is difficult precisely to quantify it. To some extent, as I think I said at an earlier stage, it is a dog that does not bark. If the Commission is observing subsidiarity, it does not come forward with proposals. Nevertheless as the noble Baroness said—I think that we are working to roughly the same figures—over the past three years 140 potential proposals by the Commission have been withdrawn, largely on the basis of subsidiarity. Part of that process has resulted in a reduction in the amount of primary legislation from 61 new Acts in 1990 to seven last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to regulations. Clearly regulations will continue to be promulgated under existing legislation, the vast majority of which was promulgated under legislation facilitated by the Single European Act, when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was a member of the Cabinet. The adoption of the principles of subsidiarity at Maastricht has partly reduced dramatically the amount of primary legislation
It is a developing process. I accept that it is of course about changing the culture within the Commission. That has not changed completely, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Bruce will remind us from time to time during the rest of the debate. It is also to some extent about changing the culture of the Council. The terms of Maastricht have worked, and this protocol will strengthen and clarify that process. It will strengthen the principle of subsidiarity by incorporating in a legally binding document many of the guidelines agreed at the Edinburgh Council in 1992.

1799
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the role of the ECJ. The reference to the ECJ in paragraph 2 of the protocol concerns the supremacy of Community law. Clearly in most cases subsidiarity will have been taken into account, if not by the Commission in bringing forward proposals, then by the member states in considering them in the Council. That is why I referred to the ECJ as essentially a long stop. It can arbitrate on the application of the procedures set out in the protocol as it can on all other items of the treaty, but, essentially, the political application of subsidiarity rests with the Commission and member states in the Council. As with all other disputes under the treaty, there is a long-stop provision for the ECJ.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should say by the way that even in the Catholic Church there is another doctrine, which is the forgiveness of sins if one is truly repentant. While he is entitled to point to me as a sinner, I hope that he will understand that I have truly repented. The point I wanted to make to him was about the court. Surely the danger here is that if the Council of Ministers or the Commission should come to a conclusion that they wanted to increase the extent of subsidiarity, that decision could, itself, be challenged in the court. It would then fall to the court to say whether or not that had gone too far.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, first, we would all welcome the noble Lord's confession of repentance, even if his sin was not perhaps one that I would normally acknowledge. Nevertheless, such humility is welcome in this House. With regard to the scenario which I think the noble Lord spelt out, if the Council of Ministers, or the Commission for that matter, decided that subsidiarity should apply to a greater degree than had previously been presumed, that is a matter for the Council of Ministers. It is not a matter for the court. At the end of the day, the Council of Ministers has to decide whether to accept or modify the Commission's proposals for any form of legislation. It is only the other way around—where the Commission or the Council has failed to observe subsidiarity—that the court could consider a challenge.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, because this is a matter as regards which I am genuinely uncertain, and I suspect from his hesitancy that he may not be certain. So I shall give him a moment to continue thinking. It is clear that if, in a vote in the Council of Ministers, a decision were reached by QMV, one of the nation states which was dissatisfied with that and thought that the principle of subsidiarity had not been applied, could challenge that in the court. That, as I understand it, is certain. But let us suppose that one of the nation states thought that the principle had been pushed too far, could that nation state challenge in the court, and would not the court have power to rule on that?
I hope that the noble Lord has received a message which will enable him to give me a clear reply. He should not take too much notice of the fact that the
1800
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is there, because he told me the other day that Ministers should not answer questions with the words "Yes" or "No", even when it is possible to do so, because the words "Yes" or "No" might be misleading. I am surprised at the noble Lord. I thought that lawyers had great skill in court in forcing people to answer "Yes" or "No" to the questions which were put to them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not a lawyer!
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I really do apologise to the noble Lord for that.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, before the Minister replies, might I make a comment on paragraph—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. There has been an intervention. There cannot be an intervention on an intervention, particularly on Third Reading.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not a lawyer either, the noble Lord will be relieved to know. The advice that I have received telegraphically from my noble friend indicates that I was correct in my assumption: at the end of the day, if the Council of Ministers has gone through correct procedures, and proposed something, and extends subsidiarity as a result of that, it is not challengeable in the court on grounds of breach of the subsidiarity principle. If it fails to observe the subsidiarity principle, it can be challenged.
We need to make progress, so I shall wind up. Those who see this protocol as a weakening of the principle of subsidiarity tend to quote the words from Article 2 relating to the acquis communautaire. That mistake was made also in the other place the other day by the honourable friend of the noble Lord on the Front Bench. In fact, the wording of the acquis communautaire is virtually the same as that agreed at Maastricht and in the Edinburgh Agreement. We have not gone backwards; we have gone forwards both in clarity and extent to the commitment to subsidiarity. That should be recognised in this House.
Subsidiarity may not have worked perfectly, but we are improving the way in which it works. This protocol will allow the institutions of the Union to improve still further. That is something that this House should welcome. We shall have an opportunity to debate subsidiarity and other aspects of changing Community law on many occasions in the future, without the amendment. The second part of the amendment in relation to the UK is probably irrelevant to this legislation. The part relating to the EC report applies already within our existing parliamentary procedures. Therefore I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to withdraw the amendment on the grounds that it is unnecessary and that we have made progress on the subsidiarity concept.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, especially those who have supported the amendment. I think that

1801
it would be in order to try to hit finally on the head some of the points advanced by those who oppose the amendment. I shall start with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. She singled out paragraphs 1 and 5 of the protocol—in that she was joined by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who singled out paragraph 4 of the protocol—to show that the subsidiarity clause and the protocol now attached to it were moving in the direction of the protection of national sovereignty. I do not want to repeat the clauses again. Noble Lords did so. Any noble Lord can read those clauses, and has to ask himself one question: yes, but who decides the issue? Who is the final arbiter? It is the Community. It is no help for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to say, "Ah, but we have the Luxembourg Court of Justice as a long stop". I have not seen the Luxembourg Court of Justice save a single leg bye in the whole of its existence. I do not think that those of us who are worried about the relentless progress of the European Union towards the superstate at the expense of national sovereignty can accept any of the clauses in this protocol.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, went further. She said that if national legislation can provide for it, it will. The evidence is that it will not. I thought that the noble Baroness went far even for her when she said that the Commission was now being a good boy and indulging in consultation all over the place. If that is so, perhaps I may ask your Lordships to read the first Starred Question on Monday of this week. The Government Front Bench were forced to admit that the Commission is refusing even to produce a cost-benefit analysis on its intended destruction of the London art market. If the Commission is to be welcomed, like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, into the Kingdom of Heaven as a sinner that repenteth, why are we troubled with a potential directive on buses? The Community wishes to take away from us the good old double-decker and the British mini-buses. They are under definite threat from Brussels at present. Why does it want to destroy our system of take-overs which makes the City world famous? I could go through a long list of British interests which are being interfered with. They are not just nooks and crannies; I refer to major industries.
The noble Baroness sought to advance some statistics to demonstrate that the Commission is being a good boy and is not increasing the large numbers of statistics. I was grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Stoddart, who knocked that argument firmly on the head, indicating that the numbers of the most anti-democratic element of the Commission's activities, the regulations, are increasing strongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, could not resist advancing the old chestnut: a comparison with our membership of NATO, saying that we lost our sovereignty to NATO. Those who advance that old chestnut never answer the question. If we have decided to share our sovereignty with NATO, for very good reasons, we are at least free to leave it whenever we wish. I do not think that question was answered. The Minister did not cover it. There is an exit clause in our arrangements with NATO. There is no exit in the juggernaut of the European Treaty of Rome. Perhaps
1802
I may remind noble Lords that it is NATO which has kept the peace in Europe since the last war. Any pretence that the European Union has had anything to do with that is entirely fallacious.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, took us into philosophy, and, not being either a lawyer or a philosopher, I lost him. However, he said that the European Union is based not on the concept of a unitary state, but on the treaty. I agree with him. But it is the treaty, without the exit, which contains this provision for qualified majority voting where, as I mentioned in my previous remarks, we have already ceded vast areas of our national sovereignty. The Amsterdam Treaty devours another 34 areas of it.
The noble Lord also said that the Conservative Government have never pretended that the subsidiarity clause was about a repatriation of powers. We did hope that to be so in good faith. My right honourable friend Mr. John Major thought we could repatriate 25 per cent. of all legislation. Indeed, the Conservative Government's attitude to growing flexibility arrangements was designed to effect repatriation in due course.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was boxed into the well known position of saying that the amendment is not necessary. We all know that to mean that we have won the arguments but the Government would rather that we did not press the amendment. He referred to the subsidiarity clause as a dog which does not bark. I believe that it is time we discovered whether the dog will ever acquire the art of barking. In order to do so, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
2.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Inglewood, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kenyon, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Annaly, L.

Knollys, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Attlee, E.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Leigh, L.

Blyth, L.

Long,V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L

Bruce of Donington, L.

McConnell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Chesham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monson, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Moran, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Moynihan, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Munster, E.

Cross, V.

Naseby, L.

Henley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Oxfuiid,V.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

1803

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Pender, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rawlings, B. [Teller.]

Tebbit, L.

Rees,L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Waddington, L.

Rowallan, L.

Wharton, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Addington, L.

Levy, L.

Alderdice, L.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ludford, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Maddock, B.

Borrie, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Calverley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carlisle, E.

Methuen, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Newby, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Orme, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Dubs, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilbert, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

GladwinofClee,L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grenfell, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardie, L.

Strafford, E.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Hay man, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope,L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hoyle, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside,L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Jacobs, L.

Whitty, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
2.12 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
SEAT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
(". This Act shall not enter into force until a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on the financial implications for the United Kingdom of paragraph (a) of the Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities and
1804
of Europol annexed to the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 deals with the location of the various institutions of the Community. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships to say that I shall refer to pages 88 and 225 of Command Paper 3780 which reproduces the Treaty of Maastricht.
The protocol which is set out at page 225 is quite remarkable in itself because it completely negates another clause which remains still intact within the treaty and is still part of the treaty itself. Perhaps I may read that to your Lordships so that noble Lords can follow the precise way in which this matter has been dealt with. Article 289 of the amended treaty, which is Article 216 of the original treaty, states:
"The seat of the institutions of the Community shall be determined by common accord of the Governments of the Member States".
That remains a part of the treaty itself. It is still a valid and clear clause within the treaty.
In the course of the determination of the final text of the Treaty of Amsterdam, there were several IGCs. There were even final deliberations on the day on which the treaty was signed. Oddly enough, even though those deliberations at the IGCs produced a number of deletions of clauses from the original treaty as amended by Maastricht and a large number of amendments to the various clauses in the Treaty of Rome as amended by Maastricht, nowhere in the protocols, apart from this particular one, did their appear a complete negation of a clause.
Obviously, in this case—and the Government will have a very good opportunity to reply—almost up to the time of the signing of the treaty, there was agreement as to its text. And then suddenly, out of the blue, appears a protocol which is not in the normal function of a protocol explaining various aspects of clauses in the treaty but a protocol in complete negation of one of the clauses which remained intact.
I ask the Government whether there is any explanation for that. There is one version, the truth of which I am not aware; that is, that it probably was not in the original text at all but when the final documents emerged for the signature of the various participants, this one mysteriously appeared.
That is not unusual in European agreements. I can testify to that from my own personal experience. I have participated in a number of conferences in the European Parliament itself in which certain agreements were arrived at and everyone understood exactly what they were. And yet, when the presidential version of what occurred appeared the next day, a number of new clauses and amendments appeared in it that nobody seemed to remember having agreed to.
We all know how those conferences work. I have been to scores of them. To begin with, there is laid on the desk of all the delegates, whether governmental or otherwise, the final communiqué which they have not yet considered. The conference goes on and parts of the

1805
final communiqué get shipped away and eventually they make up their minds as to exactly what they want to agree to.
But there have been many cases when the presidential or the chairman's version of what occurred the previous day appears to differ markedly from the memory of those who participated in the discussions and even those who took notes upon it. Therefore, the first question I must ask the Government—and I am sure they will answer me in all honesty—is whether anything appeared following the agreement of the Amsterdam Treaty proper that either added to or subtracted from their recollections or notes of what actually occurred.
This is a direct challenge by me to the authenticity of the documents because—and noble Lords must believe me when I say this—the number of times when documents have been altered is no one's business. Indeed, I shall name the country. France, in particular, when it is in the chair, is prone to produce somewhat different versions of what has actually been agreed. I defy challenge in that respect. I say that because, in my own particular case, I can in fact still produce such documents.
If that has occurred, it is something which ought not to be countenanced. The original clause, which is still there, reads as follows:
"The site of the institutions of the Community shall be determined by common accord of the governments of the Member States".
As it stands, without the protocol, it means that the existing sites cannot be altered unless there is unanimous consent to the alteration. In short, there is quite adequate security as long as the existing members are in complete accord. There is no reason why, even if one dissents, the sites of the various institutions can be altered. The question arises as to why they should want it explicitly in the treaty? Is it because they are afraid that, with the enlarged Community, certain member states might urge—and urge successfully—the abandonment of the unanimously agreed accord on the sites? What are they afraid of as regards the position already stated in the treaty?
It is common knowledge that there is tremendous waste as regards having different sites which, in many cases, result in a duplication of functions. According to the accord and the arrangements proposed in the protocol, France will have its Parliament—12 plenaries—fixed in Strasbourg. Luxembourg will house the General Secretariat of the European Parliament. I emphasise the fact that it will be Luxembourg, not Strasbourg or Brussels. Indeed, Luxembourg will also house three of the 12 meetings a year of the Council of Ministers when they take place in April, June and October. Those Ministers will meet there three times; they are currently based in Brussels.
The Commission itself will have a permanent office in Brussels. In fact, Brussels will hold additional parliamentary plenaries as regards the Committees of the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Germany's interest in the matter will be confined to the European Monetary
1806
Institute, and Holland will have the European Police Office (Europol). The remaining 10 states will have nothing in them of any note.
I am not complaining about this in any way; indeed, it is no part of my case today that the UK should have any institutions in it at all. I am not complaining of unfairness. There is a very good reason of course, because in about 10 years' time the United Kingdom will be the only extant parliamentary democracy in Europe and will, I hope—if it follows my advice and those who think like me—remain well out of this new wretched superstate which will reproduce the superstate envisaged by the German General Staff in 1942. I do not plead that we should have more, but I am saying—and the amendment states— that the cost of all this is terrific and is unnecessary.
The General Secretariat of the Parliament has to move to Strasbourg and to Brussels as well as being in Luxembourg. Every week there is a caravanserai of lorries conveying documents from one part of France to Luxembourg or to Brussels at enormous extra cost. Why on earth is that allowed to continue? Everyone admits that such arrangements are ridiculous and that there should not be this travelling circus going all over the place with masses of lorries conveying documents from one site to the other. There is, of course, a considerable extra cost. It is my wish and that of my colleagues that this matter of cost should be considered by another place.
The other place is naturally interested in all waste. Your Lordships will recall that the other place had an investigation carried out—the Benefits Integrity Project—into disability payments as the other place thought there was large-scale fraud in that area. It thought that out of a cost of £11.5 million, it would probably be able to recover, on average, £7 to £8 million a year. Of course that is completely erroneous as that represents only 70 cases of selected fraud out of the 55,000 that have so far been assessed. Nevertheless the zeal was there to pursue this sum of £7 million or £8 million per annum which the House of Commons thought was being fraudulently spent.
The extra cost to the European Community funds, of which we bear 14 per cent. of its expenditure—a sum which is vastly in excess of the sums allegedly to be recovered from social security fraud—is a significant sum. It can be anything between £20 million and £30 million per annum by every estimate that has been so far made as to the ridiculous extra costs that arise from the various locations, and the movements between them, of these principal European institutions.
It is my hope that another place may be able, and think it desirable, to investigate this further. The way of ensuring that is to make sure that this amendment is carried because then the other place will have to consider the matter because, believe me, it has not considered it for over three years. The other place is the guardian of our financial resources. Therefore it ought to be afforded the opportunity to consider the matter. The existing case for trying to gloss over this is thin indeed. We have a unique instance of where a protocol is used to override and completely to negate an article

1807
that still remains in the Bill. That is quite insufferable. I ask the House to support the amendment. I beg to move.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, having listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I am not absolutely sure that he is not finding himself on something of a procrustean bed. Knowing his views on the legitimacy and appropriateness of the European Parliament in the European political system, there is probably something to be said for having the European Parliament meeting once a month in Strasbourg, since that undoubtedly interferes with the efficiency and smooth operation of the organisation. Indeed, from that perspective, there is a case for saying that it should never be allowed to meet in the same place more than once, thereby further eroding participation in the business of the Community.
I wish to make it clear, as a former Member of the European Parliament for five years, that I love Strasbourg. It is a marvellous city and a place where I dearly love to be. That said, the peripatetic nature of the parliament between those two great cities, Brussels and Strasbourg, does not contribute to the smooth-running operation of the Community. It would be in the interests of the communities and the peoples of Europe for the parliament to be permanently situated in Brussels, adjacent to the Commission—not merely because of the proximity to the other parts of the European system but at least as much because there communications with the rest of Europe are so much better than they were in Strasbourg. It is an obvious point, and I shall not elaborate further.
What has been rather disappointing is the attitude of the French. I can understand their Gallic pride in having one of the seats of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, which is a remarkable place. Nevertheless, I have always understood that what stood in the way of rationalising those rather eccentric arrangements described by the noble Lord was the unwillingness of the French to contemplate any change in the existing state of affairs.
It is my understanding—noble Lords will forgive me if I have misunderstood—that about a couple of weeks ago at the summit to launch EMU there was a great deal of negotiation about the identity of the person who will be president of the European Central Bank. If my memory is correct, the dispute was basically as to whether it should be a particular Dutchman or a particular Frenchman. There was a long drawn-out negotiation.
Bearing in mind that it was clear that the French were extremely anxious for their candidate to secure the post—a great deal of negotiation and horse trading went on—it seems to me that that would have provided the most wonderful opportunity to throw this particular issue into the negotiations. It is my understanding that the Government's view about the location of the European Parliament is much along the same lines as
1808
mine. Against that background, did the Government introduce this point into the negotiations that took place. And if not, why not?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who so ably moved the amendment. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that I am well-known for disliking the European Parliament, and I voted against its establishment. However, my concern is with British taxpayers' money and, for that matter, taxpayers' money throughout the European Union. There is no doubt that the peripatetic nature of the European Parliament causes huge logistic and administrative difficulties, and those impose far higher costs on taxpayers. That cannot be right.
There is a new parliament building in Brussels which is not fully and economically used because it is not the permanent seat of the parliament. That has been built at a cost of £670 million, of which British taxpayers have had to find some £120 million. So no wonder I am concerned about the way in which the parliament is, as I have to grant, forced to arrange its business and its meetings.
It really is time that this matter was confronted and put right. It does not matter how offended the French may be as a result. Britain is often accused of being the odd man out in Europe. But it is the French, with their intolerable arrogance—or inferiority complex; I do not know which—who so often cause the problems, as we saw in the world trade talks and more recently over the appointment of the first president of the European Central Bank. French tantrums not only cause difficulties but bring about decisions which are harmful to the European Union. Noble Lords may think that I am in favour of that, and in normal circumstances I am; but this involves taxpayers' money and therefore I am not in favour.
I believe that the problem of the siting of the European Parliament is one of the long-term problems that the French have caused. It is time that they were brought to book. There is no reason why everyone should keep giving in to the French. France is not the largest country in population or economic terms. Indeed, its population is no greater than our own. Certainly its world importance is no greater than ours or that of Germany, and its achievements are not equal to those of other European countries, including our own, over a long period of time.
I believe that the time has come for the French to be confronted with firmness and vigour. We should therefore agree to this amendment so that the House of Commons, which has not dealt with this matter properly, as my noble friend pointed out, can have another look at it and see whether there is some way in which the Commons, and indeed the Government, can revisit the issue, put some pressure on the French and achieve agreement on a proper meeting place for the European Parliament, thus saving the taxpayers a great deal of money.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I was keen to have this opportunity to return to an area of grave concern, which

1809
was not sufficiently addressed by the Government in Committee; namely, the reasons for the enshrinement in treaty form of the dual location of the European Parliament.
Up until now, decisions about the seat of each institution have been made by the Council or European Council. For example, the current pattern of sittings of the European Parliament as between Strasbourg and Brussels was determined by the European Council in Edinburgh in December 1992. However, the new protocol legally binds the current dual sitting arrangements.
I appreciated the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who accepted that the dual location of the European Parliament was an unnecessary cost for the taxpayer, which he described as "irksome". His explanation for the inclusion of Protocol 12 to the treaty, which specifies the locations of the various European institutions, was that the status quo predates UK accession; that the provision is consistent with the existing agreement on dual sites reached at Edinburgh in 1992; and that in October 1997 the ECJ ruled that the European Parliament was legally obliged to hold 12 plenary sessions a year in Strasbourg, thanks to a legal provision after the protocol agreed at Edinburgh and signed by the previous government. In short, the Government do not like it, but their hands were bound and there was nothing they could do, because agreement on a single European site requires unanimity.
However, the Government have yet to explain why, in the course of their negotiations, they not only failed to press the case for a single European site but also brought back a treaty which enshrined the dual location of the European Parliament in treaty form for the very first time, something that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has admitted that the Government do not support.
Let me outline exactly what this will mean for the European Parliament and for British and European taxpayers. The Parliament will continue to be divided between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, considerably adding to the expense of maintaining and administering the parliament. It will be based in Strasbourg for all monthly sessions and will be in Brussels for extra sessions, while committees of the parliament will also be based in Brussels and its General Secretariat will continue to be based in Luxembourg.
Clearly there are strong arguments, not least financial ones, for all the parliamentary sessions, the committees and the secretariat to be based, if not under the same roof, then at least in the same city; if not in the same city, then surely in the same country.
In this House your Lordships have heard that the European Parliament itself estimated that the additional costs involved in its being located in Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Brussels add approximately 15 per cent. to the parliament's overall budget. The cost of investments in immovable property, rental of buildings and associated costs for the European Parliament's Strasbourg site has been estimated at a total cost of about £17 million, while the costs of fitting out premises and other expenditures on buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg in 1996 and 1997 have been estimated at
1810
around £14 million. Those are just the costs associated with the buildings, without taking into account the additional travel costs, hotel costs and daily allowances.
An article in the Sunday Express last year probed into this matter. It found that,
"Euro MPs are spending almost £4 million on showers for their offices in the new Brussels parliament".
And on 12th February this year the final part of the multi-million pound parliament building in Brussels was inaugurated, aptly nicknamed Caprice des Dieux. That is the part which houses the offices of the MEPs, each of which is indeed equipped with a £6,000 shower room.
Of course, governments are to blame for this ridiculous situation. Ten years ago the Belgian Government secretly started the new parliament building in Brussels, claiming it was to be an international conference centre. The French Government have subsequently trounced the Belgian Government. In Strasbourg, MEPs are soon to leave the building they have shared with the Council of Europe for a new palace which, when completed later this year, will be of a similar size and price to the one in Brussels.
The MEP for Essex North and Suffolk South—Anne McIntosh—rightly criticised such lavish spending. She was quoted in the article as saying,
"The problem is that there's a contest going on between Strasbourg and Brussels over where MEPs meet. Each is wooing MEPs by offering better facilities".
Anne McIntosh is now the MEP for the Vale of York. But it is a contest fuelled by national rivalry and funded by taxpayers' money. The Amsterdam Treaty actually makes provision for this ludicrously inefficient and expensive contest to continue. How did that get into the treaty text? Let me quote from The Times of 26th June last year. It said,
"In the most glaring sleight-of-hand, President Chirac managed to introduce a treaty guarantee keeping Strasbourg as the seat of the Parliament, although officials at the summit do not recall the issue being discussed. 'Chirac must have mumbled something and no one objected, so that was taken as assent', a senior Belgian official said".
Where were the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when that happened? Did they stand up against the conceits of individual governments for the interests of British and European taxpayers? Apparently not. Were they even there? We do not know. How can the parliament and the institutions of the European Union expect to be taken seriously when they demonstrate such extravagance and blind stupidity in this case?
Can the Minister say what steps, if any, were taken to attempt to prevent this expensive and absurd state of affairs at Amsterdam? I know that my comments in Committee had a lot of support and understanding from the Liberal Democrat Benches—I hope that that continues today after what I have said. These arguments are so compelling that even the Minister would be lauded by all right-minded noble Lords for entering the Lobby with us on this issue on the grounds of her wisdom and perception and our clearly argued case.
It is in that spirit that I strongly support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Here is the first chance that the Government Benches have to demonstrate that they are not New Labour Lobby fodder committed to excessive public

1811
expenditure, but are ready to accept a well argued case and ready to reject unnecessary costs for the taxpayer which they themselves describe as "irksome".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington may be right that another place has not debated this matter for three years. I have not checked Hansard, but it feels as though this place has debated it several times within the past few days.
I am tempted to cut my remarks to say that there is great consensus in this House; we all think that this position is nonsense. But there was nothing we could do about it before the treaty and nothing we can do about it after. However, I will be slightly more elaborate.
First, I take up the questions raised at the beginning of my noble friend's remarks both about the process of the protocol arising in the negotiations and the apparent contradiction as he sees it. He is quite right to suggest that the protocol was included in the text of the treaty at a late stage of the negotiations and at the behest of President Chirac. But he is quite wrong to suggest that it appeared after the negotiations had finished or that the British Government had not seen it. The text of the protocol was seen, despite what an unknown Belgian official may say, and was agreed clearly at the Amsterdam Summit. But its incorporation into the treaty in no sense altered the pre-existing legally-binding position.
As far as concerns the contradiction between Clause 289 and the protocol, in their effects they are not contradictory. Both before and after Amsterdam any change in the seat of the parliament would require unanimity. A common accord means unanimity of all states. Therefore, there is not operationally a contradiction.
When we discussed this matter in Committee speakers on all sides expressed their frustration. Former and existing MEPs frequently expressed that frustration. We have total sympathy with that frustration regarding the inconvenience and cost that is incurred. However, the amendment before us would serve no useful purpose. Paragraph (a) of the protocol has no additional financial implications for the United Kingdom or any other member state over what happens at the moment, and the costs pointed to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, which I have not had the opportunity to verify, if correct, existed before the treaty. The legal position and the financial implications of that position have not changed. In other words, the protocol did nothing to change the present position. The EP site is not new.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, on a point of information, when those major costs are decided, is there any procedure by which the member states are consulted in an annual budget and told what is the intention; or is the decision taken without consultation?
2.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the principle of building new parliament sites has to go to the Council of Ministers, and did go to the Council of Ministers during the regime of the previous administration. The precise cost in terms of out turn has probably never been effectively reported.
1812
I suspect that that point may be mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bruce in the next debate. Nevertheless, the principle would have been considered by the member states.
The legal force of the present situation does not depend on the Amsterdam Treaty. It was, as noble Lords have implied, established by the agreement at Edinburgh in the European Council in 1992. As a result of that agreement the European Court of Justice decision of 1997, which was inevitable, was that the European Parliament is legally obliged to hold 12 sessions a year at Strasbourg. That ruling did not require changes to the Amsterdam Treaty. It was based on the pre-existing legal position.
I am not going to be tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, into discussing the negotiating position during the EMU weekend. Nor am I going to be tempted by my noble friend Lord Stoddart into a generalised attack on our French colleagues on the eve of the World Cup. The fact is that the only way to change the present situation would be by unanimous agreement among the member states. There is no more prospect of getting the French to agree than there was in 1992.
I find the position of the Front Bench opposite rather hard to follow. When in government they were instrumental in brokering the Edinburgh Agreement and regarded it as a negotiating triumph. Now, in opposition, they seem to find it intolerable. The best way to change this position—the only way to change this position—is by introducing majority voting for the site of institutions. But the party opposite is clearly opposed to such extensions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite right. That is not the only way in which to address this matter. The other way is to leave the treaty.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we discussed that at earlier stages. It is clear that this Government do not wish to withdraw from the European Union. That was endorsed by the people at the last general election. It was a clear manifesto commitment that we should be positive in the European Union and that we should be a constructive member of it. That option is not available to this Government although, as stated on many occasions, any future Parliament has that option available to it, but I hope it never takes it. These are the facts of the case. A split site for the European Parliament is unsatisfactory; we all agree on that. We would all like to change it. The Treaty of Amsterdam does not change that problem and it is not the cause. It does not have any additional financial effects compared with the current situation. Therefore, this amendment will not have any real affect and I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am rather disappointed with my noble friend's reply to my argument. If the protocol to which I referred made no difference whatever to the pre-existing position, why embark on it at all? Why not leave the treaty as it is? That would achieve exactly the same purpose. The protocol is there for a specific reason. Essentially, it is there to protect the interests of both France and Belgium. They are quite welcome to it. I am not arguing that the seat of the Community should be changed in any way.

1813
All I am saying—and I invite another place to say so—is that the existing arrangements, particularly as regards the European Parliament, are a shocking waste of money and ought not to be tolerated. The noble Lord may say that another place has a full opportunity to examine these matters. Normally, that depends on the usual channels, as the noble Lord knows quite well. In this particular case, that is singularly inexplicable. The other place declined the opportunity to debate last year's European budget at all. It put it through at 10.15 in the evening without even bothering to examine it. When considering questions of economies, if your Lordships pass this amendment it would have the effect of ensuring that the other place pays attention to this particular expenditure. I invite the House to support the amendment.
2.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 97.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Marsh, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Annaly, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L

Monk Bretton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monson, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Moran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Moyne, L.

Cadman, L.

Moynihan, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Munster, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranbome, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Feldman, L.

Rowallan, L.

Henley, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Howe, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller]

Kenyon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Knollys, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kenyons,V.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Tebbit,L.

Leigh, L.

Waddington, L.

McConnell, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wharton, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Calverley, L.

Addington, L.

Carlisle, E.

Alderdice, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

DaviesofCoity, L.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blyth, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Borrie, L.

Desai, L.

Burlison, L.

Donoughue, L.

1814

Dormand of Easington, L.

Methuen, L.

Dubs, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ezra,L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicholson of Winterboume, B.

Gilbert, L.

Ogmore, L.

GladwinofClee,L.

Orme, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gregson, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Grenfell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grey, E.

Puttnam,L.

Hamwee, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hanworth, V.

RendellofBabergh,B.

Hardie, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hardy of Wath,L. Hayman, B.

Russell, E. Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

StJohnofBletso.L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Serota, B.

Hoyle, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Kennet, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tope,L.

Kirkhill,L.

Tordoff, L.

Levy, L.

Turner of Camden,B.

Lockwood, B.

Tweeddale, M.

Ludford, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

[Teller.]

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

McNally, L.

Whaddon, L.

Maddock, B.

Whitty,L.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Merrivale, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Meston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3. p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
COMMUNITY FINANCES AND FRAUD: REPORT
(". This Act shall not come into force until—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the implications of the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts for the sound management of Community finances and the prevention of fraud in relation to Community expenditure; and

(b) the report has been approved by resolution of each House.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that, specifically in response to a general public demand for far greater oversight of the financial transactions of the European Community, the previous government succeeded in obtaining an amendment under Maastricht on the part to be played by the Court of Auditors. I draw your Lordships' attention to the institutional arrangements affecting the Court of Auditors. A measure was introduced to require the court to issue a certificate to the Community and to parliament requiring a specific assurance as to the regularity of the

1815
accounts and so on. I referred to this in some detail in Committee. I shall not pursue that particular aspect further, save to say that for the past three successive years since Maastricht the Court of Auditors has declined to provide both to the Council and to parliament a certificate certifying the legality, propriety and accuracy or otherwise of the accounts presented to it.
The introduction of this new clause to the Treaty of Maastricht was claimed as a very considerable victory by the then government. On Mr. Major's return to this country he claimed substantial credit for it and thought that it marked a considerable step forward in securing the proper control of European Union finances and the manner in which they were dealt with. He was particularly concerned, as I am sure are all your Lordships, with the continued fraud and irregularity occurring among not only some member states but within the Commission itself.
It occurs to me that perhaps your Lordships are unaware of the extent to which this has occurred. Therefore, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a report made by the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament to the parliament itself and to all others concerned. It has not attracted much attention in the press. I shall therefore read to your Lordships its findings. They are not just the findings of the British representatives on the Budgetary Control Committee. One must make a special mention of the work done by Mr. Tomlinson who has taken a prominent part in the work of that committee. It presented a report to the European Parliament this year, which then adopted its own resolution, based upon the report it received.
In order that your Lordships may get some idea of the enormity of these matters, it will be appreciated that for the year ended 1996 our own Comptroller and Auditor-General was involved in the examination of the same matters as were examined by the Court of Auditors itself. It came to the conclusion that fraud throughout the Community was running at anything between £3 billion and £5 billion per annum. That is not an insignificant sum. It is a sum of which British taxpayers bear some 40 per cent. I must again express my disappointment that that matter, which could have been discussed in the other place, was never discussed by the full House.
I shall read some of the findings. I give a health warning here. Some of what I read may be found objectionable by noble Lords who have a sense of fairness and propriety in these matters. The report states:
"Ever since worries were first expressed in 1989 concerning possible internal fraud and corruption in its tourism unit, the European Commission has withheld relevant information from Parliament, and judging by its reports, from the Court of Auditors, provided information only after unjustified delays and, at times, provided misleading information".
That is a serious allegation on its own which requires an answer. So far none has been provided. The second finding was:
"The Commission was slow to take a disciplinary action against any of the staff concerned, and has still taken none against the hierarchical superiors responsible for management. Internal investigations were conducted by bodies answering to the Commission administration. The Commission never of its own
1816
accord informed the relevant judicial authorities of its suspicions concerning possible criminal activities by its own staff and in some cases delayed the progress of criminal investigations by refusing to comply with requests for the waiver of official immunity … Practices, rules and procedures covering the management of direct expenditure. especially relating to calls for tender, are lax, inadequate and, in any case, poorly applied. Administrative practices which were known to be unsatisfactory and irregular were tolerated for a prolonged period by the Commission managers at all levels until they became public knowledge".
Finally—I shall not weary your Lordships with anything other than this—it states:
"The accountability of the Commission to both political and judicial authorities is neither guaranteed nor enforceable. Parliament's power of discharge is subverted by its inability to obtain the information it requires, while the principle of official immunity can be used to frustrate inquiries by judicial authorities. In these circumstances, the credibility of European institutions is seriously undermined and public confidence in them cannot be restored unless accountability is made to function in practice ".
I could read further sections of the report, including the parliament's response and recommendations on the basis of the report from the Committee on Budgetary Control, from which I have given extracts.
I have studied this subject for well over a quarter of a century. I am certain that the time has come for governments to do something about the Commission in regard to financial irregularities and the systems which permit large scale fraud to take place. As I said, I understood that the new certification by the Court of Auditors would yield a result. Each year for three years the Court of Auditors has declined to give that certification. The reaction of the Council of Ministers, which includes whatever number of our own Ministers it may be, has been, "Well, it is gradually improving. Let it ride".
If the new powers mean something, the refusal to certify can be taken a stage further as meaning that something needs to be done. Let us imagine the case of a large, or even a small, public company in this country whose auditors declined to give it clearance. If it were publicly quoted, and shares were sent to zero, it would be swiftly taken off the quotation list. All kinds of dire consequences would follow. Yet we seem to be powerless.
Let us assume that the Government sought to enforce the new clause affecting the powers of the Court of Auditors. It could decline to discharge the Commission from its responsibilities. But nowhere is it spelt out what would happen if it refused to discharge. The implication underlying it is that a refusal to discharge would be so grave that the Commission itself would resign. Nowhere throughout the Act, or any of its protocols, explanations or legislation, is there set out in respect of the billions spent what would happen in the event of the Commission being refused a discharge. The answer so far is—it is quite right—that there being no legal provision, it is ignored. At heads of government, heads of state. European Council, Council of Ministers level or whatever level it may be, one way of getting to the heart of Europe is to have sufficient guts to raise this matter rather than lying down supinely under the regime

1817
which we know is incapable of administering its financial affairs with what we in this country would call reasonable and due propriety. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I wish briefly to take the opportunity to return to a specific point that I raised in Committee on the issue of fraud. We all agree on the seriousness of fraud in the Community, particularly in the light of the report, mentioned by the noble Lord, on the 1996 accounts prepared by the European Court of Auditors. We all agree that it revealed unacceptable levels of fraud in the Community.
In the report, fraud was included in the £3 billion figure relating to the spread which the noble Lord raised during his speech. Even that bottom level figure of £3 billion represents 5.4 per cent. of the European budget. It is only fair that the issue is clarified by the Minister. I understand that the figure includes both fraud and errors in implementation, many of which reflect genuine differences of opinion between the European Court of Auditors and the Commission about the interpretation of the rules on eligibility. If that is not the case, I should be grateful if the Minister would respond accordingly.
Because of the state, position and importance of fraud, it has perhaps become the front line in the arguments for and against the extension of QMV. At this stage in the proceedings, it would be wrong to rehearse those arguments again, but I wish to return to one important point. I ask the Minister specifically about the requirement in amended Article 209a, paragraph 2, which is Article 2, paragraph 52, of the Amsterdam Treaty. It states that:
"Member states shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests".
I wish to know what effect the noble Lord believes the requirement would have in the fight against fraud. He told me that the significance was obvious if we believed, as we do, that in this country our public accounts are conducted effectively.
Clearly, then, we should try to bring the Community accounts up to the same standard. He added that he hoped that this applied to all other member countries, but it is certainly a valuable criterion for the United Kingdom. I could not agree more with those comments, but I asked the question for another reason. In another place, the Foreign Secretary said that one of the reasons why the Government agreed to the extension of QMV was because,
"we could not get agreement on applying the British standard [on fraud] in other countries".
He went on to make the same point as the noble Lord when he said,
"However, the treaty says that every country has to apply to European spending the same standards and tests that it applies to its domestic spending. We must apply the system we use for our national budget to European spending in Britain. The same steps must be taken in every other European state".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/97; col. 917.]
1818
It is the first sentence which concerns me most—
"we could not get agreement on applying the British standards [on fraud] in other countries"—
in the context of amended Article 209a, paragraph 2.
Accordingly, is the noble Lord satisfied with the standards and tests which other countries apply to their domestic spending? Are they as rigorous as those which we use in this country? If not, what efforts will the Government make to introduce changes in line with those standards which we have in this country, which include the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee, to ensure that each member state has proper arrangements for dealing with fraud at a national level in order to make paragraph 2 of amended Article 209a more reassuring? Surely the priority must be to get all member states to adopt proper anti-fraud measures.
It is with a heavy heart and a foreboding of repetition that I reflect that yet again in the Government's negotiations, as happened whenever they had to choose between either standing up for British interests with the risk of being isolated in Europe or submitting to the consensus of our European partners and sacrificing our national interests in the name of co-operation and unanimous agreement, that they chose the latter path. Whenever the Government advanced an idea they believed to be in Britain's interest it was retracted as soon as they failed to achieve instant agreement. Where was the courage of the Government's convictions on measures to counteract fraud? The Foreign Secretary had made it clear where they were when he said,
"we could not get agreement on applying the British standard [on fraud] in other countries".
However, on a final note I thank the noble Lord for expressing his belief that the serious issue of fraud should be a priority during our presidency. I thank him also for outlining so clearly the progress being made under the presidency and the other changes made by the Amsterdam Treaty to reduce fraud and to improve financial management, including strengthening the role of the European Court of Auditors in detecting fraud and mismanagement. I must ask him what progress he feels has been made.
From these Benches, we support the useful role of the Court of Auditors. We welcome also the Government's commitment to taking forward existing anti-fraud initiatives. But I look forward to a specific clarification of the points that I have made.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. I very much welcome this debate and should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who continually and quite rightly refers to the importance of democracy in carrying out what seems to me one of the most important functions of democracy which is to supervise continually the administration of the taxpayers' money. Therefore, on these Benches, we welcome the strongest possible measures which can be taken against fraud in the European Union and the member states.
No one can say that the European Union has been profligate in its budget which remains at 1.27 per cent. of GNP. Moreover, there has been very little attempt to

1819
try to inflate it. However, I draw attention also to the regulation which was agreed on 11th November 1996 when it was agreed between the member states that there should be spot checks and unannounced inspections in the whole area of possible misuse of Union funds.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said in a reasonable discussion on that matter. It is of crucial importance that the European Parliament should work with the national parliaments to reduce the possibility of fraud not least because, as was pointed out in our own 13th report back in 1992, fraud is not so much a problem for the Commission as for the member states dealing with the money provided by the Commission. That means that it is only through co-operation between those which are the parliamentary scrutiny bodies within the national parliament and the European Parliament and Commission that one is likely to deal with that extremely difficult problem.
Secondly, there is continual pressure for closer co-operation arising from Europol and others to deal with the issues of fraud within the geographical area of the Union. In that respect, it is worth echoing what my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said about the number of proposals brought forward under the intergovernmental pillar in the area of trying to deal with financial fraud and other issues where, if anything, there is a demand for more joint action and not less.
I wholly share the view that we must pursue this matter as vigorously as possible. Indeed, I have been instrumental in sending a good many documents about TACIS and PHARE to our own sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, because I have had reason to be concerned that some money may have been misused. It is important that such an inquiry is supported in every possible way by everybody, whatever may be their view in general of the value or otherwise of the European Union.
I do not support the amendment. It would put off sine die any movement forward of this treaty. The phrasing of the amendment implies that one must wait until the treaty had been in operation and a report would then have to be made. A resolution would then be necessary and only if that were carried could one move ahead on Amsterdam. I do not believe that is the right way forward and I shall not support the amendment. However, in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is to be much commended and I hope that all Members of this House will make as one of their first priorities the attempt to root out fraud whether at member state or at European Union level.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who has brought this matter to the attention of the House.
I wish to make two points. It seems to me to be vital that our Government and other governments should be seen to act on the reports of the Court of Auditors, particularly in view of the forthcoming enlargement. There are a number of new countries about to join. It
1820
seems to me essential that they should join an institution where They see that there is serious application of the law and serious accountability.
It could be very difficult for those countries. They are making the transition from a command economy to a free economy. On the way, there are liable to be quite a few pirates around who will be using their money. It is vital that they should understand that the issue is taken seriously and that accountability matters. Article 216 says:
"If any Member of the Commission no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he has been guilty of serious misconduct, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission. compulsorily retire him".
I have to tell the Minister that I should like to see a few compulsory retirements.
Lord Tebbit: I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for the manner in which he introduced the amendment. I congratulate him also on his long struggles as regards issues of fraud. It would be a little unfair if we were to give the impression that this problem has arisen only since May 1st last year. We know that it has a much longer record.
It now falls to the present Administration to see whether they can be more successful than their predecessors in battling against fraud. I wish the Government well. It will be a most difficult task. I return to the view that I expressed in this House a few years ago; namely, that while such large sums of money are being moved across borders in this way for certain purposes in the European Community, it is unlikely that we will ever get fully on top of the issue of fraud.
I have some sympathy, for example, with the French or Greek farmer who thinks that it is a bit of a nonsense that he should have to grow his tobacco crop in order to harvest it and then send it off to be destroyed so that he can receive his subsidy. It would seem to any logical person that the process could be short-circuited and that such a farmer could save everyone the trouble by relaxing indoors, with his feet up and still receive his subsidy. No doubt a good many of those farmers do exactly that, as we know happens in Italy with the olive scandal.
I was surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, did not make more of the matter when we discussed subsidiarity earlier. It seems to me that this is a perfect example of subsidiarity. Every country is told that it should deal with fraud involving European Community funds in the way that it safeguards the funds entrusted to it by its own taxpayers. I am sure that the Italians would find that to be quite nice. Indeed, as we know, standards vary across Europe. Surely, the safeguarding of taxpayers funds is not a matter which should have subsidiarity applied to it in this manner. There should be a single standard right across the Community, at any rate in this respect. It should he the highest standard in the Community. I venture to suggest that that means our own standard or that of countries such as Germany.

1821
I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply two questions to sum up the matter. They are fairly simple questions but they may not be so easy to answer. First, would such a state of affairs as has been uncovered by the Court of Auditors be tolerated in a department of state in our Government here? That is pretty easy to answer: it most certainly would not. If such a state of affairs were uncovered in this country, it would not be a matter of people being compulsorily retired; indeed, it would be a matter of people being prosecuted and sent to gaol. Any Ministers or senior civil servants involved would be treated most severely. Of that I am absolutely certain.
The second question is a little more difficult. What can we do about it? I say "we" because it would be unfair merely to ask what the Government are going to do about it. If the Government are going to do anything about it they will require the strongest support from all of us across parties in this House. I hope that when the Government take action and build upon anything which they may have been able to achieve during our presidency they will be strongly supported from all sides.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join the tribute that has been paid to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington for his stalwart work over more than 25 years in uncovering and publicising the level of fraud which exists in the European Community. The work that he does is, I fear, done by far too few people in this country and probably in other member states too.
In my reply I wish to comment first on the quantum of fraud in the European Community, and respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on that subject; and then to comment on what the Amsterdam Treaty does in that respect and again respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on that point. I then wish to comment on what we are doing about this during the UK presidency.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Bruce are entirely right to draw attention to the National Audit Office analysis of the European Court of Auditor's report on 1996 accounts which reveals an unacceptable level of inaccuracies. The figure is £3 billion or 5.4 per cent. of the budget—and not between £3 billion and £5 billion—but that figure includes not only fraud but also errors in implementation, many of which relate to genuine differences of opinion between the European Court of Auditors and the Commission about interpretation of the rules on eligibility. Neither is this figure an estimate of wastage as it includes technical infringements, for example about the timing of payments. Nevertheless the level of errors, and the fraud contained within that, are clearly a cause for serious concern. When the report was published last November the Government made it clear that much work remains to be done before Community finances are as well managed as our national Budget. This has been a priority for our presidency. I say to the
1822
noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that we do not believe that the level of control and enforcement is comparable to that which exists within the British Government.
What did the Amsterdam Treaty achieve in this regard? The changes were relatively modest but nevertheless they are worth putting on record. First, the treaty "beefed up" the role of the European Court of Auditors to give it recourse to the European Court of Justice to protect its right to audit Community funds. This means that if the Court of Auditors is blocked by another institution from properly carrying out its duties, it can take that institution to the Court of Justice. The Court of Auditor's right to audit those in receipt of Community expenditure right down the line to end users is clearly set out. This may have been ambiguous in the past. The Court of Auditor's right to audit Community funds managed by the European Investment Bank is also protected, even if the agreement under which the audit is carried out breaks down. As a result of these changes the Court of Auditors is now doing useful work and member states and the Commission are taking its reports more seriously. Increases in the European Court of Auditors' powers in the Amsterdam Treaty should ensure that this continues.
The second main change is in the Community's ability to take action against fraud. Under the revised Article 209a referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, a specific legal base is created for adopting measures against fraud. Previously those had to be adopted under the cover-all provisions of Article 235, which requires unanimity and causes delay and less efficient legislation. In future, measures will be adopted by majority voting, which allows quicker action. The use of qualified majority voting should not be seen as a threat. On the contrary, it is a tool to be used, and in this case it will be possible to take decisions unencumbered by the threat of veto from an offending member state.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked me questions about the control that is exercised by member states. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, although we are not privy to the way in which they run their public sector, there clearly will be significant differences between the member states. However, the point is that now, with qualified majority voting, there is a power to take action even if an offending member state is not in agreement with that action.
The third major change is the requirement placed on member states to co-operate with the Commission to ensure sound financial management of Community funds.
I turn now to what is being done by the UK presidency in the fight against fraud, and for better financial management during our presidency. As recently as Tuesday of this week, May 19th, ECOFIN considered a report on the follow-up to the Court of Auditors' report on the 1996 accounts. That is the first time the Council has discussed member states' replies to criticism by the European Court of Auditors. The debate highlighted key financial management issues such as the need to set clear aims for expenditure and to evaluate results against those aims. That should help to ensure that weaknesses highlighted in the Court of Auditors' report are addressed.

1823
ECOFIN also noted progress on the SEM (sound and efficient management) 2000 initiative, which is improving financial management, and discussed the Commission's annual report on the fight against fraud. I have no doubt that in due course the results of the ECOFIN debate will be made available to noble Lords.
We have made good progress on agreeing amendments to the financial regulation which sets out detailed rules for drawing up, implementing and auditing the EU budget to improve financial management. We are working to pass on good practice in financial management to central European candidates for admission to the European Union so that they can develop effective financial systems before they join the EU. That is relevant to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. They have all been invited to a financial control conference in London in June.
We are following up last year's report of the European Parliament on transit fraud. Progress has been made on legislation to improve the workings of the transit system and on preparation of the new computerised transit system. We are pursuing work on criminal fraud in the Justice and Home Affairs Council as part of the recent action plan on organised crime. The European Council at Cardiff will receive a progress report.
Although we cannot accept this amendment, because it would cause unacceptable delay and would prevent ratification if the necessary resolution were not passed in either House, nevertheless I know that the Government will recognise the unanimity of view and the determination to counter fraud which has been expressed by noble Lords in the course of this debate. On the basis that that message will now be passed back to government, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. The whole trouble is that the old Article 209 to which he refers makes no mention at all of any duty put specifically upon the Commission. Reference to the Commission is avoided absolutely in any part of that article. The duties are laid on the member states, and responsibilities are laid upon the Council. But there is no part of the treaty as quoted to me which presently enables the Community to deal with matters where irregularity and fraud are connived at either by the Commission itself or by parts of the Commission. There is at the moment nothing in the treaty that enables the Community to deal with its own Commission. In framing its proposals for the new clauses, the Commission has undoubtedly succeeded in avoiding any responsibility being laid upon itself. It is vital that that should be possible.
I do not for a moment question the zeal with which my own Government are proceeding in the matter, or the zeal of the previous government, perhaps subject to one reservation. When a member of your Lordships European Communities Select Committee, I had the opportunity to question a former Chancellor of the Exchequer as to why no effective action was being taken on this matter. I gathered from his reply that the question was rather pushed to one side as being
1824
something that was examined but upon which no definite action was required. That can be verified from the answers he gave to my questions in the evidence published by the Select Committee.
All I ask is that action should be taken at governmental level to prevent and extinguish the evil of bad faith, of lying and of cheating within the organisation. That evil must be tackled, and I sincerely hope that the Government will tackle it.
I am reassured to learn of some of the latest steps being undertaken. As one who was partly responsible for drawing up the financial regulations, as a member of the budget committee of the European Parliament, together with the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, I should be interested to receive particulars as to the progress that has been made in trying to amend the financial regulations. That would save much time and enable further, more fruitful inquiries to be made.
In view of the fact that the other place has not arranged for itself an opportunity even to discuss these matters in Parliament, I shall press the amendment standing in my name, which will compel consideration to be given to some of the arguments that have been presented today. I look forward to unanimous support, including that of the Government, for the amendment.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Monson, L.

Annaly, L.

Mountevans, L.

Attlee, E.

Moynihan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Newall, L.

Birdwood, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Brentford, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Rawlings, B. [Teller.]

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Renton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Rowallan, L.

Colwyn, L

Ryder of Wensum, L

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Cross, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Denbigh, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Eme, E.

Swinfen, L.

Harlech, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tebbit, L.

Kenyon, L.

Waddington, L.

Long, V.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Weatherill, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wharton, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Addington, L.

Bath, M.

Alderdice, L.

Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

1825

Blaker, L.

Ludford, B.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Burlison, L.

McNally, L.

Butterfield, L.

Maddock, B.

Calverley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carlisle, E.

Meston, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Methuen, L.

Chandos, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Newby, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ogmore, L.

Desai, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Gregson, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hardie, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollick, L.

Thurso, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tope, L.

Hoyle, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jacobs, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Whitty, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Levy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsmoved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARDS ENLARGEMENT
(" . No later than one year after the passing of this Act, and at annual intervals thereafter, a Minister of the Crown shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report assessing the progress of institutional reform of the European Union in preparation for enlargement.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the European Union is in danger of living in the past, rather than embracing the challenges and opportunities of the future. In order to do so, it has to become more outward looking and dynamic on a number of fronts, in particular on enlargement. So, shortly after the G8 summit, I feel I must mention the launch of the Transatlantic Economic Partnership to promote further trade liberalisation between the European Union and the United States. I applaud this initiative, which owes much to Sir Leon Brittan's ground-breaking proposals for a new
1826
transatlantic market place, on which I spoke at Report stage. I would also like to pay tribute to Sir Leon who has done so much to shift the European Union away from protectionism and towards a more open liberal trade policy. I urge the Government to pursue with vigour the new initiative.
As Fortress Europe is unsuited to an increasingly global economy, so is an exclusively Western European club unsuited to the post-cold war world. The European Union has clearly acknowledged this. Indeed, there is a widespread agreement that enlargement is not only our "historic" duty, but in the words of William Hague,
"as much a question of hard-headed interest as of Western altruism".
Eastern enlargement is very different from the previous ones, not just in terms of dimensions, but in its significance. The European Union that is emerging now, with the EMU grouping at its core, is very different from the EU of the 1970s and 1980s. Adding a large group of former communist countries to the European Union is very different from adding yet another medium-sized peripheral Western European country within the same geo-political parameters. I accept that it is a complex operation, but I feel that the European Union has not lived up to the rhetoric of enlargement. In so many fields I detect reluctance and delays in acting upon the words repeatedly uttered.
The Government appear satisfied with the pace at which the European Union is progressing towards enlargement. We are not. I accept that much depends on the rhythm of adaptation of the applicant countries, but the European Union is by no means ready for it. I feel very strongly, however, that the Union is not making adequate progress in reforming its policies, and in particular its institutions, in preparing for enlargement.
It is important that enlargement should take place at a faster pace, in order not to create new divisions across our continent that the fall of the Berlin Wall gave the opportunity to overcome. In particular the risk of further delays to institutional reform may well be used by other member states to block enlargement.
These are the main reasons why I am moving this amendment yet again today. It is designed to keep tabs on the pace of institutional reform. Furthermore, I believe that we have to return to this matter because of the Government's attitude. I was disturbed by the Minister's response in Committee and on Report to both my noble friend Lord Moynihan and myself. The Minister suggested that the institutional reform, as it concerns,
"the leftovers of Amsterdam … can be achieved relatively easily …"
through,
"a relatively simple IGC process".
The Minister went on to say,
"We believe that it can take place well before any accession of a new member state. There is talk of it happening during the German or Finnish presidency next year. Perhaps that is true; perhaps it will take a little longer, but it will take place before there is any accession of a new member state".
We were also castigated at Report stage for wanting to slow down the pace of enlargement. The Minister appears to suggest that the EU is set on a path and it is

1827
trundlingly slowly, but surely, to its predestined destination. Therefore, the Minister counsels not to do anything because it will only slow down the process along that path.
I was astonished by the attitude betrayed by the Minister's words. It is the attitude of a disengaged bystander, surely not of political leadership. The Minister appears to acquiesce in the plodding incremental approach to reform set by the Commission. Yet this approach is clearly inadequate. Institutional reform has been dodged again and again.
I do know how complicated it is. I remember very well the final session in Strasbourg as an MEP in 1994. The main debate at the time concerned the enlargement towards Austria, Sweden and Finland. It was probably one of the most interesting and exciting debates we had in the Foreign Affairs Committee and it went on late into the night. I am afraid that we failed and voted for enlargement alone rather than grasping the nettle of the necessary institutional changes. It was a great shame and it will be an even greater shame now.
The Minister's words also betray the lack of appreciation of the range and highly controversial nature of the issues involved. He appears to ignore a vast agenda ranging from the reform of the presidency of the Council of Ministers to the reduction of the number of official languages which was not touched on at Amsterdam. He calls a "leftover" achieving a fairer distribution of power between member states' governments. In a Europe of nation states, I believe it is the main course!
Finally, by refusing repeatedly to be drawn on the substance of institutional reform, the Government appear to be singularly unfocused on, and lacking full-fledged proposals for, it. Why let the French do the running on the proposal to set up a wise men's group on the future of Europe linked to enlargement? Why not work for an IGC on institutional reform for early next year?
As Lional Barber recently wrote in the Financial Times:
"Britain has little to lose and everything to gain by a bolder stance on institutional reform".
We must press ahead. We must work for a European Union to tear itself fully away from the old, small protective and corporatist club it was during the Cold War years. It must not join Rimbaud in saying,
"je regrette I Europe aux anciens parapets!"
I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support this amendment. Indeed, I think that it is perhaps the most important amendment that we have had before us during the whole of our discussions on the Bill. I say that because—I am sure that many noble Lords would agree—although the great majority of British people are not Euro-sceptics, they do not want a close-knit federal Europe. Like most people, I keenly support the concept of a grand alliance of independent nations, co-operating with each other economically, but with the minimum pooling of sovereignty.
1828
The larger the alliance becomes, the less feasible it is to create a European superstate. As I have said several times during these proceedings, we already have a Union of 15 nations, with 11 different languages and a number of different types of constitution. We know that seven more nations would like to join. That means another half-dozen more languages. In those circumstances, having the wrong treaty, as it largely is, basically unamended but modified under the Maastricht provisions and to some extent implemented under the Amsterdam provisions, is not feasible for an enlarged Europe. It is not feasible even for a European Union of this size, but it would be utterly unsuitable for a Union containing yet more nations.
It is right that the Government should be asked to report to Parliament from time to time on the efforts which they may be making to attempt to achieve the right situation for an enlarged Europe. Indeed, what should be achieved? One could go into this in great depth, but I shall be as brief as possible. Two main steps must be taken. The first is to get away from the concept of a federal superstate. The second is ancillary to the first: let us finish once and for all the ridiculous concept of harmonisation. It is not working now, even as a fudge and even on the basis of ridiculous compromises. It would work still less effectively with seven more nations in the Union. I hope that the Government will reply sympathetically to this important amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder if I may raise perhaps a slight note of controversy by wondering whether European enlargement is, in fact, a good thing—not only politically, but economically.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a recent publication from the Centre for Research into Post-Communist Economies called European Union Enlargement: the coming home or a poisoned chalice. It is written by the Economics Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Mr. Bill Jamieson, in conjunction with the well known expert on Eastern Europe and European matters generally, Dr. Helen Szamuely. It is a new analysis of the proposed enlargement of the European Union. The authors use economic data and political facts which expose many of the problems inherent in the proposed process. They examine the effects that enlargement will have on the European Union itself and on the applicant countries. They come to the conclusion that those effects are likely to be very serious for the existing members of the EU and devastating for the newly liberated countries of eastern Europe. They show that western Europe's obsession with the European Union and EMU, and with the unchallenged assumption that the only way forward for the countries of eastern and central Europe is to join the ever more closely integrated Europe, have made it impossible for the West to give the post-Communist countries the help that they need.
The study goes on to look at the poor economic performance of the European Union and concludes that it is far from the right economic model for the Eastern European countries to emulate. Many of them are doing rather better than us at the moment. It sees enlargement

1829
as a political construct whose influence is likely to set back post-communist economic and political development.
I shall not deal any further with the book. This matter has come to my attention only in the past few days. The work contains some very frightening analyses and statistics about the whole process. I should like to commend it at least to someone of significance in the Minister's department. I shall give the noble Baroness her complimentary copy after the debate.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I note the paradox that just as 11 countries are doing their best to join the European Union a number of Members of this House would like us to leave it. That is a major change in the whole structure of European integration and leads to the transformation of Europe and its institutions.
I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The Council and Commission are already committed to annual reports on the progress of enlargement, not simply institutional reform but policy reform. Noble Lords may be amused to know that at a conference of national scrutiny committees of the European Union two days ago the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, made a speech in which he argued that policy reform was at least as important as institutional reform in preparing for enlargement. A French conservative parliamentarian attacked him vigorously and accused him of being a Eurosceptic and said that institutional reform was all that was necessary to prepare for enlargement. We need to address this question but we do not require a national report. We must ensure that this House is given as much opportunity as possible to discuss the long-term questions.
We are also in the process of enlarging NATO. The two institutions go together. I regret that this House has not yet spent enough time discussing the enlargement of NATO, which is a rather faster process at the moment and is also likely to lead to another 10 or 12 states joining NATO within the next 10 years. We must discuss how those two processes of transforming Europe should be fitted together.
Having said that, I ask the Minister who is to reply to assure us that the House will be given every opportunity to discuss these questions in detail as we proceed, recognising that we are transforming NATO and that widening the European Union transforms it. But it certainly does not let us off the hook of strengthening the institutions, as suggested in the rather odd speech made the day before yesterday by Mr. William Hague, the Leader of the Opposition. He said:
"Deepening the Union is not just a distraction from widening. It is the opposite".
The idea that to enlarge the European Union is to reduce what one needs to do seems to me to be very odd.
Having said that, we shall not vote for this amendment if it is pressed to a Division. However, we believe that this matter is very important. We want the Government to involve the country as far as possible—so far they have not managed to do that—in discussing
1830
the whole question of how to take the Poles, the Romanians and others into a larger institutionalised democratic Europe.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, for once I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord who has just spoken. Like him, I believe that if we are to consider the enlargement of NATO and the enlargement of the Union as accepted fact it must be very carefully thought out and co-ordinated. I said as much earlier at Committee Stage. I support the amendment, however. We are not discussing these matters because we wish to leave the Union but because we wish it to be the kind of Union that works, which has honest standards and does not waste money; and the kind of Union that accepts that it is a group of countries working together, not a supranational organisation.
There is a great difference. We are doing our best to ensure that this institution works as it should, and works well. I strongly support the amendment because it was a great pity that, with the very many other things that had to be dealt with at the Amsterdam Conference—I freely recognise that that was so—the implicit decision in the reflection group and in the earlier discussions, that there would be early discussion of the institutional framework that will be necessary, has not yet been addressed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, ranged widely when introducing the amendment. I am glad, in one sense, that she did. I am glad that she made it clear that the Opposition, as distinct from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, are solidly in favour of enlargement. We on these Benches and, I think, the Liberal Democrat Benches, clearly want enlargement. We also want the budgetary and institutional changes necessary for enlargement.
At earlier stages of the Bill parts of what the noble Baroness and her colleagues were pursuing on enlargement would make enlargement conditional. I am glad that she has made it clear that that is not their intention. However, there was a hint in what she said that could slow down enlargement, in the sense that if all the institutional changes to which she referred—some of the genies coming out of the bottle again—which were discussed before Amsterdam, had to be discussed before we moved to the accession of new member states, enlargement would be delayed. That is why I said at an earlier stage that we should concentrate, in terms of institutional change, on those areas which were explicitly left over from Amsterdam.
The noble Baroness ranged so widely that she managed to refer to a speech from the leader of the Conservative Party, which had otherwise sunk like a stone. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, also gave it new life. It is a speech which the Daily Telegraph this morning said was a speech without an audience, and which the former deputy leader of the Conservative Party said was in danger of losing an important part of the Conservative Party—the centre ground, which I had always assumed included the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I would be deeply disappointed if either of them left the

1831
Conservative Front Bench because of their commitment to deepening the institutions in the way the noble Baroness had described.
We made progress on institutional issues at Amsterdam. We did not, however, go as far as we wished. I record how far we did get. Article 1 of the protocol states that when the next enlargement of the Union takes place the Commission will comprise one national of each member state provided—only provided—that the weighting of votes in the Council has been modified to increase the relative clout of the large member states. That is a major advance for Britain.
We made it clear also that the enlargement process would require changes not just in those institutional issues but in the budgetary problems which are now being faced up to by the Council. We are not committed to a wholesale overhaul of the treaties further down the line, only to a limited IGC which will complete the process, and to budgetary reform which will allow enlargement to take place.
The text of the amendment is more modest than the text of the noble Baroness's speech, in that it requires a new form of reporting of institutional changes. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the institutional reports produced within the European institutions themselves. I assure the House that the scrutiny process on preparing for enlargement—the institutional dimension and others—will be subject to full scrutiny in this House and in another place. We have, as my noble friend Lady Symons outlined in detail at the beginning of this stage of the process, the normal scrutiny process: the six monthly White Paper on developments in the European Union; regular debates in this House and in another place; consideration of a memorandum from the Foreign Secretary, and oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place before each European Council which considers those constitutional issues. After each European Council a report is made to each House, a Foreign Office Minister gives oral evidence about the meeting to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and we report regularly to the House on the agenda for the Council of Ministers. Therefore the approach to institutional change will be covered by existing procedures, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated.
Once we get into the IGC and changes are agreed and put in treaty form, we shall be back here considering the new treaty on the same basis whereby extensive consideration has been given to this Bill. Whether or not the dramatis personae will be the same, I am sure we all look forward to repeating that process at that stage and completing the institutional changes which were not quite completed at Amsterdam.
The House therefore has substantial opportunity for considering institutional changes and the progress up to that point made in the Council of Ministers and elsewhere in the approach to the limited IGC to which I referred. The Government therefore consider that we have not only made preparations at Amsterdam and since for resolving the outstanding institutional issues on which enlargement depends. We have also made provision for reporting them to this House, and for the
1832
House to be able to debate fully those changes. The Government therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, it is important that he gives some idea of what the Government understand to be institutional changes. He used the phrase time and again, but it is very vague. Can the noble Lord say whether it involves reducing the concept of the superstate, the federal state, and getting away with harmonisation? Those are the two main factors.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I think intended by the noble Lord, the answer is no because the proposal for a superstate is not on the agenda either in the Treaty of Amsterdam or in those areas which still need addressing. We are therefore not moving down the road of the superstate. We have made that clear. I believe that the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have also made that clear. We are united in this House that we are not moving to a superstate. Therefore the issue does not arise.
On harmonisation, clearly the protocol and subsidiarity to which we referred will limit the degree to which harmonisation will apply in certain fields. However, we are not intending to roll back the harmonisation which has successfully occurred under the aegis of the single market. Indeed, in many respects the single market is the major achievement of the European Union and it would be wrong for us to promise roll-back of harmonisation in that respect.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the federal provisions in the Treaty of Rome—they are still there even though the treaty has been amended—involve the creation of a superstate? That is what a federal constitution is.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no, I do not accept that. I do not accept that it is a constitution for a state. It is a treaty between sovereign member states who agree that on a growing area of items they will pool their sovereignty. We are not talking about the constitution for a superstate. We are not even talking about a federal state in the way that the noble Lord implies.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, when does one stop the ever deepening process? The Treaty of Rome states that there will be ever deepening of the state in Europe. When do we stop that ever deepening process and start the federal process?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the past few interventions indicate a reversion to what should have been covered within the Second Reding debate. Whether or not we get deeper depends on a unanimous decision in the Council of Ministers for a change in the treaty. The British Government and the British Parliament

1833
therefore have an absolute veto over any deepening. That will remain the position under this treaty and any subsequent treaties.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, he has not said where the new Government stand on an absolutely fundamental point about enlargement. The previous Conservative Government hoped and believed that widening the Community would weaken the institutions of the centre. That is why many members of the previous Conservative administration were in favour of it. Do the present Government agree with that or do they agree with the alternative philosophy that widening necessitates deepening?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are having another Second Reading philosophy debate at the end of the Third Reading. However, I shall reply to the noble Lord. We believe in enlargement because we believe in the reunification of Europe and democratic institutions which have been deeply divided for 50 years. We believe that that is a political advantage for the whole of Europe, whatever implications it may have for its institutions.
I believe that the trade off which the previous government sought between widening and deepening is erroneous. It was erroneous then and it is erroneous now. We will deepen in those areas in which we consider it sensible to deepen and we will resist deepening in those areas where it is not in our interests or the interests of Europe to do so. There is not the kind of trade off on which the previous government insisted.
Rather than get into more philosophy, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, today we have rehearsed the arguments which were put forward at previous stages of the Bill. There has been an interesting exchange of views. I totally agree with the two points made by my noble friend Lord Renton. No one wants a European super state. Luckily for the noble Lord, I do not believe that that is on the agenda. I agree with my noble friend's second point about harmonisation. I do not believe that harmonisation can work. Probably the only way forward—I remember this from my time as a Member of the European Parliament—is through mutual recognition. That is probably easier.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in his usual eloquent fashion, keeps us aware of all the horrors of the European Union. He drew our attention to yet another book which we must read. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who is very knowledgeable on the subject, and my noble friend Lady Park. I worry, however, when NATO enlargement is coupled with European enlargement. I believe that they are different subjects.
I regret that I am not totally satisfied with the Minister's response. More and more reports are produced but little seems to happen. As he rightly said, my amendment is modest. It is an attempt to try to inject greater momentum into the process of enlargement. I am
1834
grateful to all noble Lords who supported it in Committee and on Report and in its modified version today. I had hoped that the Minister would eventually accept the amendment. I am unable to withdraw it and I ask for the support of the whole House.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kenyon, L.

Annaly, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Attlee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Monson, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mountevans, L.

Blaker.L.

Moynihan, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Newall,L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Newton of Braintrce, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Oxfuird,

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Butterfield, L.

Rawlings, B. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Renton, L.

Charleris of Amisfield, L.

Rowallan, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Colwyn, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Soulsby of S waffham Prior, L

Denbigh, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Denham, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harlech, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Tebbit, L.

Howe, E.

Wharton,B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alderdice, L.

Gregson, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grey, E.

Bath, M.

Hamwee, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Berkeley, L.

Hardie, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Borrie, L.

Hayman, B.

Burlison, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Calverley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chandos, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jacobs, L.

David, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Levy, L.

Desai, L.

Ludford, B.

Dholakia,L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNally, L.

Dubs, L.

Meston, L.

Ezra,L.

Methuen, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Newby, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicholson of Winterboume, B.

1835

Ogmore, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Puttnam, L.

Thurso, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tope, L.

Rea,L.

Tordoff, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Russell, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Serota,B.

Whitty, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Simon, V.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
I have been doing a little arithmetic since we last debated the Bill on Report last week. According to my calculations, before we began proceedings today, we had spent a total of 48 hours and 16 minutes in detailed scrutiny of the Amsterdam Treaty, over eight full days. That is no mean total and that does not take into account the time that we have spent on the legislation today.
Therefore, between your Lordships' House and another place, we will have had a grand total of 15 days' debate on these issues, not to mention the numerous other instances of reports and ministerial appearances before Select Committees of both Houses. Thanks to the application and hard work of the House, I think it is fair to say that we have covered this treaty from cover to cover. Some parts of it we have dealt with several times and I make no complaint about that.
The Amsterdam Treaty is more modest in some respects than its predecessors. But, nonetheless, it makes some important changes to the European treaties. I pay tribute to all those noble Lords who have, throughout the course of our deliberations, made such knowledgeable and constructive contributions to our debates. Sometimes we sat quite late into the night debating matters of broad principle and matters of great detail. I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Bruce of Donington, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Shore of Stepney and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I believe that I can safely say that they left no stone unturned. It is clear that we differ fundamentally on this Bill and on the treaty upon which it is based, but I thank them for the way that they put their case and for the courtesy that they showed in doing so.
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Their knowledge, expertise and grasp of the treaty has been second to none. Their clarity in explaining their case, even when it differed from that of the Government, was exemplary. I should like, too, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in particular,
1836
for steering through the somewhat rocky waters of his own party's position on Europe with consummate skill. His knowledge has been considerable. His eloquence has been as elegant as ever. On this occasion I congratulate him too for his extraordinary stamina.
I thank the officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who have been aided by other officials. It is now 20 years since I sat in the Official Box in your Lordships' House. I know how arduous and how skilled that job has to be. Our Bill team has been knowledgeable, of sound judgment, accurate and timely in its advice. It has also been unfailingly good humoured.
This is a good treaty for this country and it is a good deal for the people of this country. It fulfils the Government's undertakings to the people of this country in our election manifesto and it has, of course, been passed in another place—the elected House. I know that there are several noble Lords who cannot agree with this assessment. They have made no secret of their views over the years and of their uncompromising opposition to this country's membership of the European Union. However, I also know that there are many on the Benches opposite who fully support the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. Many have played a distinguished role in deepening and consolidating this country's relationship with the European Union. I suspect that in their heart of hearts many of those noble Lords realise the value of this treaty and of this Bill. I urge them and all noble Lords on all sides of the House to support the Government.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I join the Minister in congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Tebbit. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shore, whom we were delighted to see in the Chamber although he has been unable to stay until this point. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and others on the degree of commitment and conviction that they have shown throughout this long series of debates. Like many others in the House, I do not share their views. However, I pay tribute to the persistence and determination with which they make their views heard, and the way in which they have helped us to improve many of the scrutiny aspects of the Bill.
I also pay warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. In a moment or two I shall refer to one or two other colleagues. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in these debates have been knowledgeable, impressive and conscientious. I pay particular tribute to the mastery with which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has balanced on the difficult tightrope over the chasm opened up by his right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition a couple of days ago. That lies fully in the great tradition of athletic leading figures in the Conservative Party.

1837
I pay tribute to three Members of the Conservative Benches who have made a notable contribution to this debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the noble Lord, Lord Renton—to whom we always listen with great and careful attention—and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, whose interventions have been extremely enlightening. We appreciate greatly the extraordinary grace and patience which Ministers have brought to these long debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, have all listened to the debate, have taken careful note of what is said and have replied to virtually every point that has been raised. That is very much to their credit and very much to the credit of the Government they serve. I thank them for that because it has not always been easy for them to balance that with all their other responsibilities.
Finally, although I agree with the Minister that this is not the kind of treaty which will result in champagne corks popping all over London this evening, or for that matter great demonstrations in the streets, it is a useful and helpful further advance in consolidating democracy and accountability within the European Union. The Government can take due credit for having finally steered this difficult ship to its port. I thank them once again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to congratulate all Members who have participated in this debate. It only goes to show that in our collective capacity we are capable of examining a Bill and its implications in far greater detail and with a good deal more expertise than is frequently exhibited in another place. Whether the contributions have come from hereditary Members of this House, or those who, like myself, occupy a rather less permanent tenancy of position, I think we have preserved a sense of humour. That is a rare commodity in these times, and one that some of us from time to time make an endeavour to contribute. In thanking your Lordships, perhaps I may add that in 10 years' time, long after I am gone, I shall be proved right.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, unfortunately I was in America last week. I have not been able to participate as fully in our debates on this treaty as on the Treaty of Maastricht when I believe I was present at every stage and on every day. My thoughts are very much along the lines of those of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, regarding the expertise and good humour that has been shown on all sides of the controversy. I remain, of course, firmly "ag'in it", and nothing will reconcile me to it.
There is only one matter on which I remain slightly unsure of the position of the noble Baroness the Minister. I was not sure a moment ago whether, in reference to the waters of the Conservative Party, she said that they were "frothy", or "grotty". I should be most grateful if she would clear up that small point.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing my appreciation to all who
1838
have taken part in the debates. In particular, I wish to thank and congratulate my colleagues on the Front Bench. They have answered the points and discussions with admirable restraint and have generally helped the proceedings to be friendly and good-humoured.
This particular Bill is unique in one aspect in the annals of discussion on European treaties. I believe that the defeat on fishing quotas was the first time ever that the Government had suffered a defeat in this Chamber on a European treaty. So our discussion has been in some degree unique. I hope, of course, that if we debate more treaties, we shall have more defeats. I can only regret that when I moved an amendment and very reluctantly dared to vote against my Government, it appears that the Opposition were even more reluctant to defeat the Government. That is a great pity because the House of Commons could have had a good discussion on some of the institutional matters. As my noble friend Lord Bruce said, we have done the job that the House of Commons should have done, but unfortunately were not able to do.
In future, I hope that the Government will not guillotine constitutional Bills in the House of Commons—or, at least if they do, give the other place adequate time to examine the legislation properly as it should be in the elected Chamber.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I make no secret of the fact that I believe that this is a much more serious Bill than the Government and other supporters of it have made it out to be. It is beyond doubt that it continues the process of integration towards the European superstate which we all fear so much. That is true in all 21 areas of the Bill that we have discussed. In not one single area is the process of integration reversed. The salami-slicer of my noble friend Lord Tebbit moves relentlessly on.
We touched on economic and monetary union during the progress of the Bill. The recent conference, which was somewhat controversial, set EMU on its path while the Bill was going through your Lordships' House. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to answer, because I do not believe that the noble Lord or the noble Baroness can answer, but EMU raises one of the two questions that I wish to leave with your Lordships about the Bill. It is a question that I have asked several times and to which I have not received an answer. It is: what will the European Central Bank do in a Europe of disparate and diverging economies with a single interest rate? I believe that that will be an insurmountable problem.
The division between us seems to have come about because the word "Europe" is much more ambiguous than many think it is. That has been brought home to me during our debates. It means two different things to different people. To some of us, it means the Europe of nation states, freely trading together, which we love and support; to others it means the Europe of the Treaty of Rome, the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe.
This misunderstanding or division between us is at its most important when we disagree as to whether war is more likely from our vision of Europe or from our

1839
opponents' vision of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was very eloquent at an earlier stage of our debate when he indicated that the inclusion of other countries in the European Union was a tremendous prize worth fighting for. In that he appeared to support—and I think did support—Herr Kohl's dream, which is an honourable dream. But it brings me to the other question that remains unanswered at the end of our debates. Which is the more likely to cause conflict in future: is it the Europe of nation states forced too quickly and too closely together; or is it the Europe of nations, freely trading together? When did a democratic, bourgeois nation ever provoke a war? The answer is "Never". When did the other solution provoke wars? The answer is "Often": Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union in its decline, Africa, and so on.
These unanswered questions and others leave me very unhappy that the Bill should leave your Lordships' House. When the Maastricht Treaty reached this stage in this House, we took the unusual step of dividing the House on "The Bill do now pass". I can assure your Lordships that we shall not do that today, but I do not want that to be taken as any sign of greater approval of this treaty from some of us than we held towards the Maastricht Treaty.
I end by thanking the Government and all the Government Ministers and spokesmen for their unfailing courtesy during the debates. I think they did their best to answer our questions, but I believe that we won the arguments and that history will prove us right.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, as a Back-Bencher who hardly deserves the kind tribute paid to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—alas, I have said very little—I wish to say that I greatly admire, and would like to record my respect for, the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Monson and Lord Bruce of Donington, who between them have been the mainstay of the series of debates. I know that I could hardly expect the Government Front Bench to be excited about that. However, those noble Lords should be respected and admired for their persistence and their courage.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, our opposition to this Bill consisted of a tripartite approach which I believe and hope has been both measured and reflective. First, we sought to debate genuine policy differences; secondly, we requested clarification on the implications and effects of various provisions contained within the treaty; thirdly, we attempted to shed light on those areas where the post-Amsterdam treaty text does not match the pre-Amsterdam rhetoric and to seek explanations as to why that is the case. For example, did the Government change their mind at the last minute or was it the result of negligence?
Accordingly, I sought to fulfil those legislative obligations that I outlined at Second Reading; that is, an obligation to scrutinise the details of the treaty title by title, chapter by chapter, article by article, paragraph by paragraph. And in doing so, to judge the treaty and, by implication, the Government and their negotiating skills on a series of key tests. Does it protect and
1840
enhance British interests? Does it benefit Britain's competitiveness and jobs? Does it achieve what it set out to do? In sum, is it really the best deal that the Government could obtain for Britain?
I believe that the treaty before us gives away so much for apparently so little in return, negotiated by a government whose manifesto promised that they would preserve the role of the nation state in Europe, but whose attitude to the Bill undermined that promise.
That said, I am grateful to the full ministerial team who took responsibility for the many subjects covered by the Bill and who answered so many questions fully while leaving me with sufficient material to table in writing. Late one evening I referred to the manner in which I had worked on the Bill. I hope I shall be permitted to place on record my thanks to Jacqueline Butler. not an employee of that fine body of advisers, the Central Office foreign affairs team, hut a political assistant who worked assiduously with me on this legislation. Indeed, my thanks go also to my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Mackay whose contributions have been admirable. To them, and indeed to all my noble friends and all noble Lords who participated in the lengthy proceedings, I express my sincere gratitude.
In conclusion, I thank the attendants without whom I would not have had regular half-hourly briefings on the score and fall of wickets at the Oval today where, had it not been for the pleasure of your Lordships' company, I would have enjoyed an equally memorable all-day sitting.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Royal Assent
4.54 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I must notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Animal Health (Amendment) Act,

Social Security Act,

Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act,

Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Act.

Contracting Out (Functions relating to National Savings) Order 1998
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft order concerns the way in which National Savings, which is an Executive Agency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is managed by its chief executive, who is referred to in legislation as the Director of Savings.

1841
The Director of Savings has a range of statutory duties concerning the administration of the agency, and in particular the administration of obligations to customers of National Savings, which are placed upon him by various pieces of legislation. The purpose of this draft order is to confer upon the Director of Savings the power to delegate certain of his duties to an external contractor, as might be necessary in the event of the agency forming a public/private partnership at some time in the future.
The purpose of this order is to delineate exactly those functions which will remain with the Director of Savings if a public/private partnership is entered into. This is a contracting-out, not a privatisation. That means that all the responsibilities in question remain with the Director of Savings, who is answerable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the House. Any contractor who is appointed will be merely his agent. Any legal remedies will continue to be against the Director of Savings. The savings schemes will continue to be backed by the Government.
Approving this draft order does not in itself make any form of public/private partnership involving National Savings necessary or inevitable, now or at any time in the future. Neither this order nor any use of it by the Director of Savings would diminish in any respect or to any degree the protection which exists for customers of National Savings.
The primary purpose of the National Savings Agency, which has been in existence in one form or another for almost 150 years, is to contribute to cost-effective funding of the National Debt by raising money from private investors through the retail savings market. This complements the funding which is carried out by selling gilts in the wholesale markets. This is an important function which brings benefits both to taxpayers, through making funding more efficient and thereby lowering the burden of debt interest; and also to customers of National Savings who have access to an absolutely secure home for their savings, guaranteed directly by the Treasury, and offering attractive rates of interest. Currently over £60 billion of savings are deposited with National Savings, and over half the population of the United Kingdom has some part of its savings invested in National Savings products.
By seeking to involve the private sector in its operations, National Savings is examining a route to harness the skills and experience it requires to implement an ambitious business re-engineering programme, gain expertise in exploiting the latest information technologies and develop a capability for accepting and managing the risks in that process.
National Savings carried out a detailed evaluation of how a public/private partnership could help it to provide its operational services. On 2nd April, the Economic Secretary announced that, following detailed consideration and discussion with those involved, she had given authority to the Board of National Savings to proceed to the invitation to negotiate stage with two shortlisted companies—Siemens and EDS. She made it clear, however, that any decision to conclude a
1842
public/private partnership would not be made until later in the year, it would be based on value for money and would bear in mind the interests of taxpayers, customers and National Savings staff.
Bringing this order before the House does not signify that the Government have reached a decision on the matter. It simply sets in place the legislation that will allow the Director of Savings to authorise a private contractor to exercise the operational functions of the agency undertaken in Glasgow, Durham and Blackpool. This is a necessary step if any successful bidder is to carry out these services.
The functions that would be delegated by the order are essentially the routine operational decisions. If a customer wanted to transfer funds from one account to another, to repay funds or to replace a lost bank book the contractor could arrange it. These functions and others being delegated are typical of the types of decisions made every day in savings organisations to allow the smooth running of business and provide customer care.
The director is retaining functions which go beyond simple administrative matters and have a major bearing on the make-up of the savings products and how they can be developed. For example, a number of the functions deal with the way applicants can invest in National Savings, the methods of investing and the forms to be used, or procedures which are clearly crucial in determining how the products develop. Others deal with the methods of making repayments to customers. This enables the director to take advantage of developments in the banking sector generally to steer the business and make sure that it keeps in step with best commercial practice.
That is the purpose of the draft order. It is a technical piece of secondary legislation which makes it possible for such a contract for private sector involvement to be concluded. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this contracting out order. If I had read the order rather earlier in the week, or perhaps even last week, I do not think I would have allowed it to come on at the tail end of today, which seems to be entirely for the convenience of the Government so that their Bank Benchers do not hear what is happening.
When I started looking at the order earlier in the day I realised that it was being brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, a measure taken through the House by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in one of his last ministerial acts before he was elevated to the position of Chief Whip. It is nice to see that the Labour Party is now so keen on the Act. I remember taking part myself in debating the legislation. Indeed, I summed up at Second Reading. I was defeated one evening by the late and much lamented Lord Howell. It gave him and the Labour Party a great deal of pleasure to see me defeated. I then had

1843
to speak for rather a long time in order to prevent a further defeat which I did with some success. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, remembers.
However, I decided to re-read some of my words and their words on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, or Bill as it then was. I came across a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, at Third Reading. At col. 621 of the Official Report on 26th October 1994, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said:
"Noble Lords may ask whether my view of the Bill is what it was at the outset and I have to say that it is. I regard it as a constitutional outrage".
When I went to the report of the Second Reading in which I played a part, I discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, had summed up for the Opposition that day—they are now the Government of course—on 6th June 1994 at col. 1039. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was preceded by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who said that the Bill was a "sinister Bill". He was then speaking for the Liberal Democrats whose interest in the Bill and the order I note. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said,
"It is a sinister Bill. It is travesty of parliamentary accountability. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, replies, he will give some assurance that if there is a Labour Government in the future, they will repeal this Bill in the instant".
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was quick to respond to that request. He said,
"My Lords, I start by responding forthwith to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. From this Dispatch Box"—
and it was from this very one here—
"I can say that the incoming Labour Government—because that it will be in the not too distant future"—
it was not a very good prophesy because it was a quite far-distant future in June 1994—
"will repeal this Bill"
a Bill which he said was "sinister and offensive". So rather than repeal this sinister and offensive Bill we have today the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, using the power in the Bill to proceed with contract-out measures which, when they were on these Benches here, the Labour Party seemed to find fault with.
I am glad to have such a conversion as we are seeing today, the Government changing their position in Opposition from repealing the Bill to actually making use of it. They are not making use of it in any small way, but in a very big way. That is because what we have before us is an order under the Act which will mean the largest ever transfer of central government IT and non-IT staff to the private sector in a 10-year deal which is expected to be worth over its lifetime something like £1.6 billion. It is twice as many staff as transferred to EDS in 1994 under the then record-breaking £1 billion deal when the Inland Revenue out-sourced. I am envious of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because although I managed a few contracting outs I never managed one on quite this scale.
Perhaps the prime project which I was delighted to see the Government take over was not a contracting out, it went much further than that. It was privatisation by
1844
the state of the Benefits Agency and others. I was delighted that the Labour Party decided to go ahead with that.
So here we have the Government proceeding with a move, using a piece of legislation which, when they were in Opposition, they entirely and utterly deplored. But it is a very major piece of contracting out and nobody should underestimate it. There are something like 4,200 staff employed by the National Savings.
I gather that such is the contracting out that some 4,000 of the staff will go, so that only 200 at the most will remain. That suggests to me that the director of National Savings is not going to be doing very much after this contracting out has been achieved. This is a big contracting out with something like 4,000 people being involved. Roughly 1,000 of them work in Durham; 2,000 work in Cowglen near Glasgow and 1,200 in Blackpool.
The order does not meet with the approval of the unions. The Public and Commercial Services Union is very much opposed to it. Indeed, it has reminded the Labour Party of what it said in opposition. I am grateful to campaign update for reminding me that Mr. Derek Foster said in a Labour Party press release of 23rd January 1997 that the PSI (private sector involvement) proposals were an "ill founded project" which would be,
"a mortal body-blow to National Savings' loyal and hardworking staff'.
That was said when the proposals belonged to the Conservative Government. At the Labour Party Conference in 1996, Mr. Chris Smith said:
"Public/Private partnership for capital projects—YES. Private, commercial take-over … NO!".
As the PCS points out, these proposals for National Savings' operations represent a private, commercial takeover. That cannot be disputed. Indeed, PCS says,
"we have told Helen Liddell that staff feel they have been betrayed by the Labour Government".
Mr. Neil Holland, the PCS union secretary at Durham, said:
"Our members feel angry and betrayed. We now find that after successfully resisting 18 years of Tory attempts to sell off our jobs, the Labour Party is prepared to put at risk the future of NATIONAL SAVINGS and the pay, conditions and pension arrangements of 95 per cent. of the agency's staff, by handing our jobs over to the PRIVATE sector".
The Scottish Trades Union Congress carried a unanimous motion recently when the PCS asked for support for its campaign to keep all of National Savings in the public sector. The motion called on the Scottish Trades Union Congress to add its voice to those already lobbying the Economic Secretary. It said:
"STUC support is a welcome boost to our campaign".
I suppose that New Labour is not in the least bothered by the fact that Old Labour, represented by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the PCS, is so upset by what it is doing in carrying out Conservative policy. That is why I so much welcome this order.
However, the unions have some justification for their concern. Your Lordships will remember that I said that 4,000 people are employed by National Savings. As the

1845
Minister told us, the two contractors in the lead are Siemens and EDS. My recollection from my time as a Minister was that EDS was not an organisation entirely loved by the Labour Party in opposition, but I suppose that everything changes. In an internal document, EDS has suggested that it can do the whole job with 1,500 staff. My arithmetic tells me that 2,500 people are not likely to have a job if EDS does what it says that it can do. That is an indication of the productivity improvements that are achievable—and that is exactly why the Conservative Government were so keen on contracting out and privatisation. They always resulted in major efficiency savings.
However, it is clear that if EDS is right—it is one of the two finalists—something like 2,500 jobs could go. When I look at the three main places where National Savings has its operations, I can see that that means that jobs may be lost at two of those places. National Savings' operations may cease at Durham, at Blackpool or at Cowglen. I cannot see it being efficient to reduce the staff to the extent that EDS thinks is possible and to keep operations at all three locations. The Minister may be able to help me on this, but I believe that the premium bonds computer (ERNIE) is located in the Blackpool area. I imagine, therefore, that some of those jobs may well stay in the Blackpool area. However, that seems to pose considerable dangers to operations at Durham and Cowglen. I know Cowglen in Glasgow and it is not an area where alternative employment is thick on the ground. I suspect that the same is true of Durham.
I hope that the Government will be open and honest with the unions and employees and make clear that many of the jobs are at risk and one or more of the offices may close. As we discovered when in government, sometimes this is the unfortunate and difficult price to be paid for the improved efficiency that contracting-out brings. But it must be done with care and a good deal of help to the staff who as a result become unemployed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh will give me an assurance that that will be done.
I also hope that he will not try to pretend that there will be no job losses. There will be. Even if the EDS internal memorandum is a little wide of the mark I cannot believe that it will still employ 4,000 people at the end of the period of contracting out. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that major efforts will be made in whichever place it is to help those who lose their employment to find other jobs. At the risk of being parochial, I hope that that is particularly true of Glasgow which has considerable unemployment problems.
With that, I congratulate the Government on using this splendid Act and their sensible policy move in contracting out this organisation.
5.11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps it is our fault because of timing that the noble Lord,
1846
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has not had a better audience for his splendid tirade. At least the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was here to listen to him.
Earl Peel: My Lords, it was a pleasure to hear my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was also a pleasure for me. However, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will convey to his colleagues the power of his noble friend's attack. It is quite legitimate to poke fun at anybody in any party who, while in opposition, promises to repeal legislation and then finds a number of years later—the noble Lord is also right about this—that it is not as easy as was thought.
I remind the noble Lord that this draft order is laid before Parliament under Section 77(2) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 which was not part of the original Bill that attracted particular criticism from the then Opposition, just as it is not as important as the first five sections of the 1994 Act which have caused the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to institute special procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of these orders. I believe that this is less controversial than the noble Lord has said.
However, the noble Lord has a valid point in suggesting that the unions will be concerned about this contracting out if and when it takes place. I made it clear in introducing the order that there was no certainty that there would be a form of public/private partnership now or at any time in the future, but the unions have an understandable concern. The agency has consulted the trade unions regularly, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has had two meetings with them in recent months. There will be further contact with the unions and staff.
The noble Lord is also right that there is no guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies, although he will be aware that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations will apply in this case and will ensure that there are broadly comparable conditions of service and pensions for the staff concerned. But it is no secret that the review which National Savings was undertaking might itself have resulted in job losses even without any public/private partnership, the subject of this order.
One possibility which should not be ignored, which would work in the opposite direction, is that a contractor taking on the operational aspects of National Savings, under a public/private partnership, might well find additional uses for the skills of the staff in Durham, Blackpool and Glasgow. Those are transferable skills within the FSA. There may be additional protection for jobs rather than job losses.
I suppose that I have to be grateful—whether for satirical reasons or not—that the noble Lord commends the order. I take his words at face value and thank him for them. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting (Percentage of Digital Capacity for Radio Multiplex Licence) Order 1998
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th April be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, should not leave his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, entirely on his own.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 restricts the amount of capacity on digital radio multiplexes that can be used for transmitting data services which are unrelated to the sound programming to 10 per cent. By data services, I mean non-sound services which are most likely to be displays in either text or video form on the front of digital radio receivers. These restrictions exist because the Government believe the primary use of the spectrum that has been allocated to digital radio should be for audio services for public reception. However, digital technology will enable a variety of associated services to be delivered via the airwaves and it is right that these associated services be allowed to develop for the benefit of the consumer. By this order the Government propose that up to 20 per cent. of capacity should be used in this way.
The Government are raising the limit from the level set in the 1996 Act following representations we have received from the commercial radio industry. It was the view of the industry—backed by the UK Digital Radio Forum—that the 10 per cent. limit was too restrictive and that its relaxation would greatly assist the establishment of sustainable commercial digital radio services. We have listened carefully to those representations and have consulted the Radio Authority, which agrees that our proposal to raise the limit to 20 per cent. is acceptable.
In accepting the case for raising the limit of capacity that can be used for data services we have made clear to the industry that the bulk of this capacity should be used for data services receivable by the general public on all digital radio receivers. We do not want to preclude digital radio licensees delivering some business services to closed user groups. But we are aware that such services are already provided in other parts of the spectrum and via telecommunications systems. The Government have therefore asked the Radio Authority to monitor the additional services that are broadcast and to report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of
1848
State on the second anniversary of the start of digital radio services on the proportion of additional services taken up by services aimed at closed-user groups and on whether this amount was detrimental to digital radio services. The Government will consider in the light of the authority's report whether the 20 per cent. limit introduced by this order needs to be revised.
The Radio Authority has already advertised the sole national commercial multiplex licence and has outlined a provisional timetable for local licence advertisements. Press reports indicate a significant degree of interest in these licences and the Government will play their part in promoting a successful launch of digital radio in the UK. The changes that will be brought into effect by this order will enhance the prospects for digital radio further. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th April be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one brief question. Are the proposals triggered by the fact that digital compression techniques have improved so that the same volume of radio services can be carried on the 80 per cent. which, it was anticipated when the Bill was passed, would require 90 per cent. of the multiplex? Alternatively, is the additional 10 per cent. for other services such a valuable source of extra revenue for the broadcasters and multiplex owner that it has driven forward the proposal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the pressure underlying the order is economic and commercial rather than technical. The data services are of value to those who broadcast to wide user groups. But they also have a value to narrower user groups. We believe that it is desirable to give this degree of flexibility to those who apply for licences. It will help to ensure the economic success of the digital radio project.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that he does not anticipate that the public will receive any less good a range and quality of services by virtue of the change than they otherwise would have done?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can confirm that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at twenty-one minutes past five o'clock.

  CJD Deaths
  CJD Deaths
  Gibraltar: Trade Figures
  Gibraltar: Trade Figures
  Romania, Moldova and Ukraine: Trade Figures
  Romania, Moldova and Ukraine: Trade Figures
  Boards of Visitors: Annual Reports
  Boards of Visitors: Annual Reports
  Treaty on European Union: K4 Committee
  Treaty on European Union: K4 Committee
  ACPO Ltd
  ACPO Ltd
  ACPO: Funding
  ACPO: Funding
  Police Bodies: Funding
  Police Bodies: Funding
  Race Relations Forum
  Race Relations Forum
  Montserratian Evacuees in the UK
  Montserratian Evacuees in the UK
  Forensic Science Registration Council
  Forensic Science Registration Council
  Asylum Control: Designated Countries
  Asylum Control: Designated Countries
  Successful Asylum Applications
  Successful Asylum Applications
  Turkish Nurses: NHS Employment
  Turkish Nurses: NHS Employment
  Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency
  Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  Fair Rent Increases
  Fair Rent Increases
  Train Safety Proposals
  Train Safety Proposals
  London & Continental Railways: Revised Proposals
  London & Continental Railways: Revised Proposals
  Ferry Safety
  Ferry Safety
  Scotland: Education Expenditure
  Scotland: Education Expenditure
  Northern Ireland: Independence of Judiciary and Magistracy
  Northern Ireland: Independence of Judiciary and Magistracy
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist Arms
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist Arms
  Maghaberry Prison: Mental Health Unit
  Maghaberry Prison: Mental Health Unit
  Northern Ireland: Medium Secure Unit
  Northern Ireland: Medium Secure Unit
  Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards: Administration Costs
  Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards: Administration Costs
  Beef Bones Regulations 1997: Enforcement Costs
  Beef Bones Regulations 1997: Enforcement Costs
  Beef Bones Regulations 1997
  Beef Bones Regulations 1997
  Scottish Legal Decisions
  Scottish Legal Decisions
  Beef Bones: Purchase for Dogs
  Beef Bones: Purchase for Dogs
  Oxtails: Conditions of Sale
  Oxtails: Conditions of Sale
  Imported Oxtail Soup
  Imported Oxtail Soup
  Varroa Mite: Control
  Varroa Mite: Control
  Fishing Industry: Decommissioning Costs
  Fishing Industry: Decommissioning Costs
  Bosnia: Train and Equip Programme
  Bosnia: Train and Equip Programme
  Mr. Rupert Bowen
  Mr. Rupert Bowen
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Aero-engine Parts
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Aero-engine Parts
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Conventional Arms Transfers: UN Register Return
  Conventional Arms Transfers: UN Register Return
  Landmine Deployment on UK-Controlled Territory
  Landmine Deployment on UK-Controlled Territory
  Army Technical Support Agency: Publication Distribution
  Army Technical Support Agency: Publication Distribution