Sitting of 3 November 1998

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

    One-stop Clinics
    Mr. Douglas Alexander: What progress is being made in the development of one-stop clinic services in Scotland. [56101]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): We are making good progress towards modernising the national health service. About 80 one-stop clinics have so far been established throughout Scotland. That is an important step towards our aim of better and quicker treatment for everyone.
    Mr. Alexander: Can the Minister tell the House what steps are being taken to support one-stop clinics for my constituents in Paisley, South?
    Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend's local hospital has made considerable progress. There are already one-stop clinics for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostatic assessment, early pregnancy and cardiology. Those clinics are well on their way to providing better and quicker treatment for all their patients.

    Gaelic
    Mrs. Ray Michie: What steps he is taking to encourage more Gaelic-speaking teachers to undertake training for work in Gaelic-medium units. [56102]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government are committed to Gaelic and plan to spend £5 million more on Gaelic education over five years, including £200,000 annually for in-service teacher training.
    Teacher education institutions have targets for Gaelic student numbers; suitable Gaelic-speakers taking a primary postgraduate certificate in education receive free tuition, regardless of any previous support that they may have received; and the Scottish Office funds publicity promoting Gaelic-medium teaching.
    Mrs. Michie: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. My particular concern relates to
    662
    primary school Gaelic units. I remember that Strathclyde region identified Gaelic-speaking teachers in its area and offered them retraining, but nothing much happened. I hope that the Minister will undertake to encourage education authorities to identify Gaelic speakers, retrain them through colleges or distance learning, and offer them development prospects.
    I invite the Minister to tear herself away from the central belt and visit the units in Mull, Tiree and Islay. She will see what excellent work they are doing, but they are always on a knife-edge in case they lose a teacher whom they cannot replace.
    Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generous invitation, which I should love to take up. I know that she has had a particular concern about Salen primary school on Mull, which lost its Gaelic teacher and then lost the supply teacher, who moved away rapidly. I understand that a teacher is now in place, so that difficulty should have been resolved.
    It may reassure the hon. Lady to know that Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools has undertaken research which shows that there are a substantial number of Gaelic-speaking teachers who are interested in teaching through the medium of Gaelic. Education authorities can provide support for those teachers to enable them to teach in Gaelic-medium units. The Government have set aside an additional £200,000 annually for in-service training for Gaelic teachers. Earlier this year the General Teaching Council held a seminar on Gaelic-medium education. My officials, together with the GTC, are seeking to address the issues that were raised at that seminar, with a view to making further progress.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her position on the Scottish Front Bench and congratulate her on her rise in status to membership of the Privy Council. She will recall that I wrote to her recently about other modern languages, as well as Gaelic. Can she tell the House what plans she has in store for Scottish schools to advance the learning of other modern languages, which are so vital in the present European context?
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments. I am aware of the correspondence that he sent me in relation to the teaching of modern languages. He will know that a recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools revealed rather disturbing news about the teaching of modern languages in Scottish schools. As a result, I have asked officials to strengthen the guidelines for initial teacher training to include stronger encouragement for developing modern language skills. I am also setting up a languages action group to work with the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum to tackle a programme, including a review of the guidelines on modern languages for five to 14-year-olds, and to give advice on attainment targets for modern languages in primary and secondary schools. I will also ask the Scottish qualifications authority to review the standard grade arrangements for modern languages because, quite frankly, we cannot have a modern Scotland if the Scottish people are not proficient in modern European languages.

    Businesses (International Financial Crisis)
    Mr. Eric Clarke: What steps he has taken to assist Scottish businesses in respect of the recent international financial crisis. [56103]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Although my hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the turbulence in the world economy, the latest monthly figures show that unemployment in Scotland continues to decline and employment to increase. The Government endeavour to help businesses by promoting a competitive, stable domestic economy. Scottish Enterprise is reviewing its economic development strategy at my request and, with my Department, is providing specific assistance to areas experiencing particular problems.
    Mr. Clarke: May I take this opportunity to thank everyone who wrote to me and sent get well cards— particularly you, Madam Speaker?
    The Secretary of State knows that many businesses go to the wall because confidentiality is imperative in their day-to-day dealings. Does his Department have a hotline or an equivalent service from which businesses may seek assistance? If businesses could consult such a service more quickly, there would be fewer redundancies and less unemployment.
    Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend's reappearance on the Bench, in fighting form, is very welcome. In Scottish terms, the House is a much quieter place when he is absent. I am delighted to see him back and boisterous.
    As to his specific question, many local enterprise companies run one-stop shops with entry points. I agree entirely that, at a time when there are inevitable economic difficulties given worldwide conditions, it is particularly important that those who believe that they have a viable future but who require assistance over a difficult patch establish contact with local enterprise companies, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise or directly with my Department. That would give us the chance to offer what advice and help we can. I am very much in the business of taking a positive approach to firms experiencing difficulties.
    Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard many business people in Scotland express concern about the strength of the pound and the level of interest rates. Given that interest rates are significantly lower in countries that are about to become members of the single currency than in the United Kingdom, and given that tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland depend on manufacturing industries that export to European Union destinations, will the Government firm up their recent more positive sounds about economic and monetary union and establish a clear timetable for a referendum and British membership of the single currency?
    Mr. Dewar: It is always a pleasure to hear Liberal party policy, and it is good that the hon. and learned Gentleman pushes his line with such charm.
    As to the wider issues that he raised, he may have to approach my colleagues at the Treasury. However, in 1997, for example, exports from Scotland increased by
    664
    12 per cent. I take a bullish view of the Scottish economy's medium and longer-term prospects, but I am anxious not to see a return to stop-go economics and to boom and bust. I certainly do not want to return to the days—it was not so long ago—when we saw interest rates at 15 per cent. and many associated problems. The hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to point to the Conservative Front Bench in that regard. The Chancellor is determined to end that situation, and I think that he has the full support not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends but of many other sectors of political opinion.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that a number of Scottish companies have suffered as a consequence of the international turbulence and, therefore, are not necessarily able to meet the regional selective assistance targets to which they were previously committed. Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues continue to look sympathetically at those companies' requests that their problems be considered if the employment targets to which they were committed in more optimistic times are not met?
    Mr. Dewar: I would approach my hon. Friend's suggestion with a great deal of caution. RSA is very tightly controlled—and rightly so. Regional selective assistance is paid when jobs are delivered, and I want to hold to that principle. I repeat my message: firms that experience particular difficulties should not be slow in coming forward and approaching the Scottish Office and Scottish Enterprise, because they may be assisted in other ways. We naturally look sympathetically at cases in which, despite certain difficulties, the long-term viable job prospects seem to be good and realistic. I hold to the fact—there are examples that underline this point—that RSA needs to be tied to the targets that have been promised.
    Mr. John Swinney: In the light of the continuing economic difficulties in the shorter term to which the Secretary has referred, does he recognise the folly of the real-term reductions in the budgets for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise? Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that, in view of those difficulties, he should reverse the cuts and give himself more room for manoeuvre to invest in areas of Scotland that are suffering economic difficulties, such as the borders and the south-west?
    Mr. Dewar: I certainly recognise the folly of taking a simplistic line, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, on this matter. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the adjustments that we have made, particularly to the property portfolio of Scottish Enterprise. We wish to invest not in property but in people, skills and economic growth. Secondly, we have adjusted Scottish Enterprise's training budget because £70 million a year is coming in under the new deal and more is being spent on skills and training in Scotland than previously. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of those facts. I hope that he will both accept them and rejoice, with me, in the fact that Scotland is leading the way in the new deal: there are 15,500 people already in the system; 2,600 are now in jobs; and 5,700 employers have already signed up.

    665
    That shows that that part of the budget of Scottish Enterprise and the new deal, working together, are having considerable success.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are some success stories among businesses in Scotland? Will he join me in welcoming the additional 1,400 jobs that will be coming to the Fife area through BSkyB? Will he join me also in paying tribute to the management and work force of Solectron Scotland Ltd., which deals with the global manufacturing electronics industry? I visited its plant in Dunfermline yesterday, where it now employs nearly 1,300 people.
    Mr. Dewar: I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend has said. It is important that we remember that, although there have been disappointments recently and some failures, we have been creating more jobs in Scotland than we have been losing. I hope that that situation will continue. Certainly every effort will be made to ensure that it does. In 1997–98, Locate in Scotland concluded 87 inward investment projects coming to Scotland, creating and safeguarding 18,000 jobs. I welcome the expansion in Dunfermline by BSkyB. I am well aware of the reputation and excellence of the work that is carried out by Solectron.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Does the Secretary of State expect unemployment in Scotland to fall or to rise between now and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman, like me, will have to wait and see. Thanks to the determined line that is taken by the Government—for example, taking £20 billion out of the borrowing requirement and the way in which we have held down inflation—we are certainly very much better placed than many competing countries to ride out the turbulence that has resulted from the collapse of the far east economies and from events in Russia. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to pay tribute to that and join me in hoping that we can continue the excellent record to which I have referred.
    Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman's evasiveness is matched only by his willingness to blame other people. Let us go through what the Government are doing. With exporters facing continuing difficulties; with the failure of the new deal to attract sustainable jobs; with tax rises of the equivalent of 5p in the standard rate since the Government came to power; with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an hour's time, about to downgrade his own growth forecast; with an increase in borrowing; with a tax raid on pensions; and with a soon-to-be-announced extra 23p per gallon on petrol, which will further damage confidence in the rural economy, does not the Secretary of State accept that the price of the Government's incompetence is bound to be paid for in lost jobs, and that the next get well card that he writes will be to the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should try to come into the real world. I am prepared to debate with him as long as his arguments are in any sense creditable. As a start, for his education, he should consider the previous
    666
    Government's record and the problems that they experienced over a long period. I am confident that Scotland will ride out the troubles and that the fortunes of the Conservative party in Scotland will always be much worse than those of the Scottish economy.

    Higher Still
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on progress towards implementing the new Higher Still exams. [56104]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Lid dell): The Government are committed to re-establishing Scotland as a world leader in education. As part of the agenda to raise standards in schools and levels of achievement, the Government are committed to the start of the Higher Still programme by August 1999. The Government recognise the professional concerns of teachers and we have responded vigorously to those concerns. Funds of more than £24 million have been committed to support classroom teachers, on top of the £20 million already invested centrally to ensure that the start of Higher Still is a success.
    We have also approved an extra two in-service days for Higher Still training and provided an unprecedented amount of national training, support materials, assessment exemplars and information leaflets, and a telephone helpline for teachers.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that the new access intermediate 1 and 2 courses will be phased in over three to five years, why has not the Minister taken the trouble to introduce the Higher Still exams over a phased period? Is not the truth that she would rather spend her time playing party politics for the Scottish Labour party?
    Mrs. Liddell: Oh dear, Madam Speaker! I am glad that the people of Guildford are taking such an interest in Higher Still, but perhaps I can pass on some accurate information. The introduction of Higher Still is phased. It has been delayed twice. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is shaking his head; I doubt whether he even knows what Higher Still is.
    The phasing of Higher Still is designed to ensure that, in the upper years of Scottish secondary education, we widen the opportunities for young people of all abilities so that they learn certain key core skills. Those with special educational needs can do highers at access level and those who are very able can do advanced highers that prepare them for university. Higher Still, which began in 1992, is a phased programme, as it should be because it is one of the most radical changes in Scottish education for many years.
    I have been conscious of teachers' anxieties, and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I met the Educational Institute of Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Conservative Members are yawning because they do not find the subject interesting. I am today inviting the Educational Institute of Scotland to participate in a liaison group that will consider further phasing where there is explicit proof that exceptional difficulties exist in a specific subject or in named schools. Any request for additional phasing must have the support of the head teacher and the local authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is

    667
    taking for ever."] Although Conservative Members may not be interested, parents and teachers in Scottish schools are extremely interested.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: Does my hon. Friend share my amazement at the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) about Higher Still? The problems with the higher levels of Scottish education were identified at the beginning of the 18 years of the previous Government. It is only now that a vigorous programme to modernise the curriculum is being introduced. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about how long it takes to introduce major changes in the Scottish curriculum? It has taken many years, and there is a danger that a long time may pass before changes are introduced to deal with a problem that has been identified.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The route to Higher Still began in 1992, which is why it is not acceptable to the Government further to delay its implementation. My hon. Friend is right also to draw attention to the lamentable performance of the previous Government, who for 18 years downgraded Scottish state education. This Government are determined to ensure that Scottish state education returns to its rightful place as a world leader. That is how we shall modernise Scotland and raise standards and achievement in Scottish schools.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: In view of Scottish teachers' low morale and increased work load, will the Minister now repudiate the Daily Record headline which referred to Labour's war on teachers? Surely this negative attitude must be replaced by co-operation with the teaching profession, which understands the problem and offers the only means of delivering for Scottish education. The Minister's liaison group comes rather late in the day; such action should have been taken much earlier.
    Mrs. Liddell: I greatly welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is taking such an interest in education; perhaps we shall soon hear some education policies from his party. The teaching profession has welcomed Higher Still, and I share the profession's commitment to it. My main priority is to raise the standards and levels of achievement of the children in Scotland's schools. That is the aim of all those who are properly concerned about Scottish education, unlike the hon. Gentleman's party which seems committed to the dumbing down of Scottish education.
    Mr. Donald Gorrie: What the Minister says is encouraging, in as far as it goes, since the Government have averted a possible conflict with the teachers' organisations. I hope that the Minister will continue to show some sensitivity towards the problems outlined by teachers, especially modern language teachers, who cannot understand why modern languages are not a core subject for Higher Still. As the Minister knows from other correspondence, many English teachers are very concerned about the content of the syllabus. Will she treat sympathetically those genuine concerns?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I will indeed take these matters on and treat them sympathetically. I know of his interest in them. I am anxious that the guidelines for modern language teaching
    668
    should be improved. HMI's report has shown that, in many instances, teachers were unclear about what the guidelines recommended, which suggests that the guidelines themselves were not sufficiently clear. As for the introduction of Higher Still in English, I have taken on board some of the points made by teachers who had professional concerns, especially about assessment. We have therefore altered the arrangements for the assessment of English. I hope that Higher Still will be introduced in August 1999. Indeed, the Government are committed to that, and I look forward to Scottish education returning to its rightful place as a world leader.

    Employment (Southern Scotland)
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What additional steps he proposes to assist employment creation in the south of Scotland. [56105]
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: If he will make a statement about the economic prospects for the borders. [56113]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I have just returned from a series of meetings in the borders and last week I undertook a similar visit to Dumfries and Galloway. I heard at first hand about the problems that are being encountered. My Department is working with local organisations to address those problems. A number of initiatives are in hand, including additional support for both local enterprise companies. To give another example, I was able yesterday to confirm approval and funding for the A7 traffic relief scheme at Hawick, which should offer important economic development benefits.
    Mr. Morgan: Further to that reply, does the Secretary of State agree that transport costs are a vital factor in job creation in the south and south-west? Will he undertake to urge the Chancellor to reverse his current policy of increasing road fuel duty by some 6 per cent. annually above the rate of inflation—a policy that will result in petrol costing £4.50 by the end of this Parliament and which will cost jobs in the south and the south-west? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Dewar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am interested to hear Conservative Members shouting that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Conservative Government, for very understandable reasons, followed a policy of introducing real increases above the rate of inflation for many years. Their words either show an inability to remember the past, or else drip with hypocrisy.
    As for Dumfries and Galloway, I had extremely constructive talks with the council, the local enterprise companies and other interests there. We are trying to help them to build for the future. I recognise the importance of tourism and job-creation measures. I assure the hon. Gentleman—I suspect that he will have heard this from others—that we are properly engaged in finding a way forward.
    Mrs. Spelman: Agriculture is in deep crisis in the borders, and currently, I understand from my relatives, about 1,700 jobs are at risk. Will the Government accept

    669
    responsibility for the mismanagement of this sector, or continue to blame the rest of the world and the people of the borders?
    Mr. Dewar: On the hon. Lady's question about accepting responsibility for mismanagement, the answer is no. I hope that she is following the BSE inquiry with close attention, because she might find it instructive. I certainly accept that there are difficulties in the agricultural sector. Sadly, they affect almost every section of the industry at the moment, which is a particular problem.
    As the hon. Lady knows, we spend about £500 million a year in Scotland on agricultural support of one sort or another, and a successful effort was made last year to find additional help for farmers. If she likes to study the advanced arable area payments, the order on split ewe carcases, the increase from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. on advance payments on the special beef premium and a number of other measures that have been taken over recent weeks and months, she will see that a great deal is being done. We are in constructive dialogue with the National Farmers Union of Scotland.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the success of the task force established in Haddington in my constituency, following the loss of 510 jobs at the Mitsubishi factory seven months ago? The task force, which involved the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency, the local enterprise company, the Scottish Office and the local authority, succeeded in getting 450 out of 510 people into alternative employment or training places, and is still working on getting the remaining 60 people placed. Should we not be talking about positive achievements of that kind, rather than listening to Jeremiahs from Meriden or the Scottish National party?
    Mr. Dewar: I have not visited Meriden to count the number of Jeremiahs, but that may be an interesting expedition for the future. My hon. Friend is right to point to that success, following the great disappointment of the Mitsubishi closure in Haddington. It is perhaps a reminder that, when there is a Government with a bit of energy and initiative, a great deal can be done and that, despite what we often hear from Opposition Members, the economy is not in free fall. We have not plunged into deep recession and we are much better placed than many of our competitors to ride out these problems.
    I should comment on Viasystems, because of the bitter blow to the borders economy. I had a useful and constructive meeting with the shop stewards last night in Selkirk. They are also trying to look to the future in a way that does them great credit.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on publicity for the elections to the Scottish Parliament in May 1999. [56106]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): Next May's elections to the Scottish Parliament will be the first to be held in Scotland under the additional member system.
    670
    We believe that the right to vote must also mean a right to understand, and we therefore intend to make sure that voters are properly informed about the change.
    Mr. Gray: Some commentators have scurrilously suggested that the £2 million campaign which the Government propose is designed to shore up their flagging support in the forthcoming elections. Leaving that on one side, does the Minister not agree that that expenditure falls into roughly the same category as expenditure in Government information campaigns before referendums? If so, does he intend to be as dismissive of the Neill Committee in that area as he was last week? [Interruption.]
    Mr. McLeish: I am reminded from my Back Benches that we also read the polls. They would be instructive reading for the Conservatives, should they keep reading them, especially between now and the May elections in Scotland next year. There is something ironic and paradoxical about such an attitude coming from a party that will be sent a life line through the additional member system because it has not a hope of winning in a first-past-the-post contest in Scotland in the near future.
    We are creating a Scottish Parliament, which is a new institution, and a new method of voting, which is a simple, commonsense way forward. Surely it must be right that people understand that system, and we are seeking to hold a public information exercise that matches the aspirations of the Parliament. It will help the people of Scotland in the run-up to the elections, and I certainly hope that all parties represented in this House will endorse the principle that we need to educate the people of Scotland in relation to the specific additional member system, which involves not only one, but two votes. It is vital that that is made clear.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: My hon. Friend will be familiar with the problems of elderly people who have to try to get to a polling station that is up a steep hill or about a mile from their home, even though they may have a school next door to them. Will he consider what influence he can bring to bear on the electoral registration people to ensure that that sort of nonsense is brought to an end, especially for the first elections to a Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. McLeish: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are considering those issues. It is vital that there be no practical or physical impediments to people voting. We are concerned about older people, and we are also targeting younger people and those with special needs, so that they can use the ballot boxes in the polling stations to the best advantage. That is high on our agenda, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are closely considering any possible improvements that we can make.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the light of the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), and his response and that of his colleagues to Lord Neill's report, does he understand the widespread scepticism about the Government spending millions of taxpayers' pounds on a mass information campaign? Will he give the House a

    671
    categorical assurance that, before it is published, the Government will put the entire campaign before Lord Neill for him to review its neutrality?
    Mr. McLeish: We do not recognise such widespread scepticism, because there is none. That is Conservative Members' interpretation. They obviously do not visit Scotland or speak to Scots, because they are out of touch. The basic issue is that the public information exercise is about a new institution and a new method of voting. I urge the Conservatives and members of every other party to endorse the principles of a public information exercise. At the appropriate time, there can be discussions with Opposition parties. This exercise is in the interests of Scotland: it is not about the narrow political interests being pursued by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Ian Davidson (Gasgow, Pollok): Does the Minister recognise that there is substantial under-registration in many areas of Scotland? That is the legacy of the poll tax, for which the Conservatives are remembered. Will he enable as many people as possible to register by ensuring that local authorities are given a proactive role in chasing up people and giving them the opportunity to vote in the first election for a Parliament in Scotland?
    Mr. McLeish: I can tell my hon. Friend that that has already happened. We were keen to target older people, younger people and those with special difficulties. We have worked with local authorities on a registration campaign in Scotland. I am convinced that that will increase the number of people registered. That is highly appropriate, given the historic setting of the elections for the Scottish Parliament next year.

    Beef
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the beef industry in Scotland. [56107]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Government appreciate the fact that beef producers are particularly exposed to the present difficulties in the farming industry. That is why we are providing record support to the farming industry, approximately half of which goes to the beef farmer. Scottish beef producers also benefit from the Government's financial support for specified risk material controls and for the cattle tracing system set-up.
    Mr. Paterson: Does the Minister agree that Scottish beef is now the safest in the world, and that there is no proven link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and new version Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Does he further agree that there are no human health or animal health grounds to maintain the beef ban? The ban is flagrantly political, and a grotesque abuse of our trading arrangements with our European partners. Instead of coming up with such complacent answers, the Government should take the case of the Scottish farmers to the European Court.
    Mr. Macdonald: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten, but the beef ban was one of the legacies of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. David Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that I recently carried out a survey of 400 restaurants and hotels in my constituency. It showed that 90 per cent. stock and are a source of Scottish beef, and 99 per cent. are very satisfied with the quality of Scottish beef. Does my hon. Friend agree that the imminent lifting of the European beef ban will provide a vital new niche in the market for Scottish farmers and their high-quality product?
    Mr. Macdonald: Indeed, I am encouraged by the report of my hon. Friend's constituency survey. Although cattle prices have been lower everywhere in the past year, Scottish quality beef products are fetching a premium in the market. When the beef ban is lifted, the prospects for Scottish beef exports will be good.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister share the optimism of the United Kingdom's Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the beef ban should be lifted by the turn of the year? The Minister was in the Chamber last week when the agriculture Minister said that he hoped, sooner rather than later, to announce what I think he described as a significant package of additional help for the hard-pressed agriculture sector. Will that be reflected in the Scottish Office vote, and in what the Scottish Office is able to give the Scottish agricultural community?
    Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for future announcements. We are working flat out to lift the ban on beef exports; there has been considerable progress since the Government took office, and we are continuing to work on it. It should also be said that the Government are providing record support for the agriculture industry: £500 million a year is going into farming, and during the year we have increased that by £50 million
    Dr. Liam Fox: Given the drop in farm incomes and the apparently increasing gap between farm-gate and supermarket prices, will the Minister consider three fairly non-controversial steps? First, will he ensure that rigorous carcase checks are carried out for residues so that, now that our beef is the safest in the world, no consumer is put at risk by imported beef? Secondly, will he ensure, through labelling, that consumers see clearly how they can support the domestic industry? Finally, will the Government actively encourage supermarkets and caterers to procure home-produced food? Those three simple measures would go a long way to improve the environment for farmers.
    Mr. Macdonald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, action has already been taken in regard to beef labelling and supermarkets. The gap between prices paid to farmers and prices paid by consumers has caused concern, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Office of Fair Trading is preparing a report on the major supermarkets, which should be published before the end of the year.

    Local Government Housing
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If he will make a statement about the level of council house debt in Scotland. [56108]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): As at 1 April 1998, council house debt in Scotland was estimated to be £3.9 billion.
    Mr. Taylor: Who is financing all that debt? Can it be that the taxpayers of the rest of the United Kingdom, including my constituents, are underwriting housing debt in Scotland?
    Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. In fact, council tenants service debt through their rents. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attempt comparisons between England and Scotland, I can tell him that the average council house debt is pretty similar in both countries. The total council house debt in England is £20 billion.
    Miss Anne Begg: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the forward-looking policy that the Government are about to introduce in order to bring about much-needed investment in Scottish council housing through the new housing partnership. Will he confirm that that falls very far short of privatisation? It is nothing to do with privatisation; it is about giving council housing back to tenants and local communities, so that they can invest the money that they need to make their houses better.
    Mr. Macdonald: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance to that effect. We are increasing investment in housing by 40 per cent. over the next three years from the level of investment that we inherited. The object of new housing partnerships is indeed to modernise Scottish housing stock, to lever in new investment on top of the public-sector investment and to provide real community control over housing, along with real powers for tenants, in their own neighbourhoods, over their own houses.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Minister answer a simple question about the Government's approach to housing? If it is possible to offer, as a carrot or incentive, the writing off of debt for private partnership companies, why is it not possible to offer the writing off of debt to councils throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Macdonald: There are two reasons for the transfer to community ownership. First, it will allow the new community landlords to lever new investment into housing, on top of the public-sector investment that is already being provided. Secondly, it will provide real powers for local communities and the tenants who live in them.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When he next expects to meet Scottish Screen to discuss the potential for film production and exhibition in Scotland. [56109]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has no present plans for a formal meeting with Scottish Screen. I met the chairman of Scottish Screen, James Lee, on 2 June and again on 2 September.
    Mr. Clarke: Does my hon. Friend recall the film review that I co-chaired, which published in March "A Bigger Picture", focusing on the absolute need for more investment in film production, especially in Scotland? Does he have a view on the three projects that are being proposed for major film studios in Scotland? Will he bring together the various agencies as well as Scottish Screen to ensure that, in the interests of Scottish culture and, indeed, of our economy, films about Scottish subjects are produced in Scotland?
    Mr. Galbraith: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's expertise in this subject and, in particular, to his report, "A Bigger Picture", which has given considerable guidance and great vision to the film industry throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome moves towards its location in Scotland. It is for Scottish Screen to consider the options for funding and location in the light of what is in the best interests of the whole of Scotland when developing the film industry in our country.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Minister of State was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Debt (Late Payment)
    Mr. Christopher Chope: For what reasons legal aid debts are being exempted from legislation on the late payment of debts. [56131]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The money that is paid by the Legal Aid Board to lawyers is currently outside the scope of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 because the amount of legal aid payments is decided by Parliament through regulations. Claims for payment have to be taxed by a court or assessed by the board before they can be paid. Therefore, there is no direct contractual relationship on which the late payment legislation could operate.
    Mr. Chope: That answer just will not wash. The Law Society has made representations to the Government saying that they are guilty of sleight of hand in relation to this. If Law Society payments were to be exempted, they could have been exempted in the main legislation. Masses of small firms of solicitors throughout the country were waiting for the Lord Chancellor's Department to pay debts outstanding for more than six months. They were looking forward to the legislation. At the last minute, they have been excluded from the rights under it. If a debt is incurred for the Lord Chancellor's wallpaper, that will carry interest, but a debt for a core legal service that is provided to the Lord Chancellor's Department does not.
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has this wrong. Provision of legal aid does not currently come within the

    675
    legislation simply because there is no direct contractual relationship. There will be a direct contractual relationship if the Government carry through, with Parliament's approval, plans for reforming legal aid to establish contracts. In those circumstances, there will be a contract against which late-payment legislation can bite.

    Public Records
    Mr. David Kidney: What assistance is given by his Department to persons who cannot afford to pay the prescribed fees for the issue of public records. [56132]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There are no prescribed fees for the issue of public records; the records are made available free of charge at the Public Record Office. The only fees that are payable regarding public records are those prescribed by the Public Record Office (Fees) Regulations 1998 for the provision of copies of records and for other services that are offered by the Public Record Office.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I refer him to birth certificates. Clearly, most people need to buy a full certificate at some time during their life and some people have difficulty in affording even the modest fee for such certificates. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to consider some formal scheme for exemption from such fees. Looking to the nearer future, will he think about using the internet more to make copies of documents available, where they will be directly accessible to more and more people?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. The Public Record Office is microfilming an increasing proportion of its most popular records. That will enable visitors to print out copies at a reduced cost and non-visitors will benefit from lower charges for prints from film. Increasingly records are available electronically in schools, libraries and in people's homes via the internet. I hope that that development will continue.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will list those insurance companies selling insurance products to underpin conditional fee agreements. [56133]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Insurance products to underpin conditional fee agreements have been available since July 1995 when conditional fee agreements first became lawful. The number and range of insurance products are increasing with new products becoming available all the time. I am aware of at least eight providers of insurance to underpin conditional fees. I am aware of at least two other products that are likely to be brought on to the market over the coming months.
    676
    I doubt that a comprehensive list exists or, indeed, could be put together, given the vibrant and expanding nature of the market.
    Mr. Paterson: The insurance industry will currently underwrite only personal injury cases for conditional fee agreements. What does the Minister intend to do about the public who take any other case to court?
    Mr. Hoon: A wide variety of insurance products are available. There are insurance products available to cover any sort of risk, but the premiums to cover significant risk are available at a significant cost. Obviously, as the market develops, we will see a lowering of the cost of those premiums.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate the Minister on his promotion in the last Government reshuffle and I offer him my commiserations on his inability to extract himself from the grip of the Lord Chancellor.
    According to the Consumers Association report, "Legal Expenses Insurance: Realising its Potential", which was published this year, only 17 per cent. of adults in Great Britain have legal expenses cover. That compares with the 1990 figure of 27 per cent. It also appears that mostly the more affluent and middle-aged households take out this insurance. Given that the Government are taking away legal aid from the least affluent and leaving them to rely on their own limited resources, can the Minister say whether his proposals will increase or decrease access to justice for the poor?
    Mr. Hoon: We have made it clear that legal aid will not be withdrawn from anyone in our society unless and until there are effective alternatives and effective access to justice. The extension and development of conditional fees will allow that to take place in due course, but we have made it clear that we want to see an extension of legal expenses insurance. We believe that that is appropriate for the great majority of people. Equally, we have made it clear that no one will lose out unless and until there is effective access to justice for them.

    Immigration Appeals
    Fiona Mactaggart: How much spare capacity exists in magistrates courts in the Greater London area and nearby; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which this could be used to help to tackle the backlog of immigration and asylum appeals. [56134]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): It is important to emphasise that magistrates courts are locally managed services. Each of the 22 magistrates courts committees in the Greater London area is primarily responsible for the use of the courtroom accommodation in their individual area. However, we are currently examining ways of using spare capacity in the magistrates courts to assist in bail hearings in detention cases. I should emphasise that the key restraint in reducing further the backlog of immigration and asylum appeals is not accommodation, but the shortage of adjudicators, which we are tackling vigorously.
    Fiona Mactaggart: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have asked this question because the suggestion was in the

    677
    recent review of immigration appeals paper. I am concerned to find out what progress has been made in dealing with the large backlog which means that these cases are delayed.
    Mr. Hoon: The Government have put a great deal of effort into reducing the backlog of appeals. I can assist my hon. Friend by setting out the relevant statistics. In July 1997, the figure for outstanding appeals by adjudicators was 34,907 and by September 1998 that had been reduced to 22,298. We anticipate that by the end of March 1999, that figure will have been reduced again to some 16,000 cases.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, such is the backlog of immigration matters, for all sorts of different and understandable reasons, the law is being brought into disrepute? Will he examine the method used in Holland for dealing with illegal immigrants where adjudicators are on the spot the whole time so that cases can be dealt with immediately and do not block up the magistrates courts?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that the law has been brought into disrepute. However, the appeals process is currently under review and I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestions for other ways in which these matters may be resolved more effectively and, certainly, more speedily.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the Minister's actions so far in dealing with the backlog. However, does he accept that one way of dealing with the backlog—which clearly causes enormous distress to applicants—is to appoint more adjudicators? What action is he taking to ensure that more adjudicators are appointed to deal with the ever-increasing number of cases?
    Mr. Hoon: The Government have appointed new adjudicators since our election in May 1997. There are currently 34 full-time adjudicators and 212 part-time adjudicators. A recent recruitment board for full-time appointments is expected to result in the appointment of at least eight new adjudicators. A board for part-time appointments is due to commence shortly, to which 77 candidates have been called to interview. We shall continue to increase the number of adjudicators with a view to reducing the backlog.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. David Amess: When he last discussed his legal aid reforms with the Lord Chief Justice and the other heads of divisions of the High Court. [56135]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Lord Chancellor and I meet the Lord Chief Justice and other senior judges regularly. We discuss many areas of mutual interest, including legal aid.
    Mr. Amess: In the light of the Lord Chief Justice Bingham's remarks that any legal aid reform should be proceeded with cautiously and slowly, is it wise of the Government to rush ahead with their reforms, which many experts believe are ill thought out and will make the situation worse?
    Mr. Hoon: It is not for me to comment on what the Lord Chief Justice thinks of the Government's proposals. However, I note that Lord Bingham, at his recent press conference, expressed support for our plans to refocus legal aid and to extend availability of conditional fees. I certainly welcome that endorsement.
    Mr. John Burnett: I am happy to congratulate the Minister on his recent promotion. Last night, the Lord Chancellor made a speech on the proposed community legal service. What legal services will the community legal service be providing, first, for those who now qualify for legal aid, and, secondly, for middle-income Britain?
    Mr. Hoon: Yesterday, the Lord Chancellor outlined our plans to establish a community legal service, which will improve access to justice by refocusing the traditional legal aid scheme and provide more help, and more effective help, to the most vulnerable people in our society, particularly in relation to social welfare law and employment, housing, debt and benefit advice.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hope that those legal aid developments and reforms will be of positive assistance to the witnesses who hope to give evidence to the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which is chaired by Lord Saville. Many of the witnesses, both in England and in Northern Ireland, are on low incomes. They need and deserve such assistance.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion, and shall ensure that whichever member of the Government is responsible for the matter is made aware of his observations

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Bob Russell: What criteria are used to determine whether a magistrates court should close. [56136]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There are no statutory criteria. Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. It is for individual MCCs to identify their own criteria when deciding their own accommodation needs, after consultation with the local paying authority. My Department has no role other than to determine any appeals arising from a local dispute.
    Mr. Russell: Does the Minister agree that magistrates courts committees are quangos, and that they are strangled by the amount of money that is provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department? Does he agree also that the vast majority of cases dealt with by magistrates courts committees could be dealt with locally, and that there is

    679
    a hidden plan to close magistrates courts across the country—as hon. Members on both sides of the House know?
    Mr. Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no hidden plan. I was also slightly surprised at the tone of his question, which effectively challenged the importance of local decision making. I should remind him that
    "far too much power has been concentrated in Westminster and Whitehall",
    and that
    "democratic government should be close to ordinary people".
    Mr. Russell: Rubbish.
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman says that, but those words should sound vaguely familiar to him, as they are from the Liberal Democrats' manifesto, on which he was elected in May 1997.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely one of the problems with magistrates courts is that sufficient numbers of cases are not being referred to them. Is there nothing that the Government can do to ensure that matters such as juvenile crime are dealt with more in magistrates courts, and that we shorten the time that it continues to take between charging and an appearance before a magistrate?
    Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the Government's basic promises to the electorate was to speed up youth justice. We are doing that, the work is under way and we are seeing the results up and down the country.

    Civil Justice Review
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the Civil Justice Review. [56137]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our plans for introducing the first phase of civil justice reforms on 26 April 1999 are on target. The new rules will be finalised by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee this month. After approval by the Lord Chancellor they will be laid before Parliament in December. We plan to publish them with supporting practice directions and key forms in January 1999.
    The latest edition of the Lord Chancellor's Department's bulletin, "Implementing Civil Justice Reform" contains further details of the work in hand and will be available in the Library today.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree with my view—from experience of 20 years in practice—that the reforms will necessitate quite substantial retraining and re-education for practitioners and some re-tooling in terms of new technology? What assistance will his Department give practitioners to meet the deadline for the introduction of the new rules?
    Mr. Hoon: The latest draft rules have been available on the Department's website and in hard copy form since July, so practitioners have had a great deal of time to prepare themselves. There is no reason why the reforms should not go ahead as planned in April. Indeed, any delay would cause uncertainty to the practitioners about whom my hon. Friend is concerned.

Pre-Budget Statement
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In this year's pre-Budget report, we seek to steer a course of stability amid a world economic downturn. We set in place measures to improve productivity and provide support for enterprise, we introduce new measures to make work pay for all our people and we show how we will invest in health, education and our infrastructure to provide the modern services on which people rely—in each case taking long-term decisions that will equip our country for the future.
The background to the report is the global downturn. It started in Asia and has reverberated throughout every continent. Not only has it shifted the balance of risks in the world economy from fears about inflation to fears about growth, but it has forced every country, continent and international financial institution to cut its estimates for growth.
World trade growth is set to fall by two thirds. Forecasts for world growth have now been virtually halved. One quarter of the world is in recession and in this uncertain world, my objective for Britain is that we steer a stable course and, by building our long-term strengths, we are more than equal to any and every challenge that the global economy presents. Because in the past 18 months inflation has been brought down to its target of 2½ per cent. and because Britain has set in place a long-term monetary framework with the independence of the Bank of England, Britain is better placed than in the past to face the global difficulties. Because, too, Britain has tackled its structural deficit in public finances, we are more able to steer that stable course, but as all forecasts around the world have made clear, there is acute uncertainty about the eventual outcome of global financial instability. We are conscious of the balance of risks: on one hand, the risk of a sharper slow-down in the world economy as a result of instability and the effect on confidence and, on the other hand, the risk that inflationary pressures might persist. So the pre-Budget report is set with this firmly in mind: no denial of short-term difficulties and no diversion of policies for long-term strength.
Our challenge in the year ahead is to strengthen the three essential foundations for long-term strength and success. First, Britain now has for the first time a credible long-term framework for both monetary and fiscal policy. It has an inbuilt capacity to respond credibly to short-term pressures and we shall not be deflected from it. Secondly, with business, in order to build on that stability, we are putting in place a strategy to tackle a fundamental long-term economic weakness—the 40 per cent. productivity gap with our most successful competitors. These measures will include investment in education and innovation, and new encouragement for enterprise and for competition.
Thirdly, with our welfare-to-work programme and by ensuring that work pays, we are extending opportunity to all in our country, creating a Britain where no one is excluded, no potential is neglected and everyone has a contribution to make. It is a Britain that is both enterprising and fair.
First, I shall deal with the foundation for long-term economic stability. Official figures show that by spring 1997, with consumer spending growing at an
682
unsustainable pace, inflation was heading way above the country's 2½ per cent. target to twice the level of our competitors—4 per cent. and above—and that at that time, Britain was set to repeat the boom-bust cycle that led to 15 per cent. interest rates for one whole year in the early 1990s.
Because immediate action was taken, making the Bank of England independent and tackling the inflationary pressures, inflation is today at our target of 2½ per cent. I can announce that for future years our forecast is that inflation will stay on target. As a result, Britain's long-term interest rates have come down from more than 7 per cent. in May 1997 to 5 per cent. The differential between Germany and Britain has narrowed by nearly 1 per cent. Long-term interest rates are now at their lowest for 35 years and the lowest since Britain's boom-bust cycle first became entrenched.
Because Britain has brought inflation under control, it has been possible, as the world has turned downwards, for interest rates to respond more quickly and in a more forward-looking way than in past economic cycles. In the previous economic cycle, interest rates remained in double figures for more than four years. In contrast, the Bank of England has already been able to reduce interest rates to respond to a changed international environment.
Long-term monetary stability is a precondition of our economic success. I reaffirm my support for the Bank of England's independence, for its remit and its membership. I do not believe that any political party, putting the long-term interests of Britain first, will, on reflection, bring party politics and short-termism back into interest rate decisions.
It is also because Britain has a new long-term fiscal framework with clear disciplines set out in the code for fiscal stability that we are laying before Parliament this afternoon that, as world growth slows, fiscal policy is able to make its contribution to stability and future growth in Britain. The official figures published today confirm that in our first year, we cut the budget deficit from the £28 billion that we inherited to £8 billion. That tightening has continued throughout our second year—a total fiscal tightening in two years of 3¾per cent. of national income. So, fiscal policy has played its full part with interest rate policy in tackling inflationary pressures.
Because we have concentrated on priorities and cut waste, spending this year will be £2 billion below the ceilings that we inherited. As a result, our current budget this year is expected to be £5½ billion in surplus. What in the Budget was prudently projected to be net borrowing of £1 billion this year is now expected to be a debt repayment of £1½ billion.
The golden rule is that over the cycle we balance the current budget. In other words, on current spending, we eliminate the structural deficit that we inherited. Again, I can report to the House that because of the tough action that we have taken since we came into government, that is exactly what we are now achieving.
Now that we have broken with short-termism and created for the long term a stable monetary and fiscal framework with an inbuilt capacity to be more responsive to the economic cycle, fiscal and monetary policy can together contribute to stability and growth in the coming years.
My forecast for 1999 of 1 to 1½ per cent. growth in our economy will see Britain steering a stable course, even when one quarter of the world is in recession. As the

683
economy returns to its sustainable growth path, we expect growth to be between 2¼ and 2¾per cent. in 2000, and between 2¾ and 3¼ per cent in 2001.
It is because we are cautious about the balance of risk in the economy that we have based our public finance forecasts on assumptions deliberately more prudent than those made under the previous Government. First, our public finances are planned on an estimate of a 2¼ per cent. trend rate of growth—¼ per cent. lower than the assumption that we inherited. Secondly, our forecasts have revised downwards the ratio of VAT receipts to projected consumer spending, reducing estimated revenue by nearly £4 billion over the next five years.
Thirdly, revenues from tackling fraud have been set at a more cautious level than in the previous Parliament. Fourthly, we have discontinued the highly imprudent practice of assuming revenues from privatisations that have not been agreed. In each case, our assumptions have been audited by the independent National Audit Office, and because of the experience of the early 1990s we have adopted a more prudent approach to forecasting income tax and corporation tax revenues, including a cautious estimate of revenues from self-assessment.
Even after making those prudent assumptions, and taking into account the world downturn, we meet our first rule—that of balancing our current budget over the cycle. We expect the current surplus to be £1 billion next year, £3 billion in 2000–01, £8 billion the year after that, and £10 billion and £11 billion for the two years to follow. For the same years, net borrowing is expected to be £4 billion, then successively £5 billion, £2 billion, £2 billion and £1 billion.
Those figures are better for every year of this Parliament than those for any year of the previous Parliament. They represent an estimated current surplus for the coming five years of £33 billion—a margin that shows that we are equipped to cope with further uncertainties. That £33 billion surplus contrasts with what happened under the previous Government—a deficit of £149 billion over the economic cycle, as national debt doubled.
Our second rule, the sustainable investment rule, requires that as we borrow for investment, debt is set at a prudent and sustainable level. In the last year of the previous Government, the debt ratio was 45 per cent. of national income. In the next three years, to meet the needs of a modern infrastructure, public investment will rightly double. Yet as a result of our overall prudence, debt as a proportion of national income is set to fall below 40 per cent.—to 39 per cent. next year, then to 38 per cent., and then to 36½ per cent.
Hon. Members who take a special interest in the Maastricht criteria will want to know that in each of the next five years Britain will be comfortably within the Maastricht guidelines.
Long-term economic stability, from which we will not be diverted, is the foundation for future success, but we shall achieve our long-term goals for growth and employment only through an even more radical modernisation of our economic policy in favour of opportunity, enterprise and work.
We now need to push ahead with modernisation in each of the following areas—improving productivity, expanding opportunity and investing in our future. So in
684
every one of those areas our economic policy will be based on getting the best out of all our people and their potential—in other words, maximising economic opportunity for all. What makes for a good economy also makes for a good society—one that is fair and cohesive.
I turn to the first conclusions from the review that we have conducted with British business into removing the barriers to productivity. As our seminars with business have revealed, the only way for Britain to be at the forefront of the new knowledge-based economies of the future is by modern policies for education, employee participation, small business development and science and innovation.
Our first recommendations concern the quality of education. With our £19 billion investment in educational reform, we have set out demanding targets for literacy, numeracy, teaching standards and higher qualifications. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced today a £250 million investment in a new traineeship programme for teenagers. In this way, we have now made it possible for every young person after the age of 16 to stay on in part-time or full-time education, to get the qualifications they need and to have the opportunity of a job.
To meet that productivity challenge for our economy, we must do more to encourage the ambitions of all our children, not least by bringing the world of education and the world of work into closer contact. Over the next year, we plan to enlist business leaders throughout the country to take the world of work and business into our classrooms. To encourage businesses to offer expertise and management help to our schools and colleges, I can say that the Budget will allow businesses to claim tax relief when they second staff to schools and colleges.
Britain can do more to remove the barriers to opportunity and ambition—the ambition to work your way up and use your creative talents, the ambition to start and build a successful business and the ambition to see the firm in which you work succeed, and you succeed with it. Today, only a fraction of British employees—and an even smaller minority of those outside senior management—own shares in the companies that they work in. Yet the evidence is that employee commitment is a vital strength for companies competing, and then succeeding, in the global economy.
I want, through targeted tax reform, to reward long-term commitment by employees. I want to remove, once and for all, the old "them and us" culture in British industry. I want to encourage the new enterprise culture of teamwork in which everyone contributes and everyone benefits from success.
In the next Budget, we will make it easier for all employees—not just a few—to become stakeholders in their company. I want to double the number of firms in which all employees have the opportunity to own shares. Many employees already hold shares through their pension funds, so I will propose to our pension funds and other institutions that they should provide better and more direct public information to their members and investors.
In future, more of our wealth and jobs will come from small and growing businesses. In just 18 months, we have announced cuts in the rate of corporation tax on large companies twice—to 30p in the pound, the lowest level of corporation tax ever. For small companies, we have cut the rate twice, too—to 20p in the pound. In the Budget

685
we will consider a further tax reduction for small businesses. In particular, we will consider converting the temporary investment allowance we introduced last year into a permanent tax cut.
I have in mind a bigger reform to cut the burdens of tax and red tape. Small businesses getting started and growing lack not only the resources to pay tax, but the back-up to administer national insurance, income tax and VAT payments and their payroll systems. From April 1999, the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency will be merged. We propose to roll out on a nationwide basis a new, comprehensive service for all businesses, helping them to replace time-consuming book-keeping by offering a one-stop advice service, administered by local offices and a national helpline. So, from now on, every Government Department will have an obligation to encourage enterprise and entrepreneurs.
I can confirm to businesses that we are also re-examining planning regulations and building control to identify barriers to productivity and job creation, and how the planning system in Britain can be speeded up to help us to emulate the success of high-tech clusters and corridors, such as America's Silicon valley.
Access to bank finance is critical to the success of every small business. Therefore, I have asked the banks to work with Mr. Don Cruickshank, formerly of Oftel, to assess what steps can be taken to serve more effectively the needs of businesses in the economy.
To open up and enhance competition, we will ensure, with a 20 per cent. increase in its funding, that the Office of Fair Trading has the necessary resources to break down barriers that prevent new firms from entering markets and keep prices unacceptably high for consumers. Further announcements on how the new arrangements will work will come from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will soon publish his competitiveness White Paper. Our policy is pro-small business, pro-share ownership, pro-tax simplification and pro-competition.
Our policy is also pro-skills and pro-science. To turn scientific inventions in Britain into jobs for Britain, we need to do more to honour the spirit of invention, facilitate the exploitation of invention and encourage the commercialisation of invention. More than ever, innovation is the key to higher productivity. We must ensure that inventions created in Britain are developed and manufactured here too.
The first step is a higher quantity and quality of research and development. So, the Government will consult small business on supplementing the current tax relief on research and development with a more effective tax credit for small business, based on the volume of research and development investment.
Three months ago, we announced a partnership with the Wellcome Trust that will invest more than £1 billion to re-equip university science in Britain. It is the largest ever public investment in Britain's science base. Having received an overwhelming response from universities to that and to our new university challenge fund, which is a public-private partnership for commercialising scientific inventions, we are now inviting further private sector involvement.
I now want to complete the path that takes inventions from the science lab through high-tech venture capital and then to the national and global marketplace. So I am
686
announcing that to develop business expertise in science and to transfer technology from the science lab to the marketplace, we will endow up to eight new institutes of enterprise in British universities. That is a further signal of our determination that the genius of British invention will once again become an engine for growth and job creation.
The strong venture capital industry, supporting high-tech, high-risk investments, is also critical to the future of Britain. Today, we have only 6 per cent. of the early stage, high-tech venture capital of the United States, so we will consult on and consider new incentives, including how to encourage our more successful companies to invest in start-ups and how we can provide new sources of venture capital and management expertise for entrepreneurs.
The productivity challenge is one that must be met by the public and not merely the private sector. Next month, for the first time, the Government will publish public service agreements that set clear targets for improved performance for all Departments. To help them meet those and to monitor performance, we are today establishing an advisory panel from business and management.
Absenteeism costs the public sector up to £6 billion a year. Specific targets are being set for each Department to reduce absence rates by 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003.
We are working with business, not merely to promote higher productivity, but to secure policies for a sustainable environment. Today, I am publishing the report by Lord Marshall, formerly president of the Confederation of British Industry, into the role of economic instruments and the business use of energy. I thank him for his work, which moves the debate forward substantially. After public consultation, the Government will fully consider the recommendations as part of their wider strategy on climate change. I am also publishing today a consultation document containing proposals for a £50 reduction in vehicle excise duty for the smallest and most environmentally efficient cars.
Just as the Government are modernising our industrial economy, so too we are modernising employment policies. The House will be pleased to know that by next April, 300,000 people will have benefited from the new deal, which gives a new sense of hope to men and women previously left out and excluded. Already 29,000 companies have signed up to the new deal, and we are now ready to extend it.
From 30 November, 60,000 opportunities will be created for the long-term unemployed in 28 areas of our country. In Northern Ireland, in support of the peace process, we will guarantee new opportunities to all men and women who have been unemployed for 18 months or more. We will also extend nationwide the new deal skills shortage programme and offer up-front support for training to help to fill the vacancies that come on-stream every month. To tackle skill shortages, I can confirm that by March next year, there will be 120 centres for information technology and high-tech training in every part of the country.
Side by side with the new deal, there will be new guarantees that work will pay more than benefits. From April, as a result of abolishing the entry fee to national insurance, all employees will receive a tax cut of £66 a year. Business will be pleased to know that I can

687
announce that from April, employers will not pay national insurance on earnings below £83 a week, the 1999 level for the personal tax allowance. When it is economically right to do so, and so that work pays more, we will introduce the 10p starting rate of income tax.
From 1 April next year, 1.9 million employees, including 1.3 million women, will benefit from the minimum wage. I can confirm today that the minimum income guarantee for a low-paid family in work, which as a result of the working families tax credit was announced at £180, will be raised to £190 a week from October next year, as a result of the minimum wage and changes that we are making in tax and benefit. Work will pay a guaranteed minimum of £190 a week for a family, with no income tax to pay on incomes below £220 a week. That will guarantee a minimum income of at least £5.50 an hour for a lone parent in work with one child, and £6.37 for an adult with two children.
To enable parents and carers to balance work and family responsibilities, we want to provide extra help for child care. We have provided the resources for up to 1 million new child care places over the next four years. Consistent with our national child care strategy, we will extend our new child care tax credit to cover all children up to the age of 14 and in the case of disabled children, who have greater needs, up to the age of 16.
We will match the working families tax credit with a new disabled person's tax credit that will ensure that work pays for a disabled man or woman who takes a job. A disabled person with one child moving from benefit to full-time employment will be guaranteed a minimum income of £220 a week, with no income tax payable on income below £274. Disabled men and women taking up work will be as much as £78 a week better off.
Under this Government, disabled men and women who want to work will be guaranteed fair treatment at work, and work will pay. Matching the minimum income guarantee for disabled persons in work there will be a new disability income guarantee of £128 a week for severely disabled people out of work.
We are guaranteeing pensioner couples a new minimum income of £117 a week. That will be followed in the Budget with a guarantee that pensioners will have no income tax to pay unless their income rises above a new specified level. As a result of other measures that we have taken—by following our cut in VAT last year with tougher regulation and new winter fuel payments—I can say that pensioners are saving £108 on their fuel bills and the poorest pensioners are saving £140.
Our task for the country for the coming year—steering a course of stability—is to meet the productivity challenge, to extend fairness and our welfare-to-work programme and to make the modern investments we need in our future. I am pleased to announce that, following the modernisation of the private finance initiative, there will be new investment in our infrastructure—in more than 1,000 schools, 25 hospitals and in dozens of public transport projects—over the coming three years amounting to an additional £11 billion. Over the three years from next April, public investment will double— and will do so at the right time. That is the right decision and the right course of action for our country.
688
I have one further announcement. Because of our prudence in the management of public finances, Government spending is well within its limits. Our prudence is for a purpose. Therefore, to ensure in every part of the United Kingdom the health care that people—and especially the elderly—need this winter, I am today making an additional and immediate winter cash allocation, to be spent in the next five months, of £250 million for our national health service. I can confirm that, because this Government believe in the best health and the best education not just for a few but for all our people, we will invest an additional £40 billion in the modernisation of education and health over the next three years. Those public services, in the months and the years ahead, will be safe in this Government's hands.
The Government are steering a stable course, prudently investing in our future, proudly building strong public services and consistently keeping our promises to the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Francis Maude: We have just heard from a complacent and arrogant Chancellor—a Chancellor who is locked into denial. We have heard fantasy forecasting and Peter Pan economics. How can anyone take seriously the Chancellor's prediction of growth next year when the Treasury's own collection of independent forecasters anticipate growth well below—0.6 per cent. below—his forecast? How can we take the Chancellor seriously when his Department's figures are at odds with his own? His are fairy-tale figures because the Chancellor will not take responsibility.
There was no recognition—not even a glimmer—that the Chancellor's own blunders are to blame. He offers nothing serious to prevent higher unemployment and more business failures—not a single measure that will save a single job. He had a chance today to give hope to people whose livelihoods are on the line, but he blew it because he is too arrogant to admit that he had got it wrong.
For the Chancellor and the Prime Minister—who are smugly and arrogantly sitting there exchanging complacent grins—any talk of downturn is "idiotic hysteria". The Item Club, using the Treasury's own model, predicts that 500,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost. Is that "idiotic hysteria"? The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, whose director the Chancellor has put in charge of sorting out his statistics, warns of a one in three chance of recession. Is that "idiotic hysteria"? The Chancellor's adviser, Gavyn Davies, says that the economy is
"teetering on the brink of recession."
Is that "idiotic hysteria"?
If it is all global, as the Chancellor claims, why does The Economist poll of forecasts show that Britain's growth next year will be lower than that of all industrial nations except Japan, which is locked in the middle of a deep slump? Even the European Commission, to which the Chancellor is usually eager to defer, predicts that Britain will slump to the bottom of the European growth table. So let the Chancellor tell us: why will Britain's growth next year be less than half that of the next weakest economy? It will be less than half. Why?
Why have Britain's forecasts been cut by so much more than any others? Why, when it comes to the downturn— [Interruption.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer sits on the Front Bench grinning and smiling. The constituents of

689
his right hon. and hon. Friends, whose jobs and livelihoods are on the line, will be disgusted by his complacency and arrogance. Let the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, when it comes to the downturn, Britain is in first and in worst. There is a simple answer and it is sitting on the Government Front Bench. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman is doing is making things worse.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer goes on about the current budget and public finances. Why does not he tell us about the real budget, the cash budget, and how much he is actually borrowing? The right hon. Gentleman says that the black hole in public finances does not matter. But what does he say to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, whose director he relies on so much, which predicts borrowing of not twice but five times that which the right hon. Gentleman predicts?
The right hon. Gentleman says that he can jack up borrowing and no one will get hurt. Does not he understand that higher borrowing means higher interest rates? Does not he understand that for every £10 billion of extra borrowing, interest rates will be a ¼ per cent. higher? How is that helping small business and innovation?
The right hon. Gentleman says that it is all right to borrow more in the downturn. Does not he understand that the harder he presses on the fiscal accelerator, the harder the Bank of England will press on the monetary brakes? Does not he even understand the effect of his own policies?
Mr. Mike Gapes: It says here.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman will have to go back to his constituency next weekend and look in the face those whose jobs are on the line because of the Chancellor's arrogant blunder. Let him make jokes with them then and listen to what they have to say to him.
In the Chancellor's own wonderland of economics, he says that it is all right to borrow as long as it is for investment. But the right hon. Gentleman is not borrowing for investment. He is not borrowing for health or education. We welcome Labour trying to match our record, but the right hon. Gentleman is borrowing not to pay for health and education but for social security. The Government's own figures show that social security spending, having fallen in recent years, is set to rise. The Government will borrow all right, but they will be borrowing to pay for social security, for the bills of Labour's social and economic failure.
The right hon. Gentleman has talked of productivity—that is right, he is blaming it all on Britain's workers and managers, and the banks as well now. But his proposals, most of which are now being announced for the third or fourth time, are just moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic. The right hon. Gentleman's taxes and regulations have put a £40 billion hole below the waterline of British businesses—that is £1,500 for every person employed.
With power comes responsibility. So the Chancellor must now answer these specific questions: will he give an unequivocal assurance not to introduce the new taxes on people's pensions foreshadowed in yesterday's Daily Mail? Tell us, yes or no? We are waiting to hear, yes or no? If the right hon. Gentleman is so bothered about productivity, will he stop raising the cost of employing
690
people by £1,500 a year? Yes or no? Will he now tell us by how much unemployment will rise next year as a direct result of his policies?
This was the Chancellor's first big test. It was his chance to start to put right what he has got wrong. He has failed that test. They told us that things could only get better, but they are getting worse, much worse. The price of Labour's blunders will be lost jobs and closed businesses. There will be no more boom and bust; just the bust. There will be no more stop-go; just the stop. Truly, this downturn was made in Downing street.
Mr. Brown: The Financial Times on Monday said that Conservative economic policy was
"on an escalator into absurdity",
and Conservative Members have reached the top of the escalator this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition said that this would be the first big attack on the Government since the election, but unfortunately he put it into the hands of the shadow Chancellor.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) did not even welcome our £250 million for the national health service and he wants to cut into the £40 billion that we are spending on health and education. The policies that he advocates are exactly those that brought the country into stop-go recession when he was a Treasury Minister in the early 1990s.
The right hon. Gentleman complains about borrowing, but does not acknowledge that next year's borrowing requirement is £4 billion, when the Conservative Government's borrowing requirement went up to £50 billion. He complains about interest rates that have come down from 7½ to 7¼ per cent. Under the Conservatives, interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year and over 10 per cent. for four years, including all the time that he was a Treasury Minister. Conservative Members complain about the pound. The pound was at DM2.95 during the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's time at the Treasury. This Government have brought down debt from the 45 per cent. that we inherited to less than 40 per cent. and now to 38 per cent.
A serious Opposition party would tell us where it stood on the basic issues of economic policy. First, would the Conservatives keep the Bank of England independent? We say yes to that question; what is their answer? They do not know and they are totally divided. A sensible Opposition would agree with the Confederation of British Industry's view that spending should rise next year as part of the automatic stabilisers. We say yes to that; the right hon. Member for Horsham wants to cut public spending, but his health and education spokesmen want it to rise. A sensible Opposition would say that welfare to work was in the interests of every constituency. We say yes to welfare to work; Conservatives are against it and the means by which it was created. A sensible Opposition would support the working families tax credit at £190 a week instead of trying to abolish it.
The previous Government were in office for 18 years. They were found out and thrown out. In 18 months, Conservative Members have proved to the country that they are not fit even for opposition.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor recall that in the House on 27 November last year, I warned him that by 1999 we would be facing not

691
an inflationary boom, but a recessionary deflation and that he dismissed that proposition with scorn? Is it not now clear that he and his appointees in the Bank of England have, for the past year, been fighting on the wrong front so that our manufacturers and farmers have been faced with unnecessarily high interest rates and a dangerously damaging high pound? Does he accept any personal responsibility for that grave economic misjudgment?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman would not have made the Bank of England independent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The Conservatives are getting very excited this afternoon, but after the failure of the shadow Chancellor.
The policies that we have put in place are exactly right to deal with the problems of the British economy. The hon. Gentleman would oppose the Bank of England's being independent. He would have opposed our taking action to deal with the inflationary problem in the economy. He gave us no support when we cut the fiscal deficit by £20 billion. They were the right decisions for Britain. They were right because they put us in better stead to deal with any problem that the global economy presents. Had we pursued the policies that the hon. Gentleman was following, we would not be able to respond as we are now to the global downturn.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Liberal Democrats favour recycling, and there was a great deal of recycled material in the Chancellor's statement. We shall of course give our own response to the detailed proposals during the consultation process, which we welcome because we think it is a better way of doing Budgets. Of course, we welcome the £250 million for the national health service, which we hope will mean that we are able to get through this winter without waiting lists rising again.
Nevertheless, does the Chancellor recall telling the House in his first Budget statement, in July last year, that the goal was to rebalance the economy so as to control inflation
"without damage to industrial and exporting prospects"?—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c.305.]
Since then, is not it his lack of policy that has led directly to an over-valued pound, which is higher than in the 1990 recession, and to real interest rates that are higher than during the 1980 recession? Has not there been a gap between diagnosis and cure? Is not it now clear that it is the Chancellor's own policy gap, rather than industry's own productivity gap, which explains the economic downturn that we are now experiencing and the risk of manufacturing recession next year that he is forecasting? When will the Chancellor stop blaming other people? When will he end the blame game and not duck his own responsibilities?
The Chancellor also told us in his previous Budget seven months ago that the United Kingdom's direct trade with the troubled Asian economies is not particularly large, which is not exactly what he said today. Does the Chancellor agree with the CBI, which said yesterday that it was not productivity but
"the strength of sterling which has undermined the ability to compete at home and abroad"?
692
The Chancellor's new forecast is that manufacturing industry may just Miss recession next year and that any overall slow-down will be mild and short. Is he aware that, as the shadow Chancellor said, many independent forecasters outside the House regard that as complacent and unrealistic? Does he agree with the House of Commons Library that manufacturing job losses— [Laughter.] It is interesting that Labour Members below the Gangway should laugh when manufacturing job losses are running at the rate of 300 a day, and, according to the House of Commons Library, will be running at 600 a day next year. Does the Chancellor realise that today's new tax loopholes, dressed up as well-meaning tax tinkering, will have only a marginal effect on that outlook?
Despite his optimistic forecasts, will the Chancellor take this opportunity to accept that the balance of the policy to date has been wrong? Will he promise to change that policy and make it an overriding priority to create the conditions necessary to enable the Bank of England to bring down interest rates, even if that means delaying his 10p tax rate? Would not it be a tragedy if complacency today were to lead to thousands of job losses in industry next year?
Mr. Brown: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful that he, unlike the Conservatives, has welcomed what we have done in respect of national health service expenditure, but I must say that we have done far more than the Liberal Democrats ever put forward as their policy at the general election. We have made available £2¼ billion extra this year and £21 billion in the three following years.
As for the hon. Gentleman's points about the general economy, he must be one of the first to admit that when US $3 trillion has been wiped off stock exchanges around the world—10 per cent. of world GDP—it is bound to affect people's investments and companies' decisions about jobs.
The hon. Gentleman will also agree that, when world trade growth falls from 11 per cent. this year to 4 per cent., and is scheduled to be the same next year, there will be problems which every industrial country has to deal with. If he went to America, to the rest of Europe or to Japan, he would see other countries facing up to exactly the same problems. The issue is whether Britain is properly equipped to tackle the problems—indeed, any and every challenge from the global economy.
The hon. Gentleman should go back to our first Budget, which he has quoted. I said that we were creating a long-term framework for monetary policy and fiscal policy in this country. That is what we have done. As a result of the decisions that we have made, through the Bank of England becoming independent and tackling inflation, we are meeting our inflation target. Everyone expects us to meet that target in the time to come.
As a result of cutting the fiscal deficit from £28 billion to £8 billion in the first year, and taking further action this year, we are eliminating that current structural debit— something that the Conservative party never did all the time it was in government. We are creating the conditions—the long-term framework—for monetary and fiscal stability. It is on that that we will be tested, which is right.
On employment, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that, over the past 18 months, nearly 400,000 extra jobs have been created in our economy;

693
that welfare to work has got into jobs thousands of young people who would not otherwise be in work—without any help from the Conservative party, which opposed the windfall tax; and that the Government are doing more, not only to create job opportunities and training, but to help to make work pay. I should have thought that the Liberal party would start to support that as well.
On the hon. Gentleman's taxation proposals, they seem to be very different from the proposal for a £30 billion tax cut that he made to the Liberal party conference.
Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged now for brisk questions and brisk answers.
Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarkably good statement, especially with reference to those who are poor, have disabilities or are without hope.
I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that the new deal project is a total success, so that those without hope and those without training can be sure of his support so as to ensure that all the programme's targets are met. Will he remind Conservative Members that, in the early 1980s, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, Sir Keith Joseph and Sir Geoffrey Howe destroyed more than 2 million jobs in two short years? They also created Europe's largest redundancy ever, in my constituency—8,000 steel jobs between a Christmas and an Easter. My right hon. Friend's statement is much welcomed in the country.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows at first hand what is happening in Wales and in industry throughout the country. He is absolutely right about what happened: manufacturing output fell by 7 per cent. in one year, manufacturing investment in that year fell by 15 per cent. and a million manufacturing jobs were lost. It is precisely because we do not want to return to those conditions that we will not make the mistakes that are proposed by the Conservative party on economic policy.
On the new deal, I have heard Conservative Members sniggering and sniping at something in which they also were invited to play a part.
Mr. Maude: It is a failure.
Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor, after a few months of the new deal, which started last April, is now ready to say that it is a failure. That is what the Conservative party wants to happen: it never supported the new deal and refused to back the windfall tax on the utilities, and it is now suggesting that the new deal is failing young people around the country when thousands of them have been joining the new deal every month. I hope that, on reflection, the Opposition spokesman will withdraw those comments.
Mr. John MacGregor: The House will have noted that the Chancellor's calculations depend very much on substantial increases in growth in the last two years of the cycle, which are some way away. How can anyone believe those figures when the Chancellor's projections last year, and the ones that he is making now, are so different for next year, and when our growth
694
performance in the European Union means that Britain is moving from its position as one of the higher growth countries to the lowest next year?
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question, which he has failed to answer so far? Given the importance of pension funds, and increasing take-up of them, will he confirm that he has no further plans to raid pension funds or to reduce the tax incentives for those contributing to them?
Mr. Brown: First, there is no such proposal, nor is there any proposal for a windfall tax on the banks, as the Conservatives suggest. The Conservative Government introduced a windfall tax on the banks, and it is unfortunate that they did not support our tax on the utilities.
Secondly, on the general question about the economy, it is because we have got inflation under control and have taken action to eliminate the structural deficit that monetary and fiscal policy can now work together. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) will remember the position faced by the Conservative Government in the early 1990s. Even at the worst stage of the economic cycle, interest rates had to be above 10 per cent. for years because of their failure to control the inflationary tendencies in the economy. As a result of their failure to control public spending, at the worst point of the spending cycle the deficit was £50 billion. I could give Conservative Members more figures to show what happened.
The Conservative Government failed to take action to eliminate the deficit. Because we have taken early action to tackle inflation—which the Conservative Government never took—and because we have been eliminating the structural deficit, monetary and fiscal policy can work together—I think the right hon. Gentleman understands that point. That is the basis on which we have made our forecasts for the economy. The right hon. Gentleman will find that sensible economic commentators agree with us.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to enterprise and innovation, and his recognition that high-tech companies require special financing measures. Will he undertake to study carefully the collapse of Ionica last week to see whether special lessons can be learned from that innovative, high-tech company, whose collapse had nothing to do with interest rates—[Interruption.]—or with the exchange rate?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has done a tremendous job working with the science industries in her constituency and throughout the country. It ill befits Conservative Members, who know nothing about what is happening in individual constituencies, to sneer at my hon. Friend's comments. She is absolutely right. The high-tech industry faces problems of financing. There have been particular difficulties in attracting and developing science-based industries in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Trade and Industry Secretary is examining these matters. I acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend has done in pushing this process along. We shall deal with these problems, and we shall look

695
practically at the barriers to job creation and to opportunity in this country. We shall not pursue the dogmatic policies of the Conservative party.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Chancellor has just said that he will look practically at problems. What in practical and real terms do the Chancellor and his colleagues intend to do effectively to reduce the costs of employment over the next crucial two or three years against a background of almost certainly rising unemployment? The Chancellor knows that, together with his colleagues in government, he has already increased the costs of employment, thus contributing to the real problems of the manufacturing and service sectors.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman implies that the situation is all bad. He should acknowledge that there has been a 19 per cent. fall in unemployment in his constituency since the general election. There has also been a fall in the constituencies of many other hon. Members, who should acknowledge that employment has been rising.
As for future policies for employment, the right hon. Gentleman should also acknowledge that we have cut corporation tax to 30p, cut small business corporation tax from 23p to 20p, introduced a new 10p rate of capital gains tax, are cutting national insurance employers' contributions for low-paid employees, and have cut national insurance for employees. Those measures will help employers take on additional workers. The right hon. Gentleman will find that many employers say that they wish a Labour Government had been in office years ago.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend know why Opposition Members make no mention of help for the disabled in jobs, help for minimum income families, and help for small businesses? Why do they make no mention of the venture capital industry, one-stop VAT and national insurance, linking enterprise and universities, the new deal, and extra cash for health and education? Is it because the black hole is between their ears and they cannot hear?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the range of policies that we have introduced and which the former Government failed to introduce. Yesterday, when the House considered the international financial system, the Conservatives had absolutely nothing to say. On monetary policy, they cannot tell us what they would do about the Bank of England. As for fiscal policy, against the advice of the Confederation of British Industry and almost every sensible commentator, they want to cut health and education expenditure over the next year. The sooner the Conservative party wakes up to economic realities, the sooner it will have a chance of being listened to by the British people.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer understand that people listen with some doubt to his talk of a solid, long-term strategy for the economy, given that that strategy has altered considerably since the original announcement in the Budget 16 months
696
ago? As we move into recession, there are few who would have considered that he could squander a golden inheritance quite so quickly.
Will the Chancellor answer one question? We know about the increase in education and health expenditure to which he has referred, but we should also consider a number of other announcements that were included in his statement. Will he give us some figures showing what increase in expenditure they will involve? The statement included no costing of that expenditure.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman talked of the so-called golden legacy. I have to tell him that the "golden legacy" was a £28 billion public deficit—3.5 per cent. of national income—which the last Government had failed to tackle, and which we had to tackle on coming to power.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked of the long-term strategy. Our long-term strategy is this: to have eliminated the current structural deficit, to have reached our target on inflation, and to enable monetary and fiscal policy to work together for stability and growth in the economy. It is because we have made those tough decisions on public finances, and cut the deficit—something that the Opposition never supported and have never done—that we are now in a position to spend £40 billion— [Interruption.] The Conservatives left a deficit of £28 billion, claiming that that was a golden scenario. They are now saying that to borrow even £1 is an absolute disaster. What is the view of the Opposition?
As for the health service—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Do stop shouting. I shall have to use my powers to remove Members from the Chamber if the noise continues.
Mr. Brown: As for health and education, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) was right to ask whether we had budgeted for the money that we are going to spend. The answer is yes: the prudent assumptions are the ones that I have listed. Moreover, because we have underspent as a result of choosing priorities and cutting waste, we shall be able to spend an extra £250 million before the end of the financial year.
Ms Diane Abbott: The whole House welcomes the extra £250 million that is to be spent on the health service, but may I ask a question about monetary policy? My right hon. Friend will know that today Sainsbury marked down its profits forecast, citing the exchange rate and the approaching turndown as part of the problem. We all support my right hon. Friend's intention to bear down on inflation, and most of us understand that Eddie George is doing his best within his narrow frame of reference; but does my right hon. Friend accept that, in the very long run, there may well be a case for looking at the framework in which the Monetary Policy Committee operates, and putting on that committee people who are known to have some understanding of and feeling for industry in the north, the midlands and elsewhere?
Mr. Brown: The Monetary Policy Committee is not to be made up of representatives of this pressure group or that. It is a group of people chosen for their expertise in certain areas. What I have been intent on doing—in the

697
knowledge that I have of the Bank of England, and of what it has been intent on doing—is building up in every region, and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, an expertise in all areas of the economy, so that that expertise can be fed into decisions on monetary policy. That is the right way forward. It is the way in which independent banks have worked in other countries—and I venture to suggest that no political party in the House would end the independence of the Bank. I believe that, on reflection, the Conservative party will change its mind, and stop opposing it.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Of course some matters of detail that the Chancellor has announced today, such as the encouragement of science, innovation, technology transfer and employee share ownership, are sensible; but on the wider economy, I wonder whether the Chancellor is sanguine about the fall in interest rates that will be necessary if we are to converge with the rate that is set by the European Central Bank. In that context, how will he set his active fiscal policy, to use his words, over the next year or two—or does he think that, as a result of the meeting in Austria last weekend, the change in the economic and stability pact will mean that more borrowing on the continent will force the European Central Bank to put rates up to converge with ours?
Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a special interest in matters European, even if that sets him against his Front-Bench team, but on this point, I disagree with him. The worst thing to do would be to rush headlong into monetary union by cutting interest rates just for the sake of dealing with the present situation. The Liberal Democrat party is proposing interest rates at 3 per cent., or something similar.
We have to base the decision on monetary union on the economic tests that have been set down and with proper preparations, leaving the final decision to the British people, but the reason why I believe that economies will, over time, converge is that we are taking action to remove the boom-bust cycle in this country and we will, in time, have a smoother economic cycle than ever existed under the 18 years of the Conservative Government.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I congratulate the Chancellor on his statement, which reaffirms confidence in his handling of the economy. Will he make a statement, first, on the curious reaction of Opposition Members who, when they hear that we have not been set off course, display a mixture of mirth and consternation; and secondly, on the role that he envisages for regional development agencies in taking forward his important agenda of support for business, including technology transfer and commercial development of the knowledge in our universities, so that we can ensure that all the regions benefit? I remind him that, as part of their negative approach to anything that brings jobs and employment, the Opposition opposed the setting up of such agencies.
Mr. Brown: When the record of this Parliament is written, the Opposition's opposition to the regional development agency proposals, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the independence of the Bank of England and to spending sensibly on health and education will be a blot on their record for all time.
698
I met the chairmen of the new regional development agencies and, with the Deputy Prime Minister, talked to them about their work. I believe that, like Scottish Enterprise, the Welsh Development Agency and the Northern Ireland Development Board, an immense contribution can be made at a regional, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish level to the development of the economy.
On my hon. Friend's comments about the Opposition, in all their difficulties—when they had the poll tax, all the problems over the health service, sleaze and everything else—it used to be said of the Conservatives by some of the press that they were at least competent in the management of the economy. That can no longer be said of the statements that are being made.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Chancellor accept that manufacturing industry is the main source of sustainable non-inflationary economic growth? Will he therefore take seriously the request made of him by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) relating to the criteria on which the Monetary Policy Committee takes its decisions— because without manufacturing industry, this country is lost? Is it right that, with inflation at 2.5 per cent., business should be paying around 10 per cent. or more in interest to the banks for money that they borrow to invest in employment?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has spoken on manufacturing industry throughout the time of his Government and ours. The review that we are setting up with Mr. Don Cruickshank will look at how the banks are servicing the needs of industry, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to feed in his comments to that.
On interest rates and the Bank of England, as someone who has followed that matter for many years the hon. Gentleman should understand that the causes of low growth and high inflation in the British economy have been the same. They have included the lack of capacity in the economy; therefore, every time there has been growth it has been unsustainable because of the development of inflationary pressures. It is by tackling that problem head on—the independence of the Bank of England helps that—and by creating a credible framework for action that we can begin to address the long-standing problem of stop-go.
As regards individual instances in innovation, investment, training and skills shortages, we are doing what we can, working with manufacturing industry, to deal with some of the problems it faces. I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that the pound is now 10 per cent. down from its peak and is now lower than it was when we took office.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, particularly the emphasis on research and innovation. Bearing in mind that even his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), acknowledges that Britain's debt to GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the world, will he consider further investment in public sector infrastructure, particularly housing and transport? That would benefit business

699
confidence and help to ensure that the gloomy predictions of a rise in unemployment of 500,000 over the next three years do not come true.
Mr. Brown: Employment has risen by 400,000 and many of those who have been making predictions every month for the past year that unemployment would rise were found to be wrong in February, March, April, May, June and July. On future public investment, I think that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that not only have we doubled public investment over the next three years, but we have enhanced the private-public partnerships to invest £13 billion more in the economy, thanks to the work of the Paymaster General in moving that project forward.
On capital receipts and housing—my hon. Friend mentioned housing in particular—at the time of the comprehensive spending review, we announced a further release of capital receipts to enable house building and house repair to move ahead. When my hon. Friend looks at the figures in the pre-Budget report, she will see that public investment next year rises considerably, which means that investment as a whole in the economy continues to rise. My hon. Friend will want to acknowledge that the Government have done a great deal to move public investment forward. We are never complacent, but we will continue to take the necessary action.
Mr. John Butterfill: When the right hon. Gentleman first became Chancellor, the OECD in Paris forecast that British growth of GDP would be the highest in the European Union and was likely to continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Will he accept any responsibility for the fact that it is now forecast to be the lowest, and that we may have recession? If he is so interested in research, why did he slash the funding for the research councils this year to the point where, in university after university, there is no money to fund postgraduate research?
Mr. Brown: When I became Chancellor and walked into the Treasury one of the first things I was told was that the inflation target could not be met, that inflation would rise to 4 per cent. and above and that inflation—
Mr. Maude: Not true.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand basic economics. When one sets interest rate policy, it is set with a view to the next 12, 18 and 24 months. If action is not taken early enough, interest rates will have to rise later to deal with the problem of inflation. The truth is that when we came into the Treasury, we were told that inflation would rise and that it would be twice that of our competitors.
We also know—the Bank of England had been saying it for the previous six months—that the previous Chancellor had failed to raise interest rates when it was necessary to do so to deal with inflation. It was exactly that problem of short-termism in the making of interest rate decisions that we dealt with by making the Bank of England independent. I would have thought that, as a sensible Back-Bench Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman would have supported our action.
700
On science, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the provision of £1 billion to the Wellcome Trust and investment in our universities and science laboratories has been widely welcomed throughout the country. Now that we have in place measures for the commercialisation of inventions through the university challenge fund and the new institutes of enterprise that I have announced today, science has been given a boost by the Government that it never had under the previous Administration.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend recall the winter of crisis in 1996–97 under the previous Government, when in hospitals in north-west London people were not simply in the waiting room or stacked on trolleys, they were stacked back on to ambulances? Does my right hon. Friend understand the joy and relief that will greet his statement today at the further £250 million to avert a winter crisis in our hospitals? Given the apoplexy among Conservative Members that has greeted his statement today, will he consider bringing forward those payments to meet the pressing need that would appear to be found on the Opposition Benches?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right about what happened to the health service under the previous Administration. The total increase in spending on health as a result of all the measures we are taking will be nearly £32 million per constituency over the next three years. I think that the measure we have announced today, to give £250 million to the health service for the next five months to deal with the winter problems that may and sometimes do arise, shows that the Government want to see the national health service safe in our country. It is simply a pity that the Opposition cannot welcome it.
Sir Michael Spicer: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a brisk answer to a question to which he has not even given a long-winded one so far? How will raising public borrowing help to reduce interest rates?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should look at what the Bank of England said on this matter. It said that the public spending decisions that we have made were in line with what it was expecting. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the August inflation report, he will see that it says exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Chancellor recall that in 1991 the then Conservative Government denied responsibility for the recession and blamed it on world economic affairs? Will he contrast that with their attitude now that they are in opposition: that the current slowdown in growth has nothing to do with world economic affairs? Does he believe that they were misleading then or now? Does he think that the bizarre—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Chancellor is responsible only for his economic policies, not for the Opposition's.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Chancellor referred earlier to the development of the Welsh economy. Can he confirm that his spending plans

701
will provide for the Treasury to pay match-funding in the event of the European Union according objective 1 status to west Wales and the valleys?
Mr. Brown: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the comprehensive spending review dealt with those problems. The generous settlement made for public spending for Wales will allow industry, training, education and, of course, all the economic agencies to benefit from public money.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Chancellor accept that most people represented by Labour Members, and possibly most of those represented by Opposition Members, accept that the purpose of his prudence in preventing overheating of the economy is being delivered in the public expenditure announced today and in previous Budgets? Does my right hon. Friend accept that what was described as wonderland economics is a joy compared with the blunderland economics of the previous Government?
I want to deal with the connection between inventiveness and enterprise and the university challenge fund. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some university representatives are saying that the venture capital organisations in the United Kingdom are slow in taking up the offer of intellectual property? Can he give us an assurance that he will look closely at the transfer of intellectual property so that it does not leave the country but is a boon to the country; while at the same time encouraging venture capital companies to form partnerships with the universities, which are very willing to do so?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a special interest in the matter. In the seminars on productivity that we held with business men and women, which drew on expertise not only from Britain but from across Europe and the United States, it became clear that the venture capital industry could do more in Europe, and Britain, to service high-tech and scientific inventions that may give rise to commercial products. The venture capital industry is doing far more in the United States, and people sometimes doubt whether Britain would have been able to cope with a company such as Microsoft, as the initial venture capital support would not have been available. We have taken some of the measures that we have taken for those reasons.
The university challenge fund is very much over-subscribed, as there was massive interest in it. I hope that we can extend the private partnership, so that there is backing for the public funds that were made available to the tune of £60 million. Our institutes of enterprise, which we are establishing today, will do a great deal to help transfer technology and bring scientific inventions to the
702
marketplace. I hope that, over the next few months, my hon. Friend will be able to follow developments in those matters.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Chancellor for the role that he played in the Industrial Development Board's recent trip to the United States. However, will he consider the views of the CBI Northern Ireland on a possible industrial fuels tax? Northern Ireland's road freight industry is already suffering, and power is much more expensive for people in Northern Ireland. Even an industrial fuel tax applied uniformly across the United Kingdom would place an extra restriction on Northern Ireland industry's ability to compete. Such a situation would create problems for the Chancellor in fulfilling his guarantee to give employment opportunities to the long-term unemployed.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first remarks, and welcomed the opportunity to join some of his colleagues in the United States for the launch of the investment programme for Northern Ireland. I believe that there is a willingness on the part of business in the United States to make new investment in Northern Ireland, particularly since new incentives—including our action on education, training and work—will make it very attractive to invest there. I shall regard the hon. Gentleman's second set of comments, on industrial fuel, as one of the first Budget representations.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on holding fast to his spending plans, which are just and will create jobs. The Government intend to be a Government of the left and a Government of enterprise. For regions—such as my own in north-east England—that are facing the sharpest pressures of world markets, can he offer the prospect of any specifically regional programmes of public spending and development, to underpin the great work that he is set upon?
Mr. Brown: We are a Government of enterprise and of fairness. Conservative Members who believe that enterprise is achieved only at the cost of fairness, and that fairness is achieved only at the cost of enterprise, are living in the world of the 1980s—when it did not work, and Britain ended up as an unequal, unfair and, eventually, economically unsuccessful society.
Our proposal for regional development agencies—with which my hon. Friend has long been involved—is a means by which we can bring expertise to helping develop industries in the north. Our proposals on training and employment are also working at a regional level. Moreover, I think that my hon. Friend will agree after hearing some of today's scientific announcements that there is encouragement for regions to think of how they might apply for some of the funding.

Iraq
4.53 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the latest developments in Iraq.
Last August, Iraq informed the Security Council that it was suspending co-operation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency other than on monitoring. The effect was to prevent both agencies from carrying out surprise inspections at sites that they suspected were part of a programme for weapons of mass destruction. The work of both agencies was confined to monitoring the status of sites that they had already cleared.
The Security Council responded with resolution 1154, which provided both a penalty for that violation of Saddam's agreement, and an incentive for him to comply. As penalty, we suspended the regular review of the continuing need for sanctions. As an incentive, we offered a comprehensive review if Baghdad returned to full compliance. Nevertheless, on Saturday, Iraq notified the Security Council that it would no longer co-operate with UNSCOM, even on monitoring.
As the outgoing President of the Security Council, Britain convened an emergency session, which agreed to a statement condemning the Iraqi action. It records the view of the Security Council that Baghdad's decision is a "flagrant violation" of Security Council resolutions and of the agreement it made with Kofi Annan on his visit to Baghdad in February. The Security Council's support for the statement was unanimous. It was fully endorsed by Russia, whose spokesman has said that Russia was "deeply concerned" about the Iraqi decision.
Baghdad's attempt to close down the work of the inspectorates coincides with evidence that Saddam Hussein continues actively to pursue his ambition to maintain his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. Only two weeks ago, a group of experts received the results of tests performed in French and Swiss laboratories to corroborate the US finding of traces of VX nerve gas in fragments of Iraqi missile warheads. The French laboratory found evidence consistent with the presence of nerve gas in the warheads, and both laboratories confirmed that Iraq had tried to decontaminate the warheads. For years, Saddam has maintained that Iraq had never achieved a deliverable VX weapon. Those discoveries expose his denials as one more lie.
Even greater anxiety relates to Iraq's programme for biological weapons. UNSCOM has concluded that Baghdad's most recent declaration of its biological weapons capacity fails to give a "remotely credible" account of the programme.
We are in close consultation with our allies to maintain a united front and to achieve the most effective pressure on Iraq. Today, a resolution will be tabled in the Security Council that will demand that Iraq immediately restores co-operation with both UNSCOM and the IAEA. That strong resolution has been drafted by Britain, and we will be working to achieve unity around it. We want to find a diplomatic solution, but we have always made it clear that all options remain open.
704
The latest decision by Baghdad is particularly perverse, as the Security Council agreed only last Friday on the terms of a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with its undertakings. Those terms held out the prospect of a time frame for completion of the work of UNSCOM and the IAEA, and could, in turn, lead to the lifting of sanctions on Iraq.
Any such progress can be achieved only with the full compliance of Baghdad. So long as Baghdad continues to conceal its capacity for chemical and biological warfare, and so long as it obstructs UNSCOM from revealing the truth about those programmes, there can be no progress towards the lifting of sanctions.
Our dispute is with Saddam Hussein. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. On the contrary, we have grave concern for the suffering that they are experiencing under Saddam Hussein. Only last month, Max Van Der Stoel, the UN special rapporteur on Iraq, presented his latest report, which concluded that there has been no improvement at all in the repeated violation of human rights by Saddam Hussein, including torture, summary execution, arbitrary arrests and persecution of minorities.
Britain took the lead at the United Nations in pressing for a doubling of the "oil-for-food" programme. Consequently, Baghdad can now sell over $10 billion of oil per annum to pay for food, medicine and other humanitarian goods. I am pleased to report to the House that the latest information available to the UN confirms that, as a result, there have been positive improvements in access to food and medicine.
Saddam Hussein appears to be gambling that the world will grow weary of his constant evasion and repeated confrontation. His calculation is that we will eventually give up and abandon the sanctions regime, without requiring him to abandon his ambitions for regional supremacy through weapons of terror. We must remain ready and resolute to prove him wrong.
It would be too dangerous for Iraq's neighbours in the region to leave Saddam Hussein with the capacity to produce weapons that could wipe out whole cities. It would also be too damaging for the authority of the United Nations if Saddam was allowed to break the agreement he entered into with its Secretary-General. He cannot, and he will not, be allowed to win.
Mr. Michael Howard: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and support his expressions of resolve. The House will appreciate that this is not the first time that Iraq has severely tested the will of the international community. It was only last February that, in order to avoid military action, it undertook to co-operate fully with UNSCOM and to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to inspectors. Iraq is now breaking that undertaking.
At the time, the Secretary of State rightly told the House:
"If Saddam were now to be permitted to set aside all those decisions of the UN, and if we were to walk away and allow him to do so with impunity, there would be no point in invoking the power of the UN the next time we are confronted with a dictator threatening the security of his region or the lives of his people."—[Official Report, 17 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 909.]

705
Does the Secretary of State stand by those remarks today?
At the time, the Prime Minister said that only
"effective diplomacy and firm willingness to use force"—[Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 174.]
had brought about the agreement, and that nothing else would ensure its satisfactory implementation. Are the Government prepared to display equal resolve through the international community now? Can the Secretary of State say something about the deployment of British forces in the region, and about any preparations that may be under way to despatch more forces to the Gulf?
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that his final warning to Iraq will be more effective than his final warning to President Milosevic during the Kosovo crisis in the summer? Can he tell us more about the terms of the resolution to be tabled in the Security Council today? Is it the Government's view that a further resolution is necessary before force can be used if diplomacy fails?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also comment on the resignation of Richard Butler's deputy, Scott Ritter? Mr. Ritter accused the British and American Governments of turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's transgressions, in the vain hope that, if they gave way, Saddam would lay off. Does the Secretary of State think that, if those warnings had been heeded, the present crisis might have been avoided?
Finally, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that Iraq cannot pick and choose the people who are appointed by the international community to enforce its will? Does he agree that it would be a tragedy if Richard Butler and his work were cast aside in a futile attempt to placate Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Cook: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what I shall take as support for our position. He is, of course, absolutely right to say that this is not the first time that Saddam Hussein has tested the will of the international community—nor is it the first time in the past eight years. Saddam Hussein's testing of the international community did not commence after the general election. Whenever the previous Administration stood firm to him, we gave them our full support.
It is important that we remain patient, strong and resolute. We might as well be clear now that this will not be the last time that Saddam Hussein tests our resolve. We have to be firm and clear that he has to comply, and we shall have to be resolute the next time he seeks to test that resolve. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Government to walk away from either the crisis in the Gulf or what we said on the previous occasion.
We remain ready to use all options. We have a dozen Tornados already in the Gulf, and we have maintained that presence ever since the previous crisis. We are confident that we have the basis on which, if required, we could put them into use. Resolution 1154, which endorsed the agreement reached by Kofi Annan in Baghdad, warned that violations would be met with the severest consequences.
Finally, in respect of Mr. Ritter, it is a bit rich to accuse the United States and the United Kingdom of being weak and irresolute in standing up to Saddam Hussein. Those two countries have been the firmest in making it clear that Saddam Hussein has to comply with the resolutions,
706
and it would give us a better prospect of Saddam Hussein recognising our resolve if the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not at every possible opportunity seek to undermine that resolve.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement has not only regional but global implications, in view of the potential threat to world stability posed by the acquisition of nuclear and other non-conventional weapons by Iraq? Does he agree that the crisis has been coming for a very long time, and that, on recent statements that he has made, I have warned that things would not get better, and could get worse, without firm action?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is now no scope for further negotiation with Iraq, because the United Nations Security Council resolutions in place require not negotiation but compliance by Iraq, and we have seen that, if negotiation does take place, Saddam Hussein violates any agreement he makes? Having confirmed that UN resolutions authorise the use of force, should that be decided on, will my right hon. Friend accept from me that, unless Saddam now backs down, there is no alternative to military action, which must come sooner rather than later?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that what is now required of Saddam Hussein is compliance with the UN resolutions. The Security Council has no business and no power to enter into negotiations with Baghdad as to which bits of the resolution he chooses to comply with. The resolutions have been carefully considered and carefully calibrated.
Saddam Hussein must now comply with them in full, and he should reflect on the fact that, on this occasion, the Security Council has been united not only on the text, but in private comments and public statements criticising Baghdad. I have already told the House that all options remain open. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met Mr. Cohen from the United States Administration, and they have issued a joint statement stressing that we are ready to use force if force is required.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I express my support for the terms of the statement, and the firmness in which it is couched? While not expecting the Secretary of State to trade intelligence reports across the Floor of the House, does he agree that, to justify the option of the use of military force, it is necessary to have hard current evidence of continued wrongdoing by Saddam Hussein? Is he satisfied that there is such current evidence? Does he further agree that military force should never be used in revenge or frustration, no matter how extreme the provocation, and that, if it is used, it must be proportionate and have clear political objectives?
Mr. Cook: I entirely concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if force is used, it must be used not as an expression of personal frustration or revenge, but in a way consistent with the UN resolutions, seeking to secure the objectives of those resolutions. Sadly, however, the evidence of non-compliance by Saddam Hussein mounts by the month. He has not been in compliance with the resolutions since the start of August, when he suspended co-operation with inspections, and he is no longer in compliance even with those parts of the resolutions that provide for monitoring.

707
Perhaps even more pertinent to the case of Saddam Hussein is the fact that not only is he in clear violation of the UN resolutions, but he is in flagrant violation of the agreement that was signed in Baghdad following personal exchanges between himself and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General. We should all keep firmly in front of us the fact that Saddam Hussein in his action on Saturday and in August is not just challenging the United States and the United Kingdom, but defying the agreement that he made with the United Nations, and challenging all members of the United Nations.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Are the oil exports from Iraq to Turkey by lorry, travelling by road through northern Kurdistan, in compliance with United Nations resolutions?
Mr. Cook: Baghdad has authority under the Security Council resolutions to export up to $10 billion of oil to purchase food, medicine and humanitarian goods. Some of the oil that is exported from Iraq comes under that programme. There is ample evidence that substantial volumes of oil are being exported from Iraq illicitly and illegally, and that the funds used from that do not go to purchase any humanitarian goods required by the Iraqi people; they support the extravagant life style of the elite in Baghdad, and pay for the weapons of mass destruction that are at the root of our concerns.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that we should secure Security Council authority for any action? Does he further agree that it is important not to threaten that which we are not ready to perform? Does he further agree that, if military action is undertaken, we may have to contemplate a substantial and extended air assault? Finally, does he agree that every step should be taken to secure the support of middle eastern states?
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last comment. It is important that we work with our allies and friends in the region to keep Iraq isolated. They may have some difficulty in expressing the fact publicly, but they understand that they are in the front line with Saddam Hussein and are the countries most at risk if the international community walks away and leaves Saddam with the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. Of course we must have proper authority for any action that we contemplate. It is equally important to maintain the unity of the international community, which is stronger than it was last February. That is a source of great strength and leverage for us with Baghdad.
Mr. George Galloway: Is not the problem the total bankruptcy of UNSCOM as a credible player? A senior United Nations official recently described the head of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, to me as a "congenital liar". That is based on knowing him for decades. Scott Ritter, who was lauded from the Opposition Front Bench, has admitted since his resignation that he was working with Israeli intelligence, while being the deputy head of a UN mission in Baghdad.
In the past few hours, it has been revealed that four inspectors working in Iraq under pseudonyms and carrying false passports were Colonel Khadouri,
708
Lieutenant Shamani, Colonel Rabscon and Jador Dalai Shamoni—all operatives of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. We all hope that the inspectors can get back to work monitoring the awful weapons that exist not only in Iraq but throughout the region, not least in Israel; but a new and credible leadership of UNSCOM and transparency in its work will be a precondition for the restoration of credibility.
Above all, we need a time frame for ending the sanctions, which are killing 6,000 Iraqi children every month—not Ba'athists, not Saddam's officials, not the elite, but 6,000 Iraqi children every month—according to Mr. Dennis Halliday, the recently resigned UN official who quit his job in Baghdad because he said that the policy that he was being asked to implement was completely bankrupt.
Mr. Cook: I have heard of the reports that Baghdad has alleged that four people in UNSCOM were working for Israel, but I have had no corroboration of those reports, which stem from Baghdad. Of course, I shall happily answer any written question that my hon. Friend wants to put to me on the issue. Indeed, I undertake to write to him once we have clear information.
I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend's characterisation of Mr. Butler. I have known Richard Butler since long before he became the head of UNSCOM. I know him to be a diplomat committed to building a successful international community. My hon. Friend and most Labour Members would find a lot of common ground with Mr. Butler's wider views on foreign policy—and possibly even domestic policy. I therefore utterly acquit him of the charges that have been made against him. Baghdad's main complaint about Mr. Butler is that he has been too robust in carrying out the job that the UN asked him to do.
Finally, there is a simple remedy for the dire situation of some children in Iraq. It lies in the hands of Saddam Hussein. He could use the oil that he is smuggling out to maintain his elite and his programmes of weapons of mass destruction and put it into the oil-for-food programme, on which he has continually failed to meet the targets. Those resources could be used to meet the needs of his people instead of the needs of his military machine.
We have closely monitored the food and medicines going into the country. They are exempt from sanctions. There have never been sanctions on medicine. At the same time as there are complaints that there are not sufficient antibiotics in Iraq to treat the children, Saddam Hussein has imported specialist surgical equipment to carry out cosmetic surgery on those around him. Those are his priorities, and he is to blame for the suffering of the children.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the Annan agreement, the workings and timetable of UNSCOM were severely compromised? The present state of weaponry of the most dangerous sort in Iraq may be worse than we had reason to believe earlier.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on the importance of securing the support of our friends and allies in the Gulf? Is he aware that there

709
is a great deal of suspicion of American motives in the Gulf states, which find it particularly hard to swallow the discrepancy between the way in which the Americans deal with the Israelis and the way in which they deal with Iraq? Although those are largely matters of fantasy in their minds, it is important that the issue should be clarified, and that our support for the Americans in securing their safety should be well understood.
Mr. Cook: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the Annan agreement compromising the work of UNSCOM. The agreement led the way for UNSCOM to carry out intrusive inspections on presidential sites. A number of such inspections took place. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the position is not worse than we fear. Even if it is only as bad as we fear, that is severe enough to justify us in maintaining the pressure on Iraq to come into full compliance before there can be any move to remove sanctions.
I welcome the progress that has been secured in the middle east peace process. It is a modest step, but it is the first step that we have had for two years, and as such is particularly welcome. We must build on the momentum created by that agreement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Britain, Europe and the United States will make it clear that we want compliance with the Security Council resolutions that affect Iraq, and agreement and progress on the middle east peace process.
Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside the voice of Baghdad that we heard a moment ago, is it not encouraging that those countries that were reluctant to act earlier this year are now realising the cat-and-mouse antics of the criminal regime, and taking a more forceful position? If it was right—as it obviously was—a few weeks ago for the international community to give an ultimatum to the Serbian leadership, should not the United Nations very quickly give Saddam Hussein an ultimatum that he should comply entirely with the United Nations weapon inspections, or military action will be taken? Unfortunately, force—or the threat of force—is about the only thing that the bloody dictator in Baghdad understands.
Mr. Cook: There is no need for any fresh ultimatum. Resolution 1154 made it clear that a violation of the Security Council resolutions or a failure to comply with the memorandum of understanding signed with Kofi Annan would lead to the severest consequences. I also entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comment in the earlier part of his question. In the past few days, the countries that have felt most indignant about the action by Baghdad are those that have hitherto pleaded for understanding of Iraq's position and the need to offer light at the end of the tunnel. We entirely agree with them about the need for light at the end of the tunnel, but it is now becoming apparent to all that Saddam Hussein has no intention of responding to that incentive, and will continue to test our resolve until we make it plain that there is no other way out of the sanctions regime for him.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that Iraq should have no doubt that the House is united in standing up to ensure that the United Nations resolutions are carried out? While making that clear, however, is it not important to be absolutely
710
fair and acknowledge that, although there is complete and proper condemnation of the non-compliance with the work of UNSCOM, it is acknowledged that the IAEA work on nuclear weapons has been carried out? Last week, the IAEA gave the Science and Technology Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly the assurance that, at that moment, it had no criticism. When we present a case, we must ensure that we do not over-egg the pudding.
Secondly, why is another United Nations resolution necessary? Surely resolution 1154 gives us the power to take action, and the resolution last Friday—or was it on 29 October?—showed the Russians and the French backing the proposed action. Why do we need another resolution?
Mr. Cook: Saturday's statement was a statement, not a resolution. I think, and I am sure that the whole House would agree, that there is merit in making it clear to Baghdad that there is unity in the Security Council around the strong resolution that we have drafted, which condemns the violation of the agreement and demands immediate compliance with both the resolution of the Security Council and the Annan agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the different portfolios. There are four under examination, one of which is the nuclear file. Substantively, he is correct; the agency reported last month that it could now move from intrusive inspection to on-going monitoring and verification. It might also be possible for us to contemplate a similar step concerning the missile portfolio.
None of that, however, removes any of the points of concern that I have expressed concerning the state of the chemical and biological weapons portfolios. On both those fronts, it is clear that Saddam Hussein has the capacity to produce deliverable weapons of mass destruction, and until all four portfolios can be closed, sanctions must remain in place.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend has correctly pointed out that Saddam Hussein presents a serious danger to his middle eastern neighbours. What is their response to that danger? What are the attitudes of some of those neighbours, such as Iran, Syria and the Gulf states?
Mr. Cook: We seek a close dialogue with those countries, and will undertake our own diplomatic efforts in that regard. Mr. Cohen, the United States Secretary of State for Defence, is on his way to the Gulf to consult those allies and discuss their approach to the present crisis.
I remind the House that, when we last had a confrontation with Baghdad, in February, there was considerable understanding from the Gulf states, which adopted a strong statement making it clear that, if force were used, responsibility for its being required would lie squarely with Baghdad. I hope that we will see the same degree of understanding and support from those countries now. After all, they know that, if the United Nations walked away, they are the ones that would be at risk from Baghdad's military machine.
Mr. Tim Collins: Given the devastating allegations made earlier this year by Scott

711
Ritter, will the Foreign Secretary place on record the fact that, henceforth, his office and his officials will give absolute and unequivocal backing to any and all requests for assistance from UNSCOM in its vital work on behalf of the world community? Will he also make representations to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence that now may not be the best time to cut defence spending and reduce the number of combat aircraft available to the RAF?
Mr. Cook: Whether Mr. Ritter's allegations are devastating depends on whether one regards them as credible. I have no need to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that henceforth we will give full support to UNSCOM; we have always done so, and Britain has been among the leading supporters of its work. After everything that the previous Administration did to cut the finances and resources of our defence forces, a period of silence from the Opposition on that score would be welcome.
Mr. Ernie Ross: May I assure my right hon. Friend that everyone in the House will agree with the actions that the world community has taken? The latest episode shows that Saddam Hussein is a past master of using events in the region to his advantage. We have only to consider the fact that King Hussein is in America receiving medical treatment, and that the middle east peace talks, although there was agreement at Wye, have yet to move forward, to see why Saddam Hussein felt confident enough to test the will of the world community.
Unless the world community is absolutely resolute in its determination to oppose Saddam Hussein and bring him to heel, he will continue to flout the resolutions, with which he still has not complied. The message must go out from the House that we are united in seeing through the antics of that idiot.
Mr. Cook: I agree that Saddam will continue to play box and cox with the world community, in the hope that on some occasion we shall give up and go away, and leave the ring to him. It is important that he understands that we will not do that this time, or any other time. The secret to our carrying conviction when we say that is to appear united both as a nation and as a member of the international community.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given the grave nature of the capabilities of Saddam Hussein that are now being discovered, and the desire that our defence policy be foreign-policy-led, will the Secretary of State make representations to the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we maintain a nuclear, biological and chemical capability in the Territorial Army? Does he agree that the decision of the United States to create 170 such units is instructive in that context?
Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman is rising to the gravity of the international issue that we are considering. We have no evidence that Saddam now has the capability to hit the United Kingdom. None the less, we are determined not to leave him in possession of the capability that he has.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend utterly reject the propaganda by Radio Baghdad,
712
and any little echo of it in the House or elsewhere, and make it clear that there can be no suggestion of equivalence between Israel and Iraq? That is first, because there is an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians made at the Wye plantation, which we greatly welcome, and secondly because the Israeli people can throw out their Government, whereas the Iraqi people, despite what their friends seem to think, cannot, because they have a dictatorship that has never been elected.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws a clear and important contrast between Iraq and Israel. In Israel there is a lively, open and free debate about the peace process and the next steps that the country should take. That underlines the stark contrast between the two. None the less, I hope that it will be possible for us to build on the recent agreement to achieve progress in the middle east peace process, and that it will provide stability for the region. I hope that we shall be able to demonstrate to the countries involved the fact that we seek even-handedly to build stability and security throughout the region.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we are now in a more serious situation than in February, because of Iraq's violation of the will of the international community? Backed by UN Security Council resolution 1154, are we not back to the position as of February, except that the agreement with Kofi Annan has also been violated? Will the right hon. Gentleman address again the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary about the Security Council resolution that he is tabling today, and ensure that it is at least as strong as resolution 1154, so that no one can take the view that the international community has stepped back from the position that it took last February?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of weakening the position of the international community at the present time, and that will not be the effect of the draft text that we have prepared for debate within the Security Council. He is right, in the sense that the international community is in a stronger position now than it was at the start of the year because of the passage of resolution 1154 and the signing of the memorandum of understanding. It is now quite clear what Saddam Hussein has to do. It is quite clear that he accepted that in February. It is also quite clear what the consequences would be of his violating that understanding.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is it not clear that giving effect to those aims may eventually require more than air strikes, which are in danger of becoming the 20th-century equivalent of sending a gunboat? Will the Foreign Secretary ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to revisit the assumptions that they have made in the strategic defence review on sustainability across all three services and in our defence industry, as the Americans are doing at this very moment?
Mr. Cook: I must remind the House that this Government took office after a period of substantial and continual cuts in Britain's defence capacity. Those cuts have now been arrested. We have produced a strategic defence review which meets the real needs of Britain in

713
the modern world. It is about time that those hon. Members who cut British defence spending in office stopped trying to preen themselves as the people on the side of the forces.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am sure that almost everybody in the House would commend the Foreign Secretary on his resolve. However, he speaks of patience—does he not think that the world has been patient for long enough? Will he confirm that all avenues of the UN have been explored over eight years, yet Saddam Hussein still undermines the stability and peace of the region and terrorises his own people?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Saddam Hussein's regime has no legitimate authority, but only the authority of force and the de facto authority that that gives him? The Foreign Secretary has said that he believes that we have no argument with the people of Iraq. Will he therefore take steps, through the UN, to arraign or indict Saddam before either a specially set up international tribunal or the projected International Criminal Court?
Mr. Cook: Saddam Hussein is the best single case for the International Criminal Court which we supported in Rome in the summer. I very much hope that it will be possible for us to make as rapid progress as we can in getting that court set up. In the meantime, we remain open to proposals for an international tribunal specifically to consider Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Saddam is plainly guilty of major atrocities and offences against humanitarian and international law, and it is entirely regrettable that, at present, there is no international mechanism to hold him to justice. We would wish to see that there was such a mechanism.

BILL PRESENTED
  WILDLIFE
  Mr. David Lepper, supported by Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Ms Julia Drown, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Tom Brake, presented a Bill to provide for conservation purposes to be furthered by any person discharging a function under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; to make new provision for the protection of certain species and sites; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 252].

  Conduct of Referendums
  5.33 pm
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set up an election commission with powers over the conduct and financing of referendums.
  Referendums have not been a traditional part of our democratic system. It is regrettable that, under the present Government, they are becoming ever more frequent. It is sad that a Government with so large a majority do not have sufficient confidence in their own policies to accept responsibility for them.
  I accept that, in certain cases—where major constitutional change is involved—it is right to consult the people. However, a referendum is not a mere opinion poll to be used at the whim of the Government of the day. Opinion polls and focus groups have become popular with the Government, and we all know that if one asks the right question, one gets the right answer—or, rather, if one frames a question in a certain way, one will get the answer one wants.
  That is all very well if the object of the exercise is to determine which soap powder washes whiter, or which instant coffee tastes most like the real thing. Such a cavalier approach is not acceptable when the point at issue is whether there should be a fundamental change to our voting system, whether the pound should be merged with the euro, or whether the composition of this Parliament itself should be altered. We are likely to be faced with referendums on all three of those issues, among others, some time in the near future.
  It is truly incredible that the Government are willing to conduct referendums on such fundamental aspects of our democratic system, but are unwilling to entrench that very process of consultation in a properly determined framework. I hope that the House will agree that it is not only desirable but necessary to establish fair and clear rules, and to appoint an independent arbiter to govern the conduct of referendums.
  The Bill will give legislative effect to the reasoned plea for real referendums—a campaign which was launched by my Conservative colleagues, and which has the support of hon. Members from all parties in this House, several Members of another place, the Electoral Reform Society, Charter 88, the Constitution Unit and the Institute for Constitutional Research. The Bill will also implement the recommendations of the Neill committee on standards in public life, which were published last month.
  The main effects of the Bill will be: first, to set up an independent commission, the members of which shall be nominated not by the Government but by the Speaker; secondly, to give a remit to the commission to report within three months on a clear set of rules to govern the conduct and financing of referendums, including such issues as who is eligible to vote, what constitutes a sufficient majority, how the question can be worded and how access to public service broadcasting shall be determined; thirdly, to prohibit the holding of any referendum except those conducted in accordance with the rules laid down by the independent commissioners.
  The Electoral Reform Society has called this a level playing field for referendums. It is hard to imagine why anyone who upholds democracy would wish to see a

  715
  referendum conducted other than on a fair and level playing field. If the purpose of consulting the people is to secure legitimacy for important constitutional decisions, first, voters must be well informed about the arguments on both sides of the campaign, and, secondly, the side which loses must be confident that the fight was fairly conducted.
  For those two conditions to apply, the information campaigns must be adequately funded, and the funding must be equally balanced. It will therefore be necessary to provide for public funding for the campaigns, as the Neill committee recommended. It is utterly absurd that, at present, we have a democratic system which conducts general elections under strict rules—to our great credit in the UK, as one of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world—yet we have, over the past year or so, condoned a situation in which the Government have been able to spend substantial sums of taxpayers' money promoting only one side of a referendum campaign—for example, in the outrageously one-sided campaign in Wales. There can be no argument—it simply is not fair.
  It is essential that an independent commission should lay down reasonable, clear and fair rules for funding on both sides of referendum campaigns as a matter of urgency, and certainly before another referendum is called—which, given the new-found enthusiasm of some Ministers for a single currency, could be at any minute.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask leave of the House to bring in this important Bill, but it should not be left to a humble Opposition Back Bencher to bring this matter before the House and to attempt to put into legislation a framework for the fair conduct of referendums. If, by any chance, the Bill fails to become law, and I suppose there is every chance that it will not— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends. It is a pity that we are nearing the end of this Session. I sincerely hope that every hon. Member who believes in defending the democratic process will join me in calling on the Government to produce a Bill that will have the same effect in the next Session.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Desmond Swayne and Mr. Shaun Woodward.

  CONDUCT OF REFERENDUMS
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing accordingly presented a Bill to set up an election commission with powers over the conduct and financing of referendums: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 18 November, and to be printed [Bill 253].

  Personal Pensions Mis-selling
  [Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 6th and 14th May, 25th June and 2nd July (HC 712-i to iv).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  5.40 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I welcome the opportunity to debate personal pensions mis-selling. It is a matter that directly affects the lives of many people, but it also raises deeper questions that affect us all, about the way in which the pensions industry is run, how it is structured and what role it can and should play in helping people provide for their futures.
  The scale of pensions mis-selling is profoundly shocking. Hundreds of thousands of people have been mis-sold pensions and as many as 2 million people's cases will need to be looked into. The sheer scale of the problem makes its resolution a priority for the Government.
  The matter is also of central strategic interest to the Government. We are facing a future in which people increasingly need to save. Employment is less certain. Increasingly, people can look forward to long periods in retirement and it is not possible through the tax system alone to help everyone to enjoy the standards that they have come rightly to expect.
  However, before saving, people need to have confidence in the products that they use and the companies that look after their savings. The pensions mis-selling episode of the late 1980s and the early 1990s was a terrible betrayal of that confidence and forceful action is needed to put it right.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Lady recognise that she and her ministerial colleagues substantially damaged the very real hope that people have of providing for themselves by giving the impression that the whole industry is riddled, if not with corruption then certainly with incompetence? She has seriously damaged people's opportunity to provide for their future while at the same time the Government are constantly raiding the state pension.
  Ms Hewitt: That is absolute nonsense. The damage was done to people's confidence in the financial services industry by those responsible for the mis-selling of personal pensions. It was compounded by the failure of the previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, to put right the scandal of that mis-selling when it was first discovered. I shall return to that matter.
  The performance of the financial services industry is also a vital ingredient in the future success of the United Kingdom economy. Many of the failings that led to mis-selling, and indeed to the delays in putting it right, are symptomatic of deeper problems within some—not all—pension firms. Senior management have to take their responsibilities seriously and ensure that their firms have effective management systems and that due priority is given to proper customer care. Firms must deal with those issues in their own commercial interests. Any firm that fails to look after its customers properly can scarcely expect the public's confidence or custom.

  717
  Delay is one of the problems that has dogged the review. Mis-selling started in 1988, and the research that confirmed the extent of the problem was published in 1993. The review was started in 1994. The first deadline for completing the priority review was December 1996. The deadline came and went and only a tiny proportion of cases had been dealt with—delay after delay.
  Thanks to my predecessor and to determined action by the regulators, the industry was finally jolted into action last year. Now, genuine progress has been made. More than three quarters of the most urgent cases—the priority cases—have now been resolved. The life companies in particular have made big strides. On average, they have now resolved approaching 90 per cent. of their priority cases, and some have done even better. By the end of the year, all firm priority cases, or face the consequences.
  Even after that milestone is finally reached, much will remain to be done. I intend to see that the momentum that we have established since the general election is maintained. Now, all the firms must gear up to tackle phase two of the review, which broadly speaking will deal with the cases of younger people. In other respects, it is simply an extension of the phase one process, although there is a new approach—an innovation—to identifying which investors should be in the review, building on the experience of the first phase. Because of that, the phase two review process should be less onerous for firms.
  In maintaining the momentum of the review, I regret to say that the main challenge that I face—still—is resistance from parts of the industry. That is not to say that all in the industry are of the same mind. I am pleased that many, including some independent financial advisers, are now genuinely committed to the review process and see the benefits of getting on with the job. Some have even gone so far as to re-examine the way in which they do business and to learn the lessons of the past, because they know that that is the best way forward. I urge all firms to follow their example of constructive action.
  The industry has to pull together if it is to haul itself out of the hole that it dug for itself in the late 1980s and shape up to the challenges of the new millennium. I believe—I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would agree—that the life industry can and should be a world-class industry, but first it must face up to its weaknesses and deal with them. It is not all good news. There are still some deep pockets of resistance.
  The message from the Government has been clear and consistent: all firms must get on with their reviews or face the consequences. I find it extraordinary that there are still some people in the industry who seem to think that they are different and that this message does not apply to them.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is surprising that some firms against which no complaint was made and in which no fault was found in phase one, are still being asked to go through phase two, look into every policy that they sold as independent financial advisers and conduct a total review, when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they engaged in any mis-selling?
  Ms Hewitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. It is encouraging that there are firms that found in their phase 1 review that they had not mis-sold any
  718
  personal pensions. That should give them confidence as they move forward to phase 2. However, the fact that they achieved a satisfactory result on the priority cases—the older investors—does not mean that they can be excluded from the process of reviewing the advice that was given to younger investors. The younger investors also matter, and are entitled to have their cases looked at.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does not the hon. Lady understand that many of the smaller independent financial advisers, who are struggling to make ends meet and to run a successful business, do not have the resources or vast amounts of time to waste on investigating matters that there is no need to investigate? The ludicrous naming and shaming approach that the Economic Secretary has adopted, and the idea that no one could ever lose money in any circumstances, will have one result: there will be no independent financial advisory sector, because she will have put all the IFAs out of business.
  Ms Hewitt: That is nonsense. I shall develop my argument about what is going on among some independent financial advisers. Some of them seem to think that their inaction during phase 1 of the review was defensible. Faced with phase 2 of the review, they still choose to blame everyone except themselves. There are hundreds of thousands of people—constituents of all of us—younger as well as older, who have lost out as a result of being sold products that were wrong for them, in breach of the regulatory rules that were in force at the time. The firms concerned have a clear responsibility to establish whether any of their customers deserve redress as a result, and to make redress where it is warranted.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Does not the hon. Lady recognise that those regulations were not in place? They were applied retrospectively. That is the kernel of the problem for the small independent financial advisers, who acted in good faith and now find, with rules being applied retrospectively, that they are caught up in an awful debacle.
  Ms Hewitt: I am extremely sorry that every Member of the House, whether in personal meetings with constituents who are IFAs or through the circular letters that have come from the Independent Financial Advisers Association, has repeatedly been misled as to the true situation.
  The first thing that I did when I took responsibility for the review of personal pensions mis-selling and encountered the lobbying from the IFA Association was to press the Treasury and the regulators on the issue, to find out what rules were in force at the time. The regulations that were in force at the time, under the regulatory framework—inadequate though it was—put in place by the previous Government, stated that products that were sold by independent financial advisers or by life firms had to be suitable for the investor. The regulations also required those selling products to keep records of the sales. One of the difficulties facing many—not all—of the IFAs in the current review is that they did not keep adequate records—
  Mr. Butterfill: Adequate.
  Ms Hewitt: Adequate records. That in itself is a failure of regulatory compliance.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: When an assessment is made of the advice given to their customers, will IFAs

  719
  be deemed to have acted reasonably in working on the basis of the market conditions at the time, or is the suitability of their advice to be assessed in retrospect, in the light of the extraordinary changes in market conditions that have occurred over the past 10 years, in particular the dramatic fall in annuity rates?
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman, possibly, and the IFAA, certainly, are confusing two different issues. One is whether the product was sold in compliance with the rules in force at the time. The judgment as to suitability can be made only in the light of the regulatory conditions in force when the product was sold and in the light of the then market conditions. If it transpires that a product was mis-sold, the issue of whether there was a loss as a result of that mis-selling must be addressed. The loss can sensibly be calculated only by reference to what has happened since the product was sold. Those are two different parts of the test that must be considered before a decision is made to give compensation to the investor.
  Mr. John Greenway rose—
  Ms Hewitt: I want to make a little progress with the argument. Every Member of the House has been lobbied—
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that financial advisers who give good advice have nothing to fear from the regulations? Many of them will welcome the fact that good practice is being promoted and encouraged. Financial advisers who gave and give sound professional advice will benefit from a transparent system. Not only should we be on the side of the consumer and the investor, but we should aim to drive up good practice. Any financial adviser worth his salt will want to function in an industry where those who provide sound professional advice flourish, and those who do not are held to account.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. That is the central argument that should be made by every right hon. and hon. Member in response to the misleading lobbying and representations from the IFAA. That organisation has made it clear—
  Mr. John MacGregor rose—
  Ms Hewitt: I want to make some progress, if I may.
  Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Lady's point about loss, may I ask her a question? Losses will be calculated in the next year or two years. If market conditions change again, which is entirely possible, and the loss ceases to be a loss, and if the person concerned does not get the pension for another 20 years, which is very likely under phase 2, will redress be made at a later stage if the loss disappears?
  Ms Hewitt: I shall return to that and other points. I want to develop the argument. However, I observe—I hope this will not be thought unfair—that the right
  720
  hon. Gentleman is a director of one of the companies that was substantially fined by the Personal Investment Authority for not making adequate progress in the review.
  Mr. MacGregor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I have indicated that I wish to speak in the debate. The first thing that I shall do is to declare my interest, of course.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Ms Hewitt: The IFAA has made it crystal clear that it wants to stop, or at least delay or curtail, phase 2. The leaflet, which many hon. Members have seen, is clear about that. I do not find anything surprising—
  Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No, I am not giving way at this point. I have seen the leaflet, and the implication is entirely clear. The IFAA is an organisation whose track record has been to put its members' commercial interests ahead of the rights and welfare of their customers. It went as far as to take the regulators to court over the priority review in 1995. It lost that action, but it held up the review.
  In all our constituencies there are people who trusted poor advice by some IFAs, and whose future may well be much poorer as a consequence. On average, in each constituency represented by a right hon. or hon. Member, for each IFA firm in that constituency, there are about 100 victims of poor advice from an IFA or a life office. If the IFAA and its supporters had their way and delayed or even stopped phase 2, those people would be left high and dry. Neither the Government nor the regulators will allow that to happen. The second phase of the review will go ahead. We will not allow the IFAA to wreck people's entitlement to the redress that they deserve.
  I take the opportunity presented by this debate to ask the industry as a whole to think long and hard about the consequences of seeking to frustrate progress on phase 2. What would happen if it succeeded? The first damaging effect is that the industry would prolong the uncertainty for the victims of mis-selling, adding insult to injury. Secondly, it would prolong the agony for the industry as a whole. Despite a slow start, many in the industry have come to the view that the sooner it puts the shameful pensions mis-selling episode behind it, the better. The last thing that respectable firms want—or should want—is further delay and postponement of the day when the reputation of the industry recovers.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady has asked many questions of the industry, but I have a fundamental question for her that she has not addressed so far. What is the sense or justice in persuading IFAs to compensate those who have been mis-sold pensions and extracting large amounts of money out of life offices and pension companies without making any attempt to get those managers and salesmen who were responsible for the mis-selling to make a contribution? As things stand, 90 per cent. of the burden of compensation in the case of proprietary companies and 100 per cent. in the case of mutual companies is being borne by other innocent pensioners. One category of the innocent is compensating another category of the innocent while the

  721
  guilty—the managers and the salesmen who undertook the mis-selling, often very cynically and dishonestly—get away scot free. What is the sense in that?
  Ms Hewitt: We have looked very carefully at where the costs of compensation should fall, and we have settled on a very clear and proper principle: the costs of compensating the victims of mis-selling should be shared and borne by those who profited from the mis-selling. Hence, the burden is distributed between policy holders and shareholders. Within mutual companies, it is borne by the policy holders.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady has clearly not understood my question. She is talking about distributing the cost of compensation between pension holders and shareholders. I am not talking about that. The really guilty ones are those individuals who did the mis-selling: the managers and the salesmen. There has been no attempt whatever to get them to pay up. Why not?
  Ms Hewitt: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman did not succeed—perhaps he did not try—in persuading the previous Government, whom he supported so strongly, to initiate the action that we are now taking to resolve this scandal. If the hon. Gentleman listens, as I do, to those who work in the industry, he will find that a substantial degree of pain has been experienced by those who have faced the consequences of their actions and, in some cases, lost their jobs as a result.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I pay great tribute to the hon. Lady and to her predecessor for the vigour with which they have pursued the mis-selling of personal pensions. However, the Treasury seems to have washed its hands of the mis-selling of free-standing additional voluntary contributions—which seems to be the same sort of issue. Will the hon. Lady give an assurance that she will pursue the mis-selling of FSAVCs with the same vigour as she is pursuing personal pensions mis-selling?
  Ms Hewitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The Financial Services Authority has just published the results of its research into the mis-selling of free-standing AVCs. However, it is important to stress—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands this—that the problem involving the inappropriate sale of free-standing AVCs compared with AVCs into occupational pension schemes is of a very different, and fortunately lesser, order than the mis-selling of personal pensions. The latter removed people entirely from their occupational pension schemes.
  I return to my point about the Independent Financial Advisers Association. If it and its supporters were successful in delaying phase 2, they would send a clear message to the customers of all IFAs that they are dealing with a second-class part of the industry, which—if it possibly could—would deny them the usual regulatory procedures. It would send the message that customers are dealing with people who appear not to believe in the need to put right past wrongs and take responsibility for their
  722
  actions. Any firm that puts its weight or its money behind that campaign should not expect—and will not receive—any sympathy from me or my colleagues.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Mr. Butterfill rose—
  Ms Hewitt: No, I will not give way. I have done so repeatedly during my speech. The IFAA should not expect any sympathy from the public or from the more forward-looking parts of the industry. Following the IFAA would be an act of blatant folly and, frankly, commercial incompetence.
  It is perhaps not surprising that the life companies that are sympathetic to the IFAA's cause have been rather slow to identify themselves. Perhaps they are embarrassed—I can understand that—or perhaps they are aware of the damage that it would do to their reputations. My advice to any life company or any IFA that is pondering whether to lend its weight to the IFAA's campaign is to consider whether a more constructive approach might serve its interests better.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Ms Hewitt: I have given way repeatedly and I have made it clear that I do not intend to take any further interventions at this point. Hon. Members will have a chance to contribute to the debate, and I shall respond to their points later.
  The Association of British Insurers has taken a laudable lead in this area. In a display of considerable foresight, it is launching a lifeboat facility to assist IFAs with processing cases and financing the costs of redress. It is up to the industry to make that initiative a success. I regret the fact that support for the initiative among the life companies is apparently incomplete. It is a very constructive and cost-effective way forward, and it is disappointing that some elements of the life industry have not yet decided to support the ABI initiative.
  It is fundamental to the industry's recovery that the contempt for the public that was shown in the past becomes a thing of the past. Support for the ABI's initiative, which will assist the process of starting, progressing and completing phase 2 successfully, would help to restore public confidence. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to emphasise to their IFA constituents that the existence of their industry is precisely the stake with which they are gambling. The path that some of them are pursuing will only damage their business.
  In the longer term—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) made this point well—if compliance is poor and remedial action taken grudgingly, if at all, will reputable providers continue to sell through IFAs and risk the recovery of their own reputations? Will the public want to buy from them? Why should people be prepared to buy from IFAs when they believe that their complaints will not be dealt with if things go wrong?
  Looking ahead, the Government are determined to act to ensure that scandals of this kind cannot easily occur again. We have learnt the lessons of the past and our clear conclusion is that we need a more effective system of regulation. One of the main reasons why the regulatory system failed to prevent or deal more swiftly with the

  723
  mis-selling of personal pensions was that firms simply did not abide by the regulatory rules. Proper enforcement of the rules must be the cornerstone of good regulation.
  It is true that the regulatory structure for investment business established under the Financial Services Act 1986 is not capable of delivering the standards of investor protection that the industry and the public have the right to expect. The multi-regulator system—with the old Securities and Investments Board at the top and the self-regulating organisations, such as the Personal Investment Authority, on the front line—allows too much opportunity for overlap, gaps and confusion.
  Some of the regrettable delays that occurred—and to which I referred earlier—in getting the pensions review off the ground were a direct result of one organisation, the SIB, setting out the framework for action but others, the self-regulating organisations, having to carry it through. The Government's published plans for reform will ensure that none of the problems associated with the two-tier structure arise again. The regulators will be given a structure and powers that are more conducive to speedy and effective action.
  We also intend to ensure that the interests of consumers receive due weight in regulation and in Government policy development. The previous Government's failure to do that contributed to the mis-selling of pensions on a shocking scale.
  We need also to empower consumers. People need to be much better able to understand what it is that they are buying. Education combined with the regulatory requirement on firms to provide key information on the products that they are selling will have a powerful effect on consumers' ability to compare products and will help people to help themselves.
  Looking to the future, the Government are reforming the way that financial services are delivered. I recently announced our plans to set CAT—charges access terms— standards for individual savings accounts. That will give consumers the information that they need to understand what they are getting, so that where necessary they can exert genuine pressures on providers to offer good value. Pension reform is also on the agenda. The lessons that we have learnt from the pensions mis-selling episode are very much at the front of our minds as we set about that task.
  I am also pleased to say that the Financial Services Authority is working with the thrust of the Government's productivity agenda to develop a better understanding of the competitiveness of United Kingdom financial services and the ways in which intelligent, better regulation can be a key source of competitive advantage in the modern global economy.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the sort of phase that we want to see? We want to see this phase of financial services put behind us, with Ministers shouting at the industry and the industry shouting back. From my experience in other industries, I believe that co-operating to give a world-class service to consumers is what we should be about.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have no desire to shout at anybody. I never shout at anybody. However, I am not prepared to let anyone in the industry
  724
  get away with some of the misrepresentations and delaying tactics that have been used. My hon. Friend is right to stress that it is in the interests of a competitive world-class financial services industry, including the providers and the advisers within it, to get phase 2 under way and successfully progressed as quickly as possible.
  The FSA will have a specific duty under our proposals to have regard to the desirability of maintaining the competitiveness of our financial services. It will be working also to promote disclosure and customer understanding of the risks and benefits of investing in different financial products and services.
  The Government inherited a terrible scandal affecting very many people. The previous Government simply did not have the guts to put things right or to give the regulators the tools and support that they needed. Since May 1997 giant strides have been made. The pressure that my predecessor and the regulators put on pensions firms has worked. We will continue with that pressure and, if necessary, increase it until this sorry episode is at an end.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I welcome this opportunity to debate the issue of pensions mis-selling. The Economic Secretary was right to say that it is an important issue which has affected thousands of people. However, I have to say that I regret that the hon. Lady has continued the practice of her predecessor in concentrating on attacking those firms and individuals that were guilty of mis-selling, but failing to acknowledge that the vast majority of those working in the financial services industry do an excellent job for their clients in an honest and conscientious way.
  I would have hoped that the Economic Secretary would take more seriously the real concerns of those in the industry about the next phase of the review. It is perhaps more understandable that the hon. Lady chose to say nothing about the Government's actions towards those trying to provide for their retirement, as on any account the Government's record is a disgrace.
  Mr. Brian Jenkins: I am sitting in the Chamber taking lectures from the hon. Gentleman, but would he like to comment on the fact—I am referring to a reply in Hansard—that the Department of Health and Social Security ran a campaign about "breaking the chains" which cost taxpayers £1.2 million? It was intended to lead people in a new direction. Many in the industry feel aggrieved that they have not received an apology from the previous Government.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point because it allows me to say something about the background to the issue that we are debating, and in particular to point out that it was not the Social Security Act 1986 that was responsible for the mis-selling that occurred. Instead, responsibility rests with the actions of some of those in the industry who abused the opportunities that the Act provided.
  The 1986 Act created personal pensions. For the first time, it removed the division between those who had the advantage of their own occupational scheme and those who did not. For those who were self-employed, for those who worked for employers who did not offer their own scheme and for those who moved frequently between

  725
  employers, the Act gave an opportunity to have a pension scheme personal to them and fully portable as they moved from job to job. Not only did it give freedom and choice in pension provision to many who did not have it before, but for millions it meant that they are or will be better off in their retirement.
  I entirely accept that for others, that was not the case. Mis-selling occurred as providers took advantage of the provisions of the 1986 Act to persuade investors to opt out of their existing occupational scheme or not to join one when it was clear that that was against their financial interests. In doing so, those providers were clearly acting in breach of the rules of the regulatory organisations of the time. The central principles of those rules were the requirements to ensure that the product was suitable to an investor's circumstances and that the advice was in his or her best interests. In too many instances, those principles were clearly breached.
  As soon as it was apparent that that was the position, action was taken. The review announced in 1993 by the Securities and Investments Board was unprecedented. When the evidence showed that there had been systematic mis-selling, the SIB issued guidance which established the priority groups and which required its members to seek out all cases within them.
  Mr. David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the rules that were breached in many instances. Will he take the opportunity to distance himself from the letter that we have all had from the IFA Association, which states that the rules were imposed retrospectively?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I want to come on to the concerns of the Independent Financial Advisers Association, which I think are entirely genuine. Where mis-selling occurred, the IFAs are the first people who want to see that situation tackled and for redress to be given.
  I return to the background to the issue that we are debating. I accept that initial progress was too slow. The information required was detailed and complex, making the process far too lengthy and bureaucratic. However, that, too, was addressed by the issue, in 1996, of simplified guidelines by the SIB to speed up the process. They were backed up by a statement of policy by the new Personal Investment Authority.
  It is not true, as I think the Economic Secretary implied, that the Government stood by. Indeed, I would like to pay tribute to the work of Angela Knight, who when she was Economic Secretary, was assiduous in pursuing these matters and putting pressure on the industry to act. The only change since then has been the volume at which the words of the Economic Secretary have been delivered. All the regulatory mechanisms and sanctions that are being applied to the industry were put in place by the previous Government. The Economic Secretary is pursuing, as did her predecessor, exactly the same policy towards this issue as was established under the Conservative Government. The requirements on the industry to put right cases of mis-selling were laid down under the previous Conservative Government and the regulators were ensuring that they were put into practice.
  Of course the Government are right to bring public pressure to bear, but they should acknowledge that the progress that has been made is as much, if not more, to do with measures taken before the general election as it
  726
  is the result of accusations and threats made at press conferences by the Economic Secretary and her predecessor.
  Mr. Greenway: If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will expand on this declaration of interest. Many hon. Members know that I am the chairman of the Federation of Insurance and Investment Intermediary Associations, which includes the IFA Association. The federation is not saying that there should not be remedies under phase 2. Central to my hon. Friend's point is that the 1994 assessment of what should be done in the review on phase 1, which has been replicated in phase 2, is the cause of the difficulty. My hon. Friend is making the valid point that the previous Government took action. The IFA Association's quibble is not with this Government and the need for action, but with whether those 1994 rules should be applied without being reconsidered.
  Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has considerable knowledge and expertise on this matter, and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he will be successful in catching your eye later in the debate.
  My hon. Friend mentioned IFAs and I turn now to phase 2 of the review, which is about to start. While the bullying and the intimidatory tactics of the previous Economic Secretary may not have been entirely necessary to achieve progress under phase 1, they are wholly inappropriate and unjustified for phase 2. The issues are much less clear cut and mainly concern younger people who are several years away from retirement, and we are considering advice that was given at a time when standards and market conditions were very different.
  The burden of the phase 2 review is likely to be crippling for many small firms, but its justification is far less obvious. Under phase 2, advisers are required to seek out claims by writing to clients in envelopes that say on the outside, "Are you owed?" If investors request a review, it has to be conducted not according to the market conditions prevailing at the time, but according to the conditions of today's market which are vastly different.
  In the 10 years since many of the transfers took place, annuity rates have fallen dramatically. The result is that those who took advice to transfer accrued benefits into a personal pension in 1988 today require 37 per cent. more in their retirement fund to provide the same pension. Nobody could have foreseen such a change, but under the rules, advisers are expected to provide compensation for its effects, although it is by no means clear that investors will ultimately suffer any losses as a result since investment conditions may well have swung back by the time that investors eventually retire.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait rose—
  Mr. Butterfill rose—
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am spoiled for choice. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait).
  Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend agree that today's statement by the Chancellor and the increased public borrowing of which he spoke will lead to an increase in gilt interest rates and hence raise annuities again?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I admire my hon. Friend's ability to find a silver lining in the cloud of the Chancellor's statement. In that at least I hope that she is correct.

  727
  As I said, nobody could have foreseen the changes that have occurred. It is hardly any wonder that the industry is beginning to view the review as not about providing compensation where mis-selling has occurred, but about ensuring that no one loses any money under any circumstances.
  Advisers are also being judged retrospectively on today's standards. In the vast majority of cases, advisers may well have made clear to their clients the potential risk involved, but 10 years ago, there was not the stringent requirement that now exists to keep records of advice given. The Economic Secretary said in her speech that the industry was misleading people by claiming that it was not required to keep proper records, but many of the IFAs that are now being criticised for not keeping records were at the time subject to several inspections by the regulatory organisations, and at no point did the regulators make any comment about the lack of records. Yet the burden of proof will now be placed on the advisers to show that they are not guilty of mis-selling rather than the reverse.
  If phase 2 proceeds as intended, it will offend natural justice and lead to hundreds of long-standing and reputable firms going out of business. Unlike the big providers, they do not have policyholders or reserves to meet the costs of the review, let alone any compensation that might have to be paid.
  It has been estimated that to assess the loss on any single case will cost about £1,000. The average cost for a firm of completing phase 2 is likely to be about £600,000, but the average annual turnover of an IFA firm is around £200,000—a third of that amount. On top of that, IFAs are now experiencing substantial increases in the cost of professional indemnity insurance, as a direct result of the potentially horrendous liabilities that they may face under phase 2.
  The pensions advisers support systems scheme put together by the providers is welcome, but it deals only with the problems of phase 1 and it will not be enough to stop many small IFAs being tipped into bankruptcy if phase 2 of the review goes ahead under the present rules. Many of those firms, in the high streets of towns and villages across the country, have been providing sound and sensible advice to their clients over many years. They have never been found guilty of any kind of mis-selling and they are as anxious as anyone in the House for there to be redress for anyone who has been genuinely wronged.
  However, as a member of one such typical small firm in my constituency said to me:
  "We are being judged as guilty by everyone including the press before we have had a chance to prove our innocence and in any proper court of law we would not be subjected to the rules and regulations that we are in this current environment."
  He went on to say that
  "my fear is that there is a hidden agenda by this Government to actually wipe out the whole of the Independent Financial Market".
  Such concerns appear all too real when one hears the belligerent noises made by Treasury Ministers. Statements such as the press release issued by the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), headed:
  "Helen Liddell has IFAs in her sights",
  are not helpful. Instead, they seem to confirm the industry's worst fears and undermine the public's confidence in the financial services industry.
  728
  I therefore appeal to the Government and the regulators to listen to the industry and work with it rather than shout at it. The industry is asking not for phase 2 to be stopped, but for its concerns to be dealt with. I am worried when I hear from the IFA Association that it has been seeking to meet the Minister to discuss its concerns and work out an acceptable solution, and has not been able to achieve even that. Of course we want proper redress for those who are entitled to it, but we also want a viable, successful financial services industry.
  I turn now to the actions of the Government, who are themselves guilty of robbing pensioners of thousands of pounds. In the 18 months during which the Government have been in office, they have launched an unprecedented attack on those seeking to provide for their retirement and on savers generally. Within a few weeks of the election, the Chancellor introduced a pension tax that will cost pension funds over £5 billion a year. As a result, more than 10 million people will have to pay more into their pension schemes or else find that they receive less than they had planned when they retire.
  Of course, the Government introduced that measure by stealth. They hoped that nobody would notice that they had been fleeced until many years later when they came to retire. Those are double standards of the worst kind. Millions of pounds are being devoted to an advertising campaign to alert investors to phase 2 of the pensions review, but investors are being deliberately keep in the dark about the fact that the Government have raided their pension schemes and cut the income that they can expect when they retire.
  The full cost of the Government's pension tax is now becoming clear. The recent report of the trustees of the universities superannuation scheme estimates that the loss to the fund is approximately £70 million a year. That is not a possible loss; it does not depend on investment conditions or annuity rates; it represents a loss to the fund of about £500 each year for every beneficiary or future beneficiary of the scheme. There will be many more such trustees' reports to come.
  On top of that, we now learn from the Daily Mail that the Chancellor may be planning a new stealth raid on our savings. In order to fill the black hole in his finances, he is considering restricting tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate, hitting millions of higher rate taxpayers and providing a further disincentive to save. I ask the Economic Secretary to take this opportunity to make it clear that this report is untrue and to reassure investors that the tax relief at the higher rate will not be removed.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has just been talking about double standards. Does he agree that the title of this debate ought to be "Government policy on pensions: mis-sold"?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. People will think that while many of those in the industry might have been guilty of mis-selling, in many ways what they have done pales in comparison with this Government's record in fleecing the pension funds of every single occupational pension scheme member.
  If all this were not enough, the Government have also scrapped tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans, two of the most successful savings

  729
  schemes ever devised, and are to replace them with an inferior, unpopular and ill-conceived product that is already being rejected by the public and the industry alike.
  While the Government are saying that they are attempting to persuade savers to invest in equities, there is a deafening silence about the much-vaunted stakeholder pensions. Nearly a year after the discussion document was published, we appear to be no nearer to an announcement. Indeed, according to today's Financial Times, the whole scheme has now been torn up by the Treasury which has gone back to the drawing board. It is hardly surprising that the whole pensions industry is now beginning to suffer from planning blight.
  The cumulative effect of the relentless attack on savings has been, not surprisingly, to reduce the amount that people want to save. Eighteen months ago, when the Conservative Government were in office, the savings ratio stood at 10.3 per cent. The latest figures show a fall of nearly 25 per cent., far steeper than was predicted in the Government's own Red Book. That is bad for investors, bad for business and bad for the country.
  The mis-selling of personal pensions was a scandal that should be put right, but when it comes to defrauding those who are seeking to make provision for their retirement, the real offenders are the Government. Theirs is the real scandal, and it is they who should be providing redress.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Jon Trickett: I thank the House authorities for arranging this important debate on a subject that affects the lives of very many people, and I hope to be able to correct some of the false impressions given by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale).
  Britain is justifiably proud of the size and strength of its financial sector. In this sphere, it can truly be said that Britain remains a world-class player. We can boast about the size of the sector and the excellence of the services that it provides. The phrase "City of London", which denotes the financial services sector in the United Kingdom, has also always been regarded as coterminous with the highest standards of moral rectitude. Sadly, a substantial part of the sector fell significantly below the standards to which it ought to aspire in the matter of personal pension mis-selling.
  The sales forces of some of the most prestigious names in the City misled huge numbers of people. Furthermore, even when the scale of the mis-selling of personal pensions became evident to everyone, the same companies proceeded to drag their feet. They failed to meet almost every deadline, even those deadlines that had been agreed by the industry itself. What is more, they were aided and abetted by the Tories.
  In government, the Tories had created the statutory regime that allowed the mis-selling to take place and then proceeded to prevaricate themselves, which allowed the issue to drag on for years. When Labour took office in May last year, only 2 per cent. of the pensioners who had been identified as having been mis-sold pensions had received compensation. That is the scale of the Tories' indolence or, worse still, complicity in the process.
  It is to the eternal credit of this Government that they acted with determination and speed to bring a resolution to the scandal. I congratulate my hon. Friend the
  730
  Economic Secretary on continuing to pursue the matter with energy and vigour. She will clearly need all that energy and vigour because, to judge from my case load and that of many hon. Members to whom I have spoken, it seems that many personal pensions companies will, I am afraid, continue to drag their feet and prevaricate for a long time.
  I represent the former mining seat of Hemsworth. I wish to inform the House precisely how the pensions industry operated in the coalfields, especially the Yorkshire coalfield. Its record has been scandalous. The mis-selling of personal pensions was at its height at precisely the time when the coal mining industry was suffering an industrial cataclysm. For reasons that are known and which have been debated many times in the House, the coal mining industry was decimated. That was a great economic error but, in human terms, it represented a personal tragedy for thousands and thousands of families.
  In my constituency alone, nearly 10,000 men lost their jobs in a matter of a few years. It was obvious that few miners in the communities that I represent would have immediate access to a new job. Many of the older men knew that they would probably never work again. Indeed, I am aware of the fact—it is more than anecdotal evidence—that many of the older men were told by the jobcentres and by the very civil servants who were meant to be finding them work that they would never work again.
  The men had two assets. First, most of them were in receipt of a redundancy payment in the order of £20,000, or perhaps a little more. Secondly, they frequently had pension funds in the miners' pension scheme. However, as we know, the MPS has a rule whereby a pension does not commence until the pension-holder attains the age of 65.
  The miners, their families and their communities saw the pit closures as a great tragedy, but the pension companies saw things a little differently. They saw redundant miners as a marketing opportunity. It does not take a mathematical genius to calculate that, in my constituency alone, 10,000 redundancy payments at £20,000 a piece resulted in a very large potential market of around £200 million, in addition to the funds already in the pension scheme.
  The pension companies marketed their products hard. Many thousands of people in my constituency and elsewhere in the coalfields were sold inappropriate products. Miners had been told that society would be unable to find them another job, and now their only assets—their pensions and their redundancy moneys—were placed in jeopardy by some of the most prestigious household names in the country. That is a great scandal, but behind that scandal lies an even greater one, and that is the mechanism that the pension companies utilised to sell—or mis-sell—their personal pension schemes in the former mining communities. I shall describe the process to make sure that it is on the record.
  It was quickly apparent to the pension companies that such communities are tightly knit and that there was little point in dispatching their conventional sales forces, with their gold cards, designer clothes, yuppie telephones and so on, to those areas. Instead, ex-miners were recruited by the pension companies, given rapid and inadequate training, and then sent out into their own villages and townships to prey on their former mates. Conservative Members are nodding their agreement.

  731
  The training that those people received was wholly inadequate. Those ex-miner trainees were supposed to pass exams before they went out selling, but I am aware, and can prove, that there was widespread cheating, aided and abetted by the companies, in that process. I have been told of the complicity of senior regional managers of nationally known and supposedly reputable pension companies in assisting former miners to complete exams so that they could go on the road to sell, or mis-sell, pensions to their former mates.
  Such regional managers had been given sales targets by people higher up in the organisations. They considered the redundancies to be not a great human tragedy unfolding before this nation, but a golden opportunity.
  Mr. Willis: What the hon. Gentleman is describing is not only a personal tragedy for the miners concerned, but an absolute insult to those communities, which no one would condone. Does he have evidence that independent financial advisers were working in those communities and mis-selling in the same way?
  Mr. Trickett: I will come to the case of an independent financial adviser. It is clear to me that independent financial advisers were part of the mis-selling of pensions in the mining communities, but that was a different type of process from the one that I am describing.
  The regional managers and the large companies, as well as the smaller companies, considered the redundancies to be not a great national tragedy, but a golden opportunity. They were prepared to close their eyes to such practices. As a consequence, ill-trained and inappropriately recruited former miners donned their Sunday-best suits and went back into their own communities to sell inadequate schemes, which they did not fully understand, to their neighbours, friends and former workmates. It is a great scandal that huge commissions were offered to that sales force to identify pension transfers from the miners' pension scheme.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The abuses that the hon. Gentleman is so vividly describing indeed took place, and he is absolutely right to say what he has said on that subject, but, in those circumstances, does not he think it quite extraordinary that those managers have kept their bonuses, those dishonest salesmen have kept their commission and his Government, as the Economic Secretary has told us, propose to do absolutely nothing about it? They intend that the full burden of compensation should be paid by innocent pension-holders.
  Mr. Trickett: My point is that the culture of dishonesty, which is all that it can be described as, ran from top to bottom in those organisations. It is entirely inappropriate for the hon. Gentleman to say that the salesmen were dishonest. They were innocent dupes—ex-miners who were down a pit hacking coal and contributing to the wealth of this country one minute, and put into their Sunday suits and sent out with inadequate training the next. There was no dishonesty, other than the dishonesty of the pension fund managers.
  Precisely the same process was in place in respect of the regional managers of the pension funds. I have spoken to some of them, and I understand the pressures that they
  732
  were placed under. A culture of greed, which was encouraged by the previous Tory Government, infiltrated the industry throughout and led to the most scandalous processes taking place.
  I have recently assisted one of my constituents, who operated in exactly the manner that I have described. He was promised massive earnings by a national company, which it would not be prudent to name. He was given training, encouraged to cheat in his exams and then put back on to the streets and into his own communities. He failed to sell—I should say mis-sell—pensions in adequate numbers. The company then lent him money in lieu of wages and of commission that should have been earned, which was a further disgrace.
  When I met my constituent, he was being threatened with court action by one of the largest companies in the financial services sector in Europe. It was proposing to take him to court to recover the so-called loans with which he had been provided as a substitute for wages and for commission that he had failed to realise because he was not competent to sell the goods that he had been employed to sell. That is a disgraceful episode.
  Mr. Davies: Go on, name the company.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  Mr. Trickett: I will not name the company, but I have given a clue, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to find it.
  I then entered into correspondence, as hon. Members would expect, with the chief executive of the company, who is a public figure of some stature and whose company is a household name. Hon. Members might anticipate that such an individual would be ashamed of his company's behaviour. He was not, and he is not. The company wanted to recover all its so-called loan from my constituent. It used the interesting argument that it did not want to concede in my constituent's case, although it was accepted that he had been treated unfairly and badly, because of the precedent that that might create for others in the same position.
  The logical deduction is that many people were put in the same position as my constituent. It is evident that the industry paid scant regard to the manner in which its products were sold in the coalfields and in the country at large. The high moral reputation of the financial services industry seems to have been little merited in relation to either its customers or even its own sales force.
  Part of the industry is once again engaged in special pleading in respect of the second phase of the pensions review. I know that the Government will stand firm. On that issue, as on so many others, the Government will show that they stand on the side of the many, not just of the few.
  I have no doubt that we will be remorseless in representing the consumer interest and that we will press on to phase 2. May I respectfully ask the Economic Secretary to find time to address the issue of the many pension-holders who have had their cases reviewed, but have not yet received compensation? They are having to wait inordinately long periods for their compensation to be paid. The procedure is necessarily detailed—I understand that, as do my constituents—but it is in danger of being over-bureaucratic and cumbersome.

  733
  I am particularly concerned about those pensionholders who go through the whole process only to find that the agency which mis-sold the pension is no longer in a financial position to pay compensation. I am aware of one such company. It is still trading and acknowledges that it should be paying a series of pensioners compensation for mis-sold pensions but, over the past few months, it has deliberately cancelled its indemnity insurance cover, thereby making itself unable to pay compensation. That means that my constituents will have to wait further inordinate periods to receive what is rightfully theirs. They are the poorest in a community drowning in poverty.
  There is an investors' compensation scheme, which acts as a safety net in such cases. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that the scheme is operating far too slowly and, moreover, leaves too much responsibility in the hands of individual pensioners, who frequently face mighty financial institutions.
  Today, I received from the investors' compensation scheme a further letter about a particular case. We are now back in a loop that we have already been around three times in relation to my constituent. I wonder why the scheme cannot take action to address his problems. Will my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary consider reviewing the scheme's operation, with a view to expediting matters for those unfortunate individuals whose situation requires them to have recourse to it?
  6.49 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: I shall begin by declaring an interest. First, I was a non-executive director of London and Manchester and I have recently become a non-executive director of Friends Provident. I joined the London and Manchester board early last year. The fines that were applied to both boards related to periods well before I was a non-executive director. As the Minister raised this matter, I want to assure her that I have been assiduous in trying to ensure that we deal with pensions mis-selling as quickly as possible. I want to make it clear that I am not defending the previous position.
  I am pleased to say that I am a non-executive director, because I believe that it is important that people who have some knowledge of what is happening out there in the industry contribute to such debates. I was delighted to join London and Manchester, because I have had a lifelong interest in the encouragement of long-term savings, especially in relation to owner-occupation and the property-owning democracy. That is what brought me into politics. I want to see the widest possible extension of savings, and I am very much aware of the importance of savings for the younger generations if they are to have a happy retirement.
  Savings are particularly relevant for lower income groups, at whom the Government were aiming their pension reforms. London and Manchester has concentrated on those groups. I was particularly keen to play a part in carrying that forward. Friends Provident has strong Quaker origins, and the Quaker influence is still very strong. And I agree with the Minister's remarks about customer care in such companies.
  My second interest is as chairman of the House of Commons pension fund trustees. We do not have personal pensions, but we have free-standing additional voluntary
  734
  contributions. That experience gives me further insights into the responsibilities and some of the difficulties involved in these issues.
  I want to make a balanced and positive contribution to the debate. I want to put my points to the Minister in a constructive spirit. I welcome her to her new post, and I congratulate her on it. She has a heavy responsibility to ensure that we get the balance right. That is what I want to try to explain in my contribution.
  The starting point for all of us is the recognition that we need to encourage many more people to make long-term savings, particularly for their pensions. We all know that the state pension will be a smaller proportion of average earnings in 20 or 30 years' time. That is common ground between us: it is also the Government's view. We all want to encourage second pensions, and we all recognise the difficulties faced by low-income groups, people who frequently break careers or who never have a career. Encouraging long-term savings is one of the most important priorities for the Government.
  I was going to say that we are looking forward to hearing what the Government have to say about building on the second pension, whether compulsory or not. I was also going to say that, when the proposals are presented, the help that the industry can give the Government will be important. However, I noted the headline story in today's Financial Times, which suggests that the Government have dropped their plans for sweeping pension reforms.
  Ms Hewitt1 indicated dissent.
  Mr. MacGregor: I hope therefore that, in her wind-up speech, the Minister will tell us that that is untrue, and that she will make the position clear. If there is any question of the Government dropping their plans for substantial reform, the need to establish a regime that will encourage many more people to save on their own and will encourage companies to introduce these schemes will be all the more pressing.
  The omens are not particularly good. The surveys that I have seen show that a substantial proportion of people, including young people, realise that the state pension will be far from sufficient when they retire. About 85 per cent. of people understand that, so that message has got through, which is good. When they are asked whether they are doing anything about it on their own initiative, only about 12 per cent. reply in the affirmative. There is a huge gap, and thus an enormous challenge.
  Final salary schemes, which are the most attractive schemes, will decline as a proportion of company schemes, because companies, for a variety of reasons, are moving to money purchase schemes. It is important that we promote money purchase schemes with company contributions, and that we encourage people to take out personal pensions. That will be right for them in principle if the pattern of their working life is different from what it used to be, and if they change career several times. The introduction of personal pensions was entirely right in principle, and we must build on them and increase their role.
  The report in today's Financial Times showed the complexity of these problems:
  "Members of the government admitted compulsion was 'dead' and that the review had shifted away from initiating low-cost, funded 'stakeholder' policies and towards modifying the regulatory

  735
  environment to encourage industry provision of such schemes. 'We've been impressed how fast the private sector and trade unions have set up low-cost stakeholder lookalikes,' said a minister."
  Friends Provident was one of the first into this market, and is working with trade unions. That is a highly attractive way of tackling the problem. The report goes on:
  "'It's now a question of how we shape the market place and the Treasury is at the forefront of deciding this,' said another government member."
  The hon. Lady may say that none of that is true, but if it is an indication of the Government's thinking, there needs to be strong co-operation between the Government and the industry to achieve the objectives we all seek.
  I envisage two major problems. The first has been referred to already. The abolition of advance corporation tax and the reduction in the income of pension funds introduced by the Government last year will have a profound effect on the provision of pensions in the period ahead. Indeed, if there is a pension scandal, pension robbery or devaluation of benefits, the Government's action will, in the long run, be a stronger example of that than any of the pension mis-selling.
  I have heard of companies that have already experienced the impact of these measures in their triennial valuations, because they considerably reduce the income stream. It is the income stream on which those valuations are based and from which the pensions eventually come. At the time, the Government argued that the valuation should be based on the capital of the funds, but we have seen in the past few months how fickle and dangerous that can be: it is the income stream that is important in the long term. The change that the Government made last year was a retrograde step.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman referred to pension robberies. Will he comment on the value of the basic state pension in 1976? Given what happened to SERPS during the Conservative regime, the state pension has been reduced to such an extent that someone retiring in 2028 will draw a SERPS plus basic state pension that is less than the value of the basic state pension was when the previous Labour Government left office.
  Mr. MacGregor: The present Government have exactly the same policy, because of the difficulties of funding a state scheme. Hence the importance of ensuring that we get the corporate and private sector position right.
  I heard about the reports in the Daily Mail yesterday of possible further moves by the Government to reduce pension contributions if they reduce the tax relief on contributions to private sector schemes. I asked the Chancellor this afternoon to make it clear that the Government do not intend to take further action on pension funds and contributions. He muttered quickly that there were no such proposals, and then talked about bank windfall taxes, which had nothing to do with the point I was raising. I suspect that he may regret muttering under his breath, but I profoundly hope that there will be no further moves to attack pension funds. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady confirmed that in more detail.
  The second major problem concerns pension regulations and the mis-selling. I do not condone the mis-selling, and in no way do I defend it. People were
  736
  taken out of occupational pension schemes—the NUM case is a good example—or, if they had the choice of an occupational pension scheme, they were persuaded to go for a personal pension without any company contribution. I do not condone that at all, and I recognise the need for compensation in all the relevant cases; but we must get the balance right. We must recognise the existence of many beneficiaries of the introduction of personal pensions, and its substantial contribution to the provision of pensions, improved living standards for many retired people, the encouragement of self-help and a reduction in what would otherwise be a much higher level of taxpayer-provided welfare benefits. The introduction of personal pensions is a positive development; it is the consequences of the mis-selling of a small proportion of the total that we must put right.
  Mr. Andrew Love: According to the Financial Times, the latest estimate is that mis-selling will account for some £11 billion. How can the right hon. Gentleman describe that as a small proportion of the whole?
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall come to the £11 billion later. My point is that, given the importance of personal pensions in the future and the need to attract many more people to them, the amount resulting from mis-selling will constitute a comparatively small part of the amount that must be raised. It should be remembered that the total value of the United Kingdom's pension fund industry— I know that that includes company pension schemes—is currently well over £600 billion.
  Many companies were slow to embark on the pensions review, and did not recognise quite what enormous resources would be needed. That was clear to me when I first became involved. We must recognise that there will be a high cost—and here I refer not to compensation, but to complex administration.
  The process is taking a long time, not just because potential beneficiaries do not always respond and organisations such as the national health service have, during the first stages, been slow to give details. It can take many hours of highly qualified work by those calculating the consequences of a single case of mis-selling to reach a conclusion. I have examined some cases myself. Qualified actuaries—including retired actuaries—often have to be brought in. I am very much aware of the effort expended by the company in which I was involved.
  It is rather like the millennium and the computer industry, in that a whole new industry is being created in the short term to sort out the problems, with large salaries being paid. I make no complaint about that; I merely observe the phenomenon.
  Other policy holders will often have to pay the cost. There is a balance to be struck there as well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) pointed out, those policy holders are innocent, and are looking forward to good pensions themselves. So we must exercise a sense of proportion in the future.
  In the early stages, the regulatory bodies—especially the Securities and Investments Board—were slow to issue guidelines, and then kept changing them. To an extent they are still changing them, and that remains a problem

  737
  for many companies. I understand that different life companies have been influenced by differing guidelines that they have received from regulatory bodies, which is adding to the confusion and uncertainty.
  Against that background, let me make a specific point to the Economic Secretary. Just when it is crucial for the Government to create an atmosphere that encourages people to take out pensions, they are in danger of doing the reverse. Vilifying the industry makes consumers unwilling to consider the product. It is no good the Government saying that people should take out more pensions; an industry is needed to sell the pensions and to give appropriate advice, and if that industry retreats into its shell, or large parts of it disappear, the whole cause is badly served.
  Mr. Kidney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am anxious to make progress, but I will give way once more.
  Mr. Kidney: May I put the contrary view? How can the public have confidence in those who sell pensions until this whole unfortunate incident is put behind us? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we need to crack on and finish the matter before there can be confidence in the industry?
  Mr. MacGregor: That is precisely what I have been saying to the industry: that we must conclude the process as soon as possible. I think that that has almost happened with phase 1.
  Let me make some positive suggestions. The first relates to phase 2. There are, I think, some issues to be revisited. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) implied, there is a danger that, if phase 2 lasts for a long time—it could well do so, given the way in which it is currently constructed—an image that is the opposite of what the Government want will persist for the next five years. Phase 2 is different from phase 1, in that it deals with different types of case and different types of person. It should not be subject to the heavy, costly, complex and time-consuming regime that affected phase 1.
  There is a genuine difficulty, which needs to be resolved. Let me make two points. First, I think that it is worth looking again at the rebate-only cases. There cannot be much of a loss to individuals in such cases, because they made no extra contributions themselves. I have not had an opportunity to examine the losses in detail, but phase 2 involves many rebate-only cases; and I am not sure that, if they all had to be examined in detail and it was then found that the loss was de minimis, we would have achieved much of an objective.
  Secondly—this was the point that I tried to make when I interrupted the Economic Secretary—we should look again at the assessment of loss. What should be considered are the conditions that obtained at the time the policy was taken out. Those conditions cannot be changed some years later. Let us suppose that I took out a life policy—as I have—and then found that we had moved into an era of low inflation and low interest rates. I would then receive a much smaller terminal bonus than I might have expected five years earlier, but that would be no reason for me to say that the policy had been mis-sold to me in the first place, or that I should be compensated for the fact that interest rates had fallen.
  738
  If the argument about loss is taken to extremes, the Government will start saying that the unit trust industry should be held responsible if at any time, when people cash in their unit trusts, they are worth less than they were two months or two years earlier. That is clearly absurd, but there is an element of it about the way in which loss has been calculated in relation to phase 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford was quite right.
  We now have low interest rates, low returns and low annuity rates. Let us suppose that a loss is being assessed now, 10 years after a policy was taken out. If the pension will not be paid for another 20 or 30 years—which, in many phase 2 cases, is quite likely—the person concerned is being compensated for a loss that may never actually happen, because the calculation was made at a particular time. It may be necessary to recalculate the whole thing two years later—because the programme is not finished— and it may then be found that the loss is no longer a loss. The Economic Secretary will have to address such problems.
  Mr. Butterfill: Some cases were examined in 1995. It was discovered that those who had been sold the pensions were selling at a profit, in one instance a profit of £2,500. Because of changes in the market, however, that person is now shown as having suffered a £38,000 loss. Is that not ludicrous?
  Mr. MacGregor: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. There will have to be some way of dealing with the problem; otherwise there will be another scandal. It will be found that the whole matter was badly organised by the regulator, and by the Government.
  Phase 1, of course, dealt with people who had retired or were close to retirement. In their case, the loss could be calculated, but that does not apply to most phase 2 cases.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with personal pensions, as well as financial considerations, two other benefits are to be taken into account? First, they are completely portable, and secondly, they allow for a 25-year retirement age. Many occupational pensions would not have those benefits. Should not that be taken into account when assessing their value?
  Mr. MacGregor: Those are certainly some of the benefits of personal pensions. That is why it is right to go on making it clear that they have a large part to play.
  In the whole of this regime, we do need the certainty of a set of guidelines that are laid down at the start and adhered to throughout the process. One of the difficulties has been that they have changed throughout the process and that many of the providers and IFAs—independent financial advisers—were not aware of what the guidelines were when they were operating their marketing.
  Mr. Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry. I should go on.
  We should avoid retrospective regulation; it is also important to ensure consistency throughout the whole regulatory system. If that is not done, my worry is this: there will be far fewer IFAs. The professional indemnity

  739
  loss business that is coming through shows what the marketplace thinks about that. IFAs will be constantly at risk, including from people whose career changes may be significant, which may lead them to try to exploit the whole regime to the disadvantage, unfairly, of an IFA. IFAs will not have the resources to ensure that they can meet all regulatory requirements in future. That is why it is important to have certainty and a clear system from now on for them.
  It would be a serious tragedy if there were a substantial reduction in the IFA industry. Of course, there are some poor operators in the industry—we all know that—but there are many genuine people who give good advice throughout, and that advice is needed by many of the people who should be taking up pensions.
  I saw this particularly at London and Manchester, whose home service industry goes out and gives advice to people who would not otherwise think of taking out long-term savings. Recent independent market research shows how much that service is valued. If it disappears, something important disappears.
  Incidentally, there is a danger in moving to exclusively multi-tied IFAs. I hope that the Government are not contemplating that because it would lead to a considerable loss of independence.
  The next consequence will be that companies, both providers and IFAs, will concentrate on execution-only. That is already happening with Marks and Spencer's, Scottish Widows and many others, and it is driving a coach and horses through the regime.
  It looked as though the Government were going to encourage execution-only in the low-cost stakeholder pension that they were going to introduce. Supposing those execution-only schemes did not give as good pension outcomes as those that were done with advice. Who is then guilty of the pension mis-selling scandal? The people who would be guilty would be the Government who had insisted on exclusively execution-only. That again shows the importance of recognising that advice is desirable; and that it comes at a cost, inevitably.
  In many cases, the fact-finds that companies are undertaking through all their sales men will be counter-productive. They involve two long meetings and detailed reason-why letters. Often, it will simply be unprofitable to carry that process through. Why are the companies doing it? The answer is that they have to give themselves complete protection against any future, retrospective changes in the regulatory system. That, too, will lead to a diminution in the amount of pensions sold.
  I recognise that the regulatory authorities—the Personal Investment Authority or Securities and Futures Authority, whichever it is—have a difficult job. I recognise that there has been mis-selling and we must avoid that, but we must ensure that we get the balance of the regime and phase 2 right because, at the moment, the risk is that the pendulum will swing too far in the other direction—which will be in no one's interests, least of all the Government's. The Government, like me, desire to see many more occupational pension schemes taken out and much more long-term saving. That is our objective, and we must ensure that we do not diminish or destroy it by an over burdensome and badly worked out regulatory regime.
  7.14 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I welcome this opportunity to introduce to the debate the need for personal pensions and how that fits in with the whole picture of personal pension misselling. The Ross report, which was commissioned by the Labour Government, makes it clear that there is a future for personal pensions, and recognises that it will always be true that personal pensions are not suitable for everyone and that the state continues to have a role. It recognises the continuing need for private-public partnerships in this sector, but also makes it clear that we must learn from the past; we must learn from the mistakes.
  I tried to make the point in an intervention that what the previous Government had done to SERPS made it clear that some Government provisions were not free from Government interference. Therefore, if we want to encourage the public at large to provide for their retirement with confidence, we need far more robust vehicles in its place.
  Pensions mis-selling—how did it come about? It started with encouraging people to opt out of SERPS. With hindsight, and in the light of actuarial assessment, the previous Government were somewhat too generous, certainly in the first 10 years, in the SERPS opt-out arrangements, which may have encouraged people to opt out who should not have opted out.
  Similarly, when, in 1988, it was no longer compulsory to be part of an occupational pension scheme, that in many ways opened the floodgates for personal pension mis-selling. There was an argument that early leavers from occupational pensions paid too heavily, so that option should have been given, but the situation has been remedied to quite an extent.
  What have we now? If my information is right, and I have no reason to doubt it, in this quarter, for the first time, the number of personal pensions being taken out has dipped, which is serious. Some people say that it is a sort of planning blight. Individuals are looking at where the Government are going with individual savings accounts and therefore holding back, but it shows a serious crisis of confidence in the insurance industry's performance.
  Whose fault is mis-selling? It is interesting that the debate goes from greedy salesmen to insufficiently trained salesmen to the previous Government's hasty push of people into personal pensions, but no one suggests that it is the fault of policyholders; yet, when we look at who should pay for it, we ask the policyholders of the large companies to do so. The people who have the least fault in this fiasco are being asked to pay the bill. It is somewhat bizarre.
  If an insurance company is owned by its shareholders, it is clear that, provided there is no with-profits policy in the company, the shareholders are involved in this. With mutuals, of course, it is the policyholders who have to pick up the whole bill, but one company is in a difficult position: the Prudential. It is a company with shareholders which also issues with-profit policies. That means that the return depends to some extent on the profits that are made by the company.
  The Prudential is also the worst offender in terms of pension mis-selling. Last July, it had to increase its estimate of the cost of mis-selling from £450 million to £1.1 billion. It was suggested that, in the light of the whole size of the pension industry, that was not

  741
  significant. I still suggest that for one company to run up a liability from mis-selling of £1.1 billion is extraordinary. Sir Peter Davis told the Treasury Select Committee that the mis-selling bill would be set against an estimated £12 billion surplus capital on its long-term life insurance fund. Of that £12 billion, about half is needed to meet policyholders' reasonable expectations.
  In my innocence, I used to assume that, if I took out a with-profits policy with an insurance company, I got the profits made by that company. In fact, I get what that company's actuary deems to have been my reasonable expectation. It is a case of losing every which way. The figure involved for the Prudential was £12 billion. If one argues how much of that does not have to be met by reasonable expectations, the agreed figure is probably about £7 billion.
  All that is rather quaintly called orphan assets. It is not clear who owns the orphan assets. This is beginning to remind me of a debate that was held in the late 1980s and early 1990s about who owned the surplus in occupational pension funds. It was the issue of the surplus in occupational pension funds that got me into politics, and I am beginning to suspect that orphan funds will keep me here.
  Who owns the assets? The Consumers Association argues that the assets should be treated as an exercise of demutualisation, and that they should be paid out to the current shareholders or policyholders. I am reluctant to do that, because the orphan funds have been built up over generations, and they would be paid out over only one generation of fundholders.
  There is a strong argument for the shareholders having access to the orphan funds. I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry is currently holding discussions with companies about what should be done with the funds. Alternatively, it could be left to the courts. It was ultimately the courts that decided that the surplus in occupational pensions should be seen as deferred pay. In that way, the matter was resolved.
  What could companies do with the extra assets? They could pay extra dividends, help to fund acquisitions or help to expand the business. What is unacceptable is that the funds have been used to pay for pensions mis-selling. We are again asking those who have no responsibility to foot the bill.
  I saw another problem when reading a press release from the Prudential insurance company. It refers to the company's appointed actuary. I understand that the duty of a company actuary is to represent the interests of the policyholders. The current Prudential actuary, Peter Nowell, has significant shareholdings and share options with the company. I believe that, even if declared, his interest as a shareholder is contrary to the interests of the policyholders. I ask the Institute of Actuaries to look at that because it is unsatisfactory.
  Where do we go now? One of the largest and most respected companies is and continues to be one of the worst offenders. We have the unresolved situation of orphan funds being used to pay for the mis-selling, which is inappropriate. It is obvious that we need better and clearer information. We can look for benchmarking. If we look to see whether the insurance industry has learnt anything, the evidence is not encouraging.
  A total of 1 million free-standing additional voluntary contributions have been sold, with an investment of about £4.5 billion. Recent newspaper reports suggest that we
  742
  may be looking at compensation claims of up to £675 million, affecting some 50,000 to 70,000 people. How did free-standing AVCs come about? There were people in occupational pension schemes who could have paid AVCs into their own schemes, but who were encouraged to look at free-standing ones. It was argued that free-standing AVCs were preferable to company AVCs because of their portability, wide investment choices and privacy. They were also said to be convenient for people who move jobs.
  In October 1998, Bacon and Woodrow said that the advantages of free-standing AVCs over in-house AVCs were "largely illusory". Something that was never mentioned on free-standing AVCs was that the salesman received commission. That was an unmentioned major advantage.
  The major players in the selling of free-standing AVCs were Allied Dunbar, Pearl and Prudential. It was said earlier that companies making home visits may be thought to give better and more appropriate advice. That fact does not seem to be borne out if we look at the companies involved in free-standing AVCs. The companies that may be most implicated in selling inappropriate free-standing AVCs may be some of those companies making home visits.
  Free-standing AVCs are not suitable for many people. For example, schemes such as those for the armed forces have high accrual rates, and those in the pension schemes quickly run up against Treasury limits. The industry feels that the area where one might find most mis-selling is where the trustees of a pension scheme have arrangements with a company to supply AVCs on special terms but the salesman does not pass on those special terms. The individual involved may have heard the name of a company and thought that it was a good deal without looking at the small print. I am not suggesting that the inappropriate sale of free-standing AVCs in any way comes close to pension mis-selling, but it is a clear indicator that the industry is not listening or learning.
  The average return on an in-house AVC is 10 to 15 per cent. higher than for a free-standing AVC. Over 10 years, we could be talking about the equivalent of one year's premiums. So not only are the theoretical advantages largely illusory, but the financial returns do not come up to scratch. Any person considering free-standing AVCs in the future should be provided with clear information about how they compare with in-house AVCs. The trustees of occupational pension schemes could pay more attention to that issue, and provide clearer advice.
  We are told that the industry is learning, that it is becoming more transparent and open. That has to happen if it is to deal with this. However, this week I saw a statement on personal pension PEPs from NPI. I compared it with a statement issued six months ago. The earlier statement was clear—it showed what was paid in, the current value and how the investment was performing. In fact, the returns on the policy involved meant that it was now worth less than the amount that had been paid in over 18 months.
  Surprise, surprise, over the six months, the statement format had been changed. The categories and boxes had changed, and it took a great deal of leafing through to work out that the value had dropped. If we want to educate people so that they can make informed choices, we must be up front.

  743
  One of the biggest illusions about pensions is that there is a risk-free pension investment. Whether it is the Government, private industry or whatever, pensions involve risk. Unless we give people appropriate information, which we are not doing now, they cannot make choices on risk. The industry is still hiding facts from policyholders.
  The Association of British Insurers came to talk to a group of Members of Parliament on occupational pension schemes. I questioned one of the representatives about the Which? report which had been published a week before. That report looked at 80 personal pensions, but found none of them satisfactory and would not recommend any of them. I asked the insurance industry for its response. I was told that the Which? criteria are phoney, and that the report made bizarre statements, such as that pensions would be a bad buy if. cashed in within three years. I became angry, because it was on the very day that the Financial Times had run a huge article stating that 60 per cent. of personal pensions are cashed in within the first three years. Industry representatives therefore came to Parliament to talk to hon. Members about occupational pensions, and thought either that we do not read newspapers or that, if we do read them, we cannot match what we read with what we are being told. It shows the industry's unwillingness to be honest. Unless and until the industry is honest, there will be no faith in it.
  Some pension companies have a worse track record than others in the number of policies issued for which payments are not up to date. Although I should not say that there is a direct relationship between track records on payments and the quality of advice given, it is interesting to note that Britannic Assurance, Old Mutual, Royal and Sun Alliance, Albany Life and United Assurance have a particularly high withdrawal rate in the first few years, because people stop paying in. Perhaps such high rates show that personal pensions were not the right policies for those people.
  I very much hope that the Government's individual savings accounts will be a vehicle that allows people to build up assets. It has been interesting to see Opposition Members shake their heads and reject ISAs before the public have had a chance to give their verdict on them. Nevertheless, Radio 4 is running a wonderful competition to find a slogan to sell ISAs, and I should tell the House that the slogan "There is nothing nicer than a Government ISA" has been banned.
  Where do we go from here? I think that it will increasingly be recognised that there will continue to be a public-private relationship in pension provision, and that the insurance industry has a significant part to play in it. It is no good the insurance industry continually assuring us that people trust their personal adviser but mistrust the industry. Such a statement tells me only that personal advisers individually are doing a good selling job. I think that people are right to mistrust the insurance industry.
  There must be accountability and openness for people trying to build a personal pension. There must be a stage at which people of any age can ask, "How much have I built up? Will it pay for my old age? What are the likely returns?"
  People must also be aware that investments are never safe, and that we take risks. However, the current system does not allow us to take risks. As there is an interesting
  744
  selection of trustees of the parliamentary pension fund in the Chamber, I shall use myself as an example. Before deciding whether I should put everything into the parliamentary pension fund, I should know whether I will be re-elected. Therefore, in about three years, I will know what I should have done—which is clearly an unsatisfactory situation.
  I welcome the Government's continued insistence on dealing with pensions mis-selling. However, some of the industry is still in denial and is not recognising its responsibility. Moreover, as events of the past few years have shown, the industry tries always to be one step ahead and just that little bit cleverer than everyone else. It must realise that it has to work within a very robust framework, which I hope the Government will create.
  7.32 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: It is somewhat intimidating to speak after two of the House's leading experts on pensions—the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—both of whom spoke eminently good sense in a non-doctrinal manner, leaving the rest of us with a rather reduced amount to say.
  I should like to pursue the "who-who" question of who benefited from pensions mis-selling and who is now paying for it. It has been estimated that about £11 billion will have to be paid in compensation for pensions mis-selling, and it would be a useful exercise to trace where that £11 billion might have gone.
  Four categories of people or institutions benefited from pensions mis-selling, the first of which—as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said in a couple of interventions—was composed of salesmen and executives. They benefited from mis-selling, but have fled the scene. Moreover, under the current regulation system, they were not liable for those transactions. They cannot be traced, and carry no personal liability for events.
  The second set of beneficiaries comprises the companies, or some of them, that sold the pensions. They benefited from enhanced earnings, and therefore improved share prices and improved dividends. Nevertheless, there remains the fundamental question—which the hon. Member for Edgbaston pinpointed at the beginning of her speech—of where within companies the benefits accrued. Did they accrue to shareholders, or to current policyholders? Moreover, how should costs now be spread between those two groups? I shall return in a moment to the latter point.
  Other groups of beneficiaries of pensions mis-selling have not been mentioned. One major group were employers generally. As employers did not have to make contributions, companies earned 5 to 12 per cent.—a large sum. Strangely, although we attach great stigma to those who gave bad or inadequate advice, it has never been suggested that employers in either the private or public sector were reprehensible for failing to warn employees of the cost of not maintaining their occupational pension scheme.
  A fourth set of beneficiaries comprises occupational pensioners themselves. They have benefited from the fact that transfers out of occupational schemes were often made on very disadvantageous terms. Everyone with an occupational pension is therefore better off because of pensions mis-selling. They may not be aware of that

  745
  benefit or feel a sense of guilt about it, and it is almost certainly impossible to trace them, but great income redistribution among pensioners has been occurring, for which there is no account.
  The problem is that people in several of those categories can no longer be traced, so that the £11 billion cost will have to be paid by specific groups that can be identified and targeted. Although it is absolutely right that the Government should have aggressively pursued the compensation issue, and that pensioners should be compensated promptly when possible, as several hon. Members have already said, two specific categories have been forced to carry a disproportionate share of the costs.
  One of those categories is independent financial advisers. Although I do not want to labour the point—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has the largest number of IFAs of any constituency and will speak later in the debate about that issue, which has already been clearly stated—IFAs are, in some but not necessarily all cases, being punished not for mis-selling but for lack of foresight, which is the crucial distinction. The only appropriate basis for compensation would be what an occupational pension scheme would have produced for the pensioner when the private pension was sold. That principle of compensation is not being observed.
  As the hon. Member for Edgbaston eloquently said, the other category of people with whom we are concerned is current policyholders. Ministers have said that, as a matter of principle, within companies, shareholders should be carrying the cost burden of pensions mis-selling. However, it is not clear how the matter is being pursued, or whether the burden is being carried appropriately. It would be helpful if the Minister dealt with the matter in his reply.
  I do not want unduly to delay the House, but I conclude with a couple of forward-looking conclusions. Although it is easy to be wise and virtuous in hindsight, the key issue for us is to determine what lessons we have learnt from the whole sorry escapade.
  The first lesson should be the danger of dogma, and that a "one size fits all" approach to pensions was not right. Although personal pensions—which many of us have—were a good advance, and are appropriate for those who are occupationally mobile, they do not fit everyone, just as owner-occupation is not the only style of housing. I hope that we, and especially the previous Government, have learnt a lesson about such an approach.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the first conclusion, will he say whether he agrees that it suggests that, in pensions, CAT marking is no substitute for advice?
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right. CAT marking creates an expectation, at least in some people's minds, that the Government stand behind a financial product. In 10 or 15 years, perhaps there will be people who believe that they have been sold products that had an implicit Government guarantee. We can all appreciate the dangers of that.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford has led me to my second and final comment. The conclusion that we should draw from the matter is that the principles underlying financial sector regulation are complicated.
  746
  It is very difficult to strike the right balance between over-regulation and under-regulation. We have been through a phase when, arguably, financial services have been under-regulated, and the only relevant principle was caveat emptor. That is a correct principle, as people should be careful when they are buying, but we know what happens when that principle is dominant—there is dishonesty, and people lack the information to operate properly in the financial services market.
  Now, however, there is a danger of lurching in the opposite direction, with the system becoming over-regulated so that products are priced out of the market, and providers do not offer new products. We have to get the balance right. That is why it is absolutely crucial to have legislation as soon as possible on financial services regulation. That will help us to understand whether the right lessons have been learnt and the right balance struck.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, we have heard a number of constructive speeches that have drawn on the lessons of the past and sought to apply them to the present and the future. Today's debate is particularly well timed as the Government are about to embark on some enormous policy changes. The first, which has been alluded to several times today, is the long-awaited Green Paper on pensions, setting out the next generation of pension policy for Britain. We are all looking forward to that important document, particularly to see whether it includes a new design of stakeholder pensions or citizenship pensions for those such as carers who are unable to make continuous contributions.
  The second policy change, involving the new individual savings accounts or ISAs, starts next April and has also been mentioned in the debate. There are implications for ISAs as a result of pension mis-selling in the past.
  The third development in the near future, to which the hon. Member for Twickenham referred at the end of his speech, is the draft legislation in respect of the Financial Services Authority. The hon. Gentleman looks forward to reading the Bill when it is published, but it will obviously be based on the draft Bill on which there is currently consultation.
  Clearly, there are important lessons to be learned from how the regulations under the Financial Services Act 1986 operated when pensions were being mis-sold as to what should be in the next financial services and markets legislation.
  Fourthly, I should mention almost as a footnote to the debate on pensions, that a draft Bill was published for consultation over the summer on pension sharing between spouses when marriages break down and how existing pensions should be split.
  For all those reasons the timing of the debate is most apposite. However, for the Treasury Select Committee on which I am pleased to serve, the timing of the debate is slightly awry. As hon. Members will see from the Order Paper, although the minutes of evidence from hearings held over the summer are available to inform today's debate, the Select Committee report has not yet been published. Perhaps hon. Members will take it as a plug that the report will be produced very shortly. I hasten to

  747
  add that what I say now is entirely my own view and not the view of the Treasury Select Committee or the contents of its report.
  The value of the debate lies not in the apportionment of blame, although I am happy that many hon. Members accept that things went wrong and that there are lessons to be learnt. Rather it is to face up honestly to what went wrong and to identify the lessons to be learnt so that we can avoid making the same mistakes again and anticipate offshoots of those mistakes arising in future.
  It is helpful, however, to ask what went wrong and to say, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury did, that between 1988 and 1994 some 5 million personal pensions were sold in Britain. Astonishingly, more than 2 million of them need to be reviewed for the possibility of mis-selling.
  What is meant by mis-selling? According to current regulations, three criteria have to apply. First, did the seller breach a regulation requirement at the time of the transaction? In other words, was there a compliance fault? Secondly, has the buyer suffered a loss? Thirdly, was that loss caused by the seller's compliance fault? If the answer to all those questions is yes, it can be said that the pension has been mis-sold.
  So how did buyers lose out? Overwhelmingly, as the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) pointed out, the problem affected people who were persuaded to opt out or not to join or to transfer away from an occupational pension scheme, thereby usually losing the benefit of employers' contributions. The Financial Services Authority estimates that about 1.4 million personal pensions sold at that time will be found to have been mis-sold at a total cost to the financial service industry of a massive £11 billion, including the compensation paid to individuals who were mis-sold pensions and the administrative costs to the companies involved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) mentioned the actuaries Bacon and Woodrow, who estimated total costs of £22 billion, but most in the industry have difficulty with that estimate.
  On the subject of what went wrong, one has to ask where the regulators were. As Opposition Members have said, there were regulators who visited premises and inspected paperwork, yet between 1988 and 1991 when mis-selling was at its height, we heard not a word from the regulators. When research disclosed that mis-selling was taking place on a huge scale across the entire country and the regulators announced that there would be action, which eventually comprised a review with a deadline of 1996, nearly everyone missed the deadline. Phase 1 of the review should have been completed by the end of December 1996, but at that time hardly anyone had started the process. It is now likely that phase 1 will be completed by the end of this year—two years late—and only then will phase 2 reviews start.
  It is also important to recognise that the buyers who were mis-sold pensions were not the only ones affected, but that a great wrong was done to the reputation of Britain's financial services sector—in which we all take pride—as a world-beater. The industry has certainly been damaged. It is vital to complete the review, pay the compensation, learn the lessons and then to move on.
  748
  Although we are studiously avoiding apportioning blame, it is important in learning the lessons to see how the candidates for villain performed during the period in question. I intend to go through the cast of the Government of the day, the regulators, the insurance companies and their sales teams and the independent financial advisers.
  It was clearly the policy of the Government of the day at the time of the Social Security Act 1986 to shift large numbers of people from the state earnings-related pension scheme to personal pensions. Apparently, there was the attraction of cost-free pensions paid for by national insurance rebates topped up in order to look as though they would represent a better deal than SERPS. In addition to the policy aim of persuading people to leave SERPS, there was an expensive advertising campaign to persuade people to do so. I refer the House to an excellent debate on the subject on 10 May 1995 when the present Minister of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), made an excellent speech that still reads well today and was extremely prescient. I should like to borrow one reference that he made to a memorable advertisement of the day, which showed someone tied up in chains upside down, representing their existing pension provision. The advertisement said of the new personal pensions:
  "employees will be able to choose their own Personal Pension scheme instead of staying in SERPS or an employer's pension scheme."
  I accept that the Government of the day did not intend that people should be mis-sold personal pensions. It is a valid policy to want to persuade people to leave SERPS and take out personal pensions, but the unintended consequence was that lots of people were persuaded to leave occupational pension schemes in which they were well off and take out personal pensions instead.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there were occupational pension schemes in which people were not particularly well off or that were not suitable for them. It is wrong to suggest that everybody would have been better off remaining in an occupational scheme.
  Mr. Kidney: I gladly accept that. When I was explaining how people made a loss I said that it was mostly those who left occupational schemes to which their employer had made a contribution. I accept that there were advantages for some people in having a personal pension rather than being in their employer's occupational scheme.
  The final accusation against the Government of the day is that they set the regulatory framework that was intended to police the selling of pensions. The Financial Services Act 1986 established a mix of agencies and self-regulatory organisations—nine in all—which overlapped in some areas and left gaps in others on the policing of pension selling.
  I shall now leave the charge list against the Government of the day and move on to the regulators. As Opposition Members have already said, every year the regulators made their checks of independent financial advisers and companies that were selling personal pensions, looking through their paperwork and making spot checks, and apparently found nothing to comment on, even though it

  749
  is clear that there was an immense amount of pension mis-selling at the time. That is a clear failure on the part of the regulators. They failed to work in concert, resulting in overlaps and gaps in consumer protection. One memorable occasion was in 1994 when the Securities and Investments Board eventually issued its guidance, leaving the SROs to promulgate it as rules. The SROs took a further six months to convert the guidance into rules to be enforced.
  Mr. Greenway: I commend the hon. Gentleman on the accuracy of his trawl through what went wrong. I know of one firm regulated by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation that was commended in the late 1980s and had its records described as exemplary. In the post-1994 regime, even though it took time to get going, the firm was fined £200,000 for the same records.
  Mr. Kidney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for illustrating my point. I do not encourage him to take that argument too far, because the Government of the day established the regulators. When research disclosed that there was a problem and the regulators finally swung into action to stem the problem, they took years to bring matters to a conclusion—indeed, we have not yet seen the conclusion. I remind the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that the Government of the day did not give the regulators the power to impose fines on individuals, such as directors of companies, found guilty of mis-selling pensions.
  I turn now to insurance companies and their sales teams. Did an unhealthy dependence on commission payments from employers to employees contribute to the problem? Employers paid by results, paying only for sales achieved. There was pressure on employees to complete sales because their pay depended on it. How did the companies check what their sellers were doing in their name and on their behalf? Where were the internal checks on compliance?
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman describes the employment of salesmen in those days. He will recall that they were often not employed at all, but were self-employed. That was legal. Does that not suggest that the conditions under which pensions were sold in those days were very different from the conditions now?
  Mr. Kidney: I accept that. One of my hon. Friends who is no longer in the Chamber earlier made a compelling point about redundant coal miners who were trained and sent out. I accept that some of them were employees and others were classed as self-employed for taxation purposes. They had so much difficulty earning their commission that they had loans to tide them over. That would have been an added pressure to make sales.
  The last charge against the insurance companies is that they were slow to respond to the regulator's requirements for a review. In recent years whacking great fines have been imposed on the companies—not the directors, of course—for missing deadlines that were imposed on them.
  The last group in the cast are the independent financial advisers. I am a fan of IFAs and have a great deal of sympathy for their difficulties. I have met IFAs in my constituency to talk about the phase 2 review. IFAs claim
  750
  that they are responsible for half the sales of personal pensions. Some of those pensions have been found to have been mis-sold. However, their share of mis-sold pensions is very modest compared with the insurance companies.
  IFAs complained that there was not sufficiently detailed guidance in the rules when they made the sales, but they pride themselves on being—and advertise themselves as—the givers of best advice. It ill behoves them to complain if their advice sometimes fell below that standard.
  Some IFAs have been slow to respond to the request for reviews of their cases. Had there not been such a delay in dealing with the reviews, they might have found that the cost of paying the compensation years earlier would have been less. I shall not go as far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in calling them laggards, but I support the initiative that she took immediately on arriving in that post in calling in the major players in pensions mis-selling and laying it on the line to them that the Government intended to see the end of the episode.
  What lessons can we learn from those experiences? I should like to take us through some of the same cast. The first lesson for the Government is to have clear policy objectives.
  The Government of the day must also show sufficient competence in putting their policy objectives into effect, so as to avoid unwanted and unexpected side-effects. The third lesson for the Government is that it is their responsibility to set an effective regulatory framework for those objectives.
  Curiously, the Financial Services Authority is carrying out much of its work of regulation under a set of contractual arrangements with the existing regulators, because the statutory backing for its activities is not yet in place. The first lesson for the regulator is that it must have the clear chief objective of protecting consumers. We shall return to that subject when we debate the Bill that will put the FSA on a statutory footing, but as things stand it is noticeable that several of its objectives appear to have equal standing, so there is a danger that priorities will become confused. The number one objective, at the top of the list, must be the protection of consumers.
  Secondly, the FSA must have the flexibility to adjust to changing markets and new products. It is important that once the Government have legislated, there is sufficient ability, in terms of rule-making and secondary legislation, to move on from time to time and keep pace with the fast-developing market in financial services.
  My third point for the regulators has already been commented upon several times. The authority needs the power to hit where it hurts, and to hit those whom it should hurt. Compensation must be ordered to be paid by those who should pay, such as companies whose shareholders stand their loss. The authority should also be able to impose fines on those responsible, including directors and controllers of the activities of individuals. It should be able to withdraw authorisation from those who repeatedly breach the regulatory requirements.
  My final point in examining the lessons to be learnt by individual organisations is that the insurance companies need to review their policies on payment by commission. It is not for the Government to tell insurance companies how to reward their staff, but it would be right for the

  751
  FSA to say that it wanted to know precisely how they intended to do so. If there appeared to be an unhealthy reliance on commission in making up a reasonable salary for employees, it would be fair for everyone to expect the authority to pay closer attention to the activities of such a sales force. If pensions mis-selling were then found, it would be fair to expect fines to be imposed and compensation ordered. Such an approach would make most companies think carefully about the proportion of pay made up of commission.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said, insurance companies must also learn the lessons of what has gone wrong, and put in place proper internal compliance processes to check what their staff are doing—in their name—in the street and in people's homes.
  My third point for insurance companies is that it is vital for them to pay more attention to persistency rates—to how long the pension policies that they sell last. It is good business for companies to want to follow up the sales of their pensions by going back to customers and checking whether their needs have changed, and if so, selling them more business. They would then have more contented customers, who would pass on the company's name to their friends and families.
  There are three further issues, all of which have been mentioned by previous speakers. The first is that of kitemarking, benchmarking or CAT standards—CAT standing for charges, access, terms.
  Ms Stuart: I urge my hon. Friend to draw a clear distinction between kitemarking and benchmarking. They are different, and one may be less desirable than the other.
  Mr. Kidney: I shall gladly do so. The second issue is consumer education, and the third is companies' so-called orphan funds.
  I have come to the conclusion that kitemarking would be an unwise and unsafe development in personal pensions selling. Every personal pension needs to be tailored to the needs of the individual who buys it, and I do not see how kitemarks can assure buyers that the product suits their personal circumstances. If a product carries the kitemark, there is a danger that it may lead some people to believe that they have been given such an assurance.
  Benchmarking is the other side of the coin. We want to see some kind of comparison between the products of different providers. The problem is that each provider devises its own brand of product. Sometimes it seems that providers go out of their way to devise a product, and the information that they give out about it, so as to prevent comparisons between their product and someone else's.
  One challenge for the new FSA will be to work for more common standards between financial services products, to enable consumers to make informed comparisons. In furtherance of that aim, CAT standards may have a part to play in the debate. If there could be minimum components of a product, which people could be sure about, that might be of some help to consumers. It could go some way towards answering the Consumers Association's call for the new system to be a regulation of products rather than of the processes by which the products are sold.
  752
  that brings me neatly to the subject of consumer education. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, all buyers have some responsibility to take care to ensure that the product that they buy is of some value to them. That responsibility is so well established that it still has its Latin tag—caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware.
  However, buying pensions is a serious business, and I am not entirely sure that most of the public, including many hon. Members, have a full understanding of the pensions industry. We shall not be able to say to consumers, "You must take more care to inform yourselves about what pensions are available in the market," unless we also make the sellers of pension policies put their cards on the table and reveal precisely what their products mean.
  That comes back to the point that I made earlier about common information and common standards, which would enable comparisons to be made. There is a role here for the Financial Services Authority, and it is more than policing the small print; it is promoting the kind of public debate that will encourage a greater understanding of the products between which people are being asked to choose.
  Finally, we come to orphan funds. Companies are paying out billions of pounds in compensation, but where do the costs fall? Do they fall on shareholders or on the contributions made by other policyholders? Overwhelmingly, at present, it is other policyholders who pay.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said, policyholders pay their premiums and expect their money to be invested for their benefit—but they may find that it is going to pay compensation to other policyholders instead. How can that be? Companies have amassed funds bigger than the sum that would be needed to satisfy the reasonable expectations of existing policyholders. Excess funds have built up over the years which are now being used to pay the compensation.
  There is no legislative definition of what "reasonable expectations" means. There is no record of any Government intervening to disagree with a company's decision about what those "reasonable expectations" are. However, I concede immediately that every company must have a company actuary to defend the policyholders' fund, and the Government have an actuary who is available to be consulted by the company actuary about the "reasonable expectations". I believe that policyholders deserve their own champion—someone with a higher profile than those actuaries and with tougher powers to intervene.
  It is a matter of intergenerational fairness—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in last year's Budget statement—that we solve the problem, once and for all. In the case of Prudential, the problem has gone on for 150 years. How many more years will it take before we grasp that nettle?
  In summary, the pensions business has been through a decade of disaster. Innocent consumers—in their hundreds of thousands—have been sold pensions that have caused them loss. We are now many years later on, and more of those innocent buyers are still waiting for compensation than have received it. It is a stain on the reputation of the British financial services industry, and I hope that we, the legislators, will face the failings of the past 10 years honestly and fully.

  753
  As we prepare for a new pensions settlement and one powerful regulator for all financial services, it is essential that we learn the lessons of this dismal record. Only in this way can we look forward with confidence to a clean and efficient market in financial services for the next decade—nay, the next millennium.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Twice now, in an otherwise extremely well-informed and excellent debate, an hon. Member, having delivered a speech, has simply walked out of the Chamber without waiting to listen to the successor speech. On one occasion, it so happens that it was a Labour Member—on the other, it was a Liberal Democrat Member. I take the liberty of drawing this to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a general feeling that it would be a great pity if what is not merely a long-standing courtesy of the House of Commons, but also an essential aspect of the very notion of debate should be eroded without its being at all remarked upon.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not officially a matter for the Chair—it is a convention of the House. However, I have made it known privately that I feel that hon. Members should listen to the following speeches if they have taken part in the debate—particularly when they have been called early. It is bad manners not to do so.
  Mr. Kidney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is not referring to me? I have not left the Chamber, and I have no plans to do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is known that that is not so.
  The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson):Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) indicated to me why he would have to leave, so he did extend that courtesy to this side of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My memory has returned. The hon. Member for Twickenham did mention to me that because of the debate on the pre-Budget statement, he would be going to a television studio. The point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is on the record, and it should not be the practice of hon. Members to leave the Chamber after making a speech.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: It is very rare—perhaps, unfortunately, all too rare—that I find that I agree with almost every word spoken by Labour Members. The speeches from the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) have been quite outstanding and extremely well informed.
  I speak as the chairman of the all-party group on occupational pensions, a position I have held for some years. I should declare that, for some years, I was an
  754
  adviser to the British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association and the Independent Financial Advisers Association. I am also one of the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund. I have taken a long-standing interest in these matters; indeed, I am one of the guilty men who served on the Committee discussing the Financial Services Act 1986.
  It is perhaps worth saying that we should take a broad view of the situation as it relates to pensions in the UK. It is true that we now enjoy a much more favourable position than almost any other country in the world in terms of the proportion of money in pensions savings. We now have more pensions savings than those accrued in the rest of the EU.
  To a great extent that is due to the policies of the previous Government, who gave great encouragement to the acquisition of personal pensions and to savings in general. Although we are now debating a very serious issue—the mis-selling of personal pensions—it would be wrong to assume that, overall, the actions taken by the previous Government to encourage personal pensions have not contributed tremendously to our national well-being. We should put the problem in that perspective.
  There has been a lot of criticism of the Financial Services Act 1986, which has all sorts of deficiencies—some of which I pointed out at the time of its enactment. However, it is also true that we would not be having this debate about mis-selling if the previous Government had not created the offence of mis-selling. It would not exist but for that Act. In most other western countries—and most other countries in the EU—the offence does not exist.
  Ms Stuart: That reminds me of Mr. Al Fayed saying that had it not been for his honesty, the whole affair of his trying to bribe a Member of Parliament would not have come to light. It is disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to say that had it not been for the mis-selling, the previous Government would not have set up that wonderful organisation which made that practice an offence.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Lady may have misheard me. I said that there would not be an offence had it not been for the legislation. In many EU countries, there is no such legislation, and what we are debating would not be considered an offence in most other countries. That fact does not excuse what took place, which was disgraceful, and I condemn it unreservedly. For all the faults in the legislation—and there were many—it was well intentioned and went a long way towards controlling a problem which could have been a good deal worse.
  I was very much opposed to the multiplicity of regulators listed in the 1986 legislation. I made several speeches on that subject and argued that because there were far too many, that could lead to regulatory arbitrage—as, indeed, it did. The idea that we should have so many different bodies—including the Securities and Investments Board regulatory organisation itself—was a farce because people chose to be regulated by the regulator they thought would give them the easiest time.
  That was wrong, and part of the industry is to blame. The large direct sellers said that they were highly respectable and would not need regulation. They would

  755
  accept the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation or the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, but they wanted nothing to do with the rag, tag and bobtail that could be shoved into the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Association.
  It is extraordinary to note that the mis-selling which occurred under FIMBRA—the most underfunded regulator with the least resources and the greatest potential problems—was a great deal less than that conducted by those who were regulated by LAUTRO and IMRO, yet they were supposed to be highly respectable people who did not need regulating. At least that is what they told us when some of us went to see them.
  We need to put the matter in perspective. First, I wish to deal with the direct sellers—the very large companies that said that they did not need regulation because they were all so respectable. They were clearly the worst offenders. That is not surprising because, as the hon. Member for Stafford pointed out, they engaged in much high-commission activity. Indeed, many indulged in commission-only sales, so they did not have employees as such, but people who could not eat unless they sold yet another product. People employed in such a way are hungry to sell and do not necessarily act in the best interests of the person to whom they are selling. I have made many speeches to the industry and in the House on that subject and have been a consistent opponent of high-commission and commission-only sales, which inevitably tempt salesmen into abuses. That is exactly what happened.
  Labour Members have asked who pays. Their answer was right, as in most cases the policyholder pays—the people who bought the product. I declare an interest as I have two personal pension policies and I will be paying. In the case of the mutuals, no one else but the policyholders will be paying. Fortunately, the mutuals— I am a great admirer and supporter of mutuality—were less active in mis-selling than the proprietary sellers. Nevertheless, the mutuals engaged in it and to that extent their members will suffer as a result.
  In the case of the proprietaries, the hon. Member for Edgbaston was right to point out there is a problem with who pays, and whether some people should be paid from orphan funds. My view is that those funds should exist to even out variations in the market. Surely their purpose is to act as a reserve. The market can change rapidly—we have seen tremendous changes recently. In some cases, the policyholder may be looking for a lump sum on maturity to repay a mortgage, but because of a downturn in market conditions there may be insufficient funds to meet his or her expectations. Presumably he was sold the product on the basis that it would generate sufficient funds to repay the mortgage. Therefore, to the extent that the orphan funds exist, surely one of their primary purposes ought to be to contribute towards bonuses in lean times. They could be built up again when times are better. The idea that such funds should be paid out willy-nilly to shareholders has been promoted in some quarters—notably by the Prudential—but should be resisted at all costs.
  Ms Stuart: The problem with orphan funds is not merely excess profits but policies that have not been
  756
  cashed in and have accumulated. In the Prudential's case we are talking about £5 billion to £7 billion, which is a significant sum. The question is, should one generation benefit from what has been accumulated over several generations? Clearly, the funds are not being used to even things out at the moment. They are being used as a nest egg for when times are bad. When times are good they do not pay out.
  Mr. Butterfill: I entirely agree. That was the point that I was trying to make. The funds should be used to smooth things out and to meet the reasonable expectations of policyholders. That is what the actuary is supposed to ensure, but there seems to be a risk that that is not what the Prudential intends to do.
  Mr. Greenway: Surely the point is that the so-called orphan funds exist in the large insurance companies. Those are the funds that will be used to pay the compensation and that is what is happening. Whether they should be deployed in that way or more fairly, the fact is that the companies have huge resources with which to pay. The central point as regards the current controversy is that the independent financial advisory sector has no such resource. It has professional indemnity insurance, the market for which is about to collapse.
  Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend is, as ever, extremely well informed on these matters and I agree about the difference between the proprietary funds and IFAs. He is right to be concerned about the use of orphan funds for that purpose. If the directors of such companies condoned significant mis-selling for the benefit of their shareholders, those shareholders should suffer and may then exact their retribution from those who acted in that way. That is the proper and reasonable way to deal with the problem, rather than by raiding funds that have built up for generations.
  I am concerned that the problem has been made worse by some of the Government's actions. The advance corporation tax changes were an enormous raid on the pension funds. Various estimates have been made of the cost of pensions mis-selling. The Association of British Insurers estimates that it is between £8 billion and £11 billion. Even if we take the upper range, that sum would be equalled in two years by the £5 billion a year raid that the Government have made on pension funds. Let us get the picture in perspective. The biggest raiders of pension funds are on the Labour Benches. It has been suggested that the Chancellor may tax lump sums, not to mention higher rate relief. If he did so, people who rely on products to pay their mortgages would be in even greater difficulties than some of them are already.
  I am astonished at the crocodile tears shed by those on the Treasury Bench. The Government are abandoning the proposal of the former Minister of State at the Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for second-tier pensions and taking steps to attack the entire industry for short-term profit for the Chancellor, yet they express such great concern about pensions mis-selling. They are right to express concern, but let us put their actions in context.
  The Economic Secretary made an astonishing attack on IFAs which was not justified. That is not to say that some IFAs have not misbehaved. Of course, some of them mis-sold pensions and I hope that those who did so

  757
  deliberately and blatantly and who were wholly motivated by greed will not be able to practise as IFAs again. However, there are some greyer areas. Perhaps, those advisers may not have undertaken the full fact find, or they may have missed something that they ought to have noticed when giving best advice. If it was an innocent or careless mistake, the penalties should not be as great. Those who deliberately sold to people who had no means of knowing that the advice that they were being given was wrong and who encouraged people to leave occupational schemes knowing that that would be grotesquely to their disadvantage should never practise as independent financial advisers again.
  We must consider the record of independent financial advisers. The initial report by KPMG clearly showed that IFAs engaged in less mis-selling than direct sellers—the product providers. I did not find that altogether surprising, as they were professionals and were bound to make comparisons between one product and another, however inadequate those comparisons might have been.
  If we look at the results of phase 1, we find that 86 per cent. of the mis-selling was by the direct sellers—the product providers—and only 14 per cent. of the mis-selling is attributable to IFAs, despite the fact that IFAs sold 42 per cent. of the products concerned. The incidence of mis-selling by IFAs is a tiny fraction of the incidence of mis-selling by product providers. For the hon. Lady to portray IFAs as the villains of the piece was to distort the truth a little too much.
  Ms Hewitt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, and will he make it clear for the record, that my remarks referred primarily to the campaign being run by the IFA Association, and were not, as I made clear to the House, directed at every IFA?
  Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for that clarification, although it does not take us much further. In my experience—she will know that I have been involved in the industry for some years—the IFA Association has probably done more to raise standards among IFAs than almost any other body that one can imagine. Of course the IFAA is a trade association and will seek to defend its members. It would not be doing its duty by its members unless it did so.
  Let us examine some of the hon. Lady's accusations. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, IFAs do not have the cash that is instantly available to the direct sellers. Secondly, the hon. Lady said that the IFAs went to court against the regulators, as though that was some appalling act. They went to court to establish whether it should be possible for the regulator to require them to go back to people who had not complained and ask to investigate the possibility that they had mis-sold a product.
  That would be in direct contravention of the terms under which the IFAs were insured for professional indemnity. The hon. Lady knows that it was the professional indemnity insurers who were telling the IFAs that they would be in breach of contract if they behaved in that way. The only way for the IFAs to resolve that through the IFA Association was to seek a court ruling, otherwise they would be caught between a rock and a hard place.
  The IFAs did not go to court to avoid co-operating in the review or to delay the process. They went to court to clarify their legal position because they had been put in
  758
  an impossible situation by the demands of the regulator. That does not seem an unreasonable way to behave. They need to clarify the matter, as the underwriters of their professional indemnity cover are saying, "We are in an impossible position. We will be asked to pay out on terms that are clearly in breach of the contract between you, the IFA, and us, the underwriters."
  The underwriters are either refusing to give cover, which means that some IFAs cannot legally operate because they cannot get PI cover, or the underwriters are quoting such huge premiums that it is impossible for the IFA to operate. That is continuing problem which must be addressed by the hon. Lady and the regulator, in consultation with the IFAs, if IFAs are to continue to operate in the market. Clearly, as the IFAs were the least guilty of mis-selling, it is in the overwhelming interest of the public that independent advice should be available. I appeal to the hon. Lady to deal with this issue, which is vital for the industry.
  The second problem, which I shall not labour as previous speakers have outlined it, is the basis of compensation. It has always been maintained in our courts that if someone has suffered damage, the measure of damages is his actual loss, as far as it can be quantified, and it is the loss at the time that the loss occurred, not the notional loss some years later.
  Mr. Kidney rose—
  Mr. Butterfill: I give way to the learned gentleman.
  Mr. Kidney: Indeed, I was a lawyer before I came to this place, so may I tell the hon. Gentleman that the assessment of loss in a civil case is carried out at the time of the hearing, not at the time that the wrong was committed, which might have been many years earlier? That makes sense; otherwise courts would be in the absurd position of awarding sums of money that were completely wrong—far too large or far too small.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is partly right. The assessment of loss takes place at the time of the hearing, but the object is to put the plaintiff back in the position that he would have been in if the wrong had not been done. That is not what is being proposed. The present proposal is that there should be the benefit of hindsight and that the loss should be assessed regardless of the fact that the economic circumstances have changed—in particular, the yield on annuities has changed dramatically.
  The calculation of loss is a moving target, which changes enormously depending on the date chosen to assess the loss. As I mentioned earlier, in one case the policyholder would have been £2,500 better off in 1995, but because of the changes in the annuity market since then, he is now facing a £38,000 notional loss. If he gets that money, he will be substantially better off than he would have been if he had never bought the policy. Indeed, he was better off buying the policy in the first place.
  I am not sure that we should enrich people by giving them the benefit of the hindsight that we would all like to have. We would all like to own something that we could have bought, had we had the necessary information five years ago. That is surely not what the Government intend as the basis for compensation.

  759
  Several leading actuaries have examined the issue and concluded that if we proceed as the Government and the regulator propose, a large number of people will be significantly better off than they could have been if they had not taken out a particular pensions policy. As the funds of the other policyholders will generally cover the cost of compensation, we would be rewarding one group of policyholders at the expense of another, with no real justification for doing so.
  The Economic Secretary referred to the PASS initiative, which was welcome. It has assisted many IFAs to deal with the problem, but I understand that that is confined to phase 1. Phase 2 is a more difficult problem because the numbers involved are much greater. That means that the cost of carrying out all the investigations in phase 2 will be much greater, although the likelihood of mis-selling is proportionately much smaller, because the people to whom the products were sold were a great deal younger. The maximum cost will be passed on to IFAs for a much lower benefit to those who may have been mis-sold a pensions policy.
  I intend to press the Economic Secretary on the issue of mis-selling. A significant group of IFAs have got through phase 1 and it has been shown that they were not involved in any cases of mis-selling in phase 1.
  Mr. Greenway: Or very few.
  Mr. Butterfill: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale says from a sedentary position, other IFAs were involved in a few cases of mis-selling. I am particularly concerned about those companies against whom there are no complaints of mis-selling. They will be required to sift through their entire portfolio of sales for the past 10 years at enormous cost—£600,000, on average. That is a colossal sum for some small firms. One IFA told me that it would take his whole staff three years to complete the process. He said that they would not be able to do any other work and that the company would go bust but for the fact that he was prepared to support it financially through the process. This exercise will drive an enormous number of IFAs out of business when there is little likelihood of mis-selling having been proven.
  It would surely be correct in phase 2 to say that, if there are no complaints about potential mis-selling and if there has clearly been no mis-selling in phase 1, the test should be different. Will the Minister agree to the proposition that the Government should reimburse IFAs for the cost of the process if no evidence of mis-selling is found? That is another possibility: the Government could compensate IFAs for having impugned their professional integrity. I doubt that that proposition will be attractive to the hon. Lady, but it is one that I postulate.
  I am very worried about the Government's attitude to this issue. They have demonstrated an extremely aggressive attitude towards IFAs, who have been the least guilty parties in this process by a considerable margin— 86 per cent. compared with 14 per cent. That aggressive attitude leads one to believe—and my suspicions are reinforced by personal conversations that I have had with Treasury officials—that the Government do not care about the IFA market. They think that IFAs are a bit of a nuisance and would sooner that the public dealt with
  760
  direct sellers—we know that some of them are cronies of the Prime Minister—particularly if they happened to be selling kite, CAT or some other product.
  I am concerned that the Government are exhibiting a cavalier attitude towards IFAs. I am equally concerned about the principle of kitemarking, which could lead to more mis-selling. I am particularly worried also about the possible abandonment of polarisation. I have long held the view—I argued to this effect in 1986 when we were considering whether there should be hybrids in terms of sales—that the public must know the status of the person selling the pensions. People must know if they are talking to a tied salesperson who can put his hand on his heart and say, "I am telling you what I am telling you, but I am the paid sales representative of company X". In those circumstances, people would know exactly where they were and how much weight to put upon his or her advice.
  When people deal with IFAs, they know that IFAs should—if they are doing their job properly—look at the whole range of the market, identify the product that is best for the individual and make an informed expert choice on the customer's behalf. If we have a hybrid situation, whereby people sell the products of five or six companies, sellers are neither IFAs nor single tied agents. Let us look at the situation where hybrids exist. In Australia, for example, the results have been disastrous. A small group of hybrid sales organisations now dominate that market. They are very large, they have forced everyone else out and there is no expert information available to consumers. That toleration of hybrid sales is one of the reasons why there has been more mis-selling of pension products in Australia than anywhere else.
  8.44 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: There has been remarkable consensus and great expertise displayed in the debate so far. I plan to continue the former, but I doubt that I can add to the latter. There is not a great deal left to say about this subject, and I sympathise with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) who commented much earlier in the debate that all the issues had been covered.
  However, in talking about the problems that have arisen as a result of the changes introduced by the Conservative Government, it is important to dwell briefly on the impetus for that change. I was one of those who pushed very hard to open the whole pensions issue. Pension transfer values were diabolical: if one's career was not entirely in one company, one was ripped off completely when it came to pensions transfers. We needed to open up the market so that people could provide for themselves. In fact, more and more people were becoming financially astute and wished to provide for themselves.
  I think that the impetus for change in the pensions area has benefited this country—as is recognised by the £600 billion under management, which, as has been pointed out, is the largest sum by a long chalk in the whole European Union. It will cushion us against potential problems that could arise as a result of the greying of the population—which was another impetus for changing the whole pensions regime.
  As so much money has gone into the pensions industry in the form of savings, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who described the past 10 years as a "decade of disaster". Eleven billion

  761
  pounds is a huge sum, but I think that we should put the matter in perspective and compare it with the £600 billion that is under management.
  Angela Knight, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury under the previous Government, was a very valuable member of the House and she did much to encourage financial companies to focus on and address the pensions mis-selling issue. I am concerned that, when Labour came to government, it raised the temperature by criticising the very companies that it is looking to to provide second pensions and ISA products. That sort of aggressive relationship with the private financial sector does not help when the Government are clearly relying on it to supply new products.
  As many hon. Members have said, it is recognised that there are problems in the pensions area. I shall not repeat them all, other than to say that that problem is recognised in the biggest and the smallest companies. An insurance broker in Beckenham, who briefed me about the problem as it relates to his company, acknowledged in a letter to me that files
  "must be reviewed and where losses have occurred as a result of advice given not to join occupational pension schemes then redress should be available. Likewise where members have been opted out of their employer scheme and losses occurred as a result redress should be given."
  There is agreement throughout the industry that the matter must be dealt with, and I am pleased that phase 1 will be completed, in essence, by the end of the year.
  As many hon. Members have said, the bone of contention lies with phase 2. I am struck by the role that hindsight has played in this debate. It is clear, with hindsight, that there should have been a much tighter regulatory regime and that we should have examined the financing arrangements much more closely. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the problem is that we are dealing with the real world, real people and the real circumstances that prevailed when they bought their pensions.
  The Economic Secretary, if I understood her correctly, said that the regulatory regime under the Financial Services Act 1986 was not what it should have been, which is precisely the point that many of us are making. We cannot expect people such as independent financial advisers, who, while funded to carry on their business, do not have access to the huge reserves that the large companies have, to be able to guess what hindsight would tell them about the regulatory regime that they needed to act under when they were selling their policies. I was interested in a simple statement that the Independent Financial Advisers Association made before the Treasury Select Committee when it gave evidence on 25 June. It said:
  "The review is fast becoming a process to ensure no one loses money, in any circumstances, rather than a review of mis-selling."
  When the Economic Secretary called in aid the Association of British Insurers rather than the IFA Association, it was interesting to note that the ABI, in much more restrained language, made exactly the same point in its briefing to Members for this debate. The association states that phase 2 will be completed when
  "various factors such as the complexity of loss assessment, its interaction with the availability of actuarial resources and the degree of accuracy required"
  are understood. If the ABI is making that point, the IFA Association, which is making the same point in a much more clear and direct way, deserves some sympathy.
  762
  Beckenham is not known as a hive of commercial or industrial activity. However, I have quoted one insurance broker and I have been impressed by the number of IFAs who have come to me with great feeling about the issue that we are debating. I shall outline one company's problem. Its senior partner is its greatest earnings getter. The company specialises in employee and executive benefits. The partner has a client list of blue chip companies, many of which are in the new industries whose age profile is of necessity young. He has done no business getting for the past two years because he has been engaged entirely on the review. In addition, the company has had to hire outside consultants to a current cost of £80,000.
  When phase 2 comes through and if the current annuity rates apply to the pensions that the senior partner's company has sold to younger people, the cost could be £1 million, and that equals bankruptcy. It is an IFA with no complaints against it.
  It cannot make economic sense for a senior partner not to be getting any business. That is why I add my plea to those made by all those who have asked the Economic Secretary and the Treasury to look again at the regime for phase 2. No one is asking for it to be withdrawn. We accept that there is mis-selling, and if there is mis-selling, compensation is due. However, we need to ensure that those IFAs which have done a good job and which complied in their understanding of what the regulations were at the time should be able to continue in business.
  In the spirit of slight mischievousness I throw in the thought that if current annuity rates can be used for reviews calculated now, and given that there will be delays, will the rates return to the level at which they stood at the time when pensions were sold, bearing in mind the announcements made today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of increased public spending? Therefore, is it not in the interests of everybody to examine whether the regime for phase 2 is the best and most effective way in which to deal with pensions mis-selling?
  8.55 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I again remind the House of my many interests in these matters. I shall painstakingly go through them because there is a point to be made on each one. I have worked in the insurance industry since 1970. I am still an elected member of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. The council has had to give up its status as an authorised body under the Financial Services Act 1986. For reasons which the Minister knows, the council's future is in dispute. One of the factors in having to give up its status was the complexity of the work involved in carrying out the phase 2 review and the resources required if it was to be done properly. That is a telling point for the House to consider. If one of the authorised bodies feels that the cost of carrying out the review is so great that it has to hand the job over to the Financial Services Authority, no wonder small independent financial advisers feel constrained by the potential cost.
  I am a director of a major insurance broker and independent financial adviser, which purchased the company which I started in 1973. It did so three or four years ago. Sadly, I owned very little of it by then. Its headquarters are in Harrogate, the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).

  763
  I think that it would be helpful to share with the House what has happened to us. We were fined£4,000 along with most other IFAs because of the delay on phase 1. We gave all our phase 1 cases—all 39—to an out-sourcing actuarial service, which proceeded to do nothing with them because all its efforts involved sorting out the insurers. We brought them back in-house and we have put them all right. We expect to be in order by the end of this year. We think that there are possibly eight or nine cases to compensate.
  We think that we have about 150 transfer cases in phase 2, the majority of which are compliant. Until we examine them all in detail, we cannot be sure. We have 7,000 IFA clients, 2,700 personal pension policy holders and only two cases where there was an opt-out to buy a personal pension. I cannot say how typical we are but I suspect that we are typical of most of the really professional IFA firms. The sadness is that in some elements of the IFA sector—as in the employed sector, to which the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) referred—a great deal was left to be desired on standards of training, competence and the quality of advice.
  The industry has put much of that behind it. To be authorised now, one must be professionally qualified, and the industry can be proud of that. Those who are left, particularly in the IFA sector, to clear up what needs to be done have put themselves through the professional mill. They have achieved their financial planning certificate. A great many have gone further and achieved the advanced FPC and are members of the Society of Financial Advisers. We are dealing now with an independent financial advisory industry that is considerably more professional and committed than the whole industry was when much of the mis-selling that we are discussing took place.
  In an earlier intervention, I declared my interest as a chairman of the Federation of Insurance and Investment Intermediary Associations, of which the IFAA is a member. That is an unpaid post, but I am a paid adviser to the Institute of Insurance Brokers, for which mis-selling is not a huge problem. As the Economic Secretary knows, we have much greater concerns about dealing with the future of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, and I hope to talk to her soon about that.
  I want to correct two points that the Economic Secretary made earlier. If there has been misapprehension on her part or misunderstanding of what the IFAA has been trying to do, this is the opportunity to put that right. We are not saying that there is not a problem to resolve in phase 2—clearly there is a problem. We are asking the hon. Lady to recognise that the problem in phase 2 is fundamentally different from that in phase 1.
  Phase 1 will be completed by Christmas with, perhaps, a few exceptions in the IFA networks. I ask the hon. Lady to be kind and understanding to them. I do not belong to an IFA network and I have no brief for them, but I know that they have spent a great deal of money on phase 1.
  The problem is that the on-going cost of regulation and remaining in business means that many smaller IFAs have joined networks to stay in business. The chief executive of the Personal Investment Authority, Colette Bowe, encouraged many to do so. Much of the mis-selling that the networks are now dealing with occurred before the
  764
  firms were part of the networks, which is why there has been a delay. I hope that there will not be more unnecessary fines because they simply deplete already hard-pressed resources.
  I want to suggest to the Economic Secretary a way in which the problem of phase 2 can be resolved. Time does not allow me to go into detail. Many speakers have put their finger on the problem, but they have not suggested a solution. The solution lies in the way in which the financial viability test can be conducted.
  The test allows the IFA to examine files to find out whether the advice given at the time was correct and reasonable. That involves examining the quotation—the basis of the projections on which it was made is a key factor—to find out whether it was based on reasonable assumptions of growth. Most quotes were based on assumptions of growth within the range of 8 to 12 per cent. At the time, the market was achieving 25 per cent. growth as a norm. Of course, that has changed. If the assumptions were reasonable compared with the information from the scheme where there had been a proposed transfer, that should be adequate for the purposes of the phase 2 review.
  Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend makes a point about the information from the scheme. I am sure that he will agree that many scheme trustees and actuaries gave misleading information because they saw an opportunity to get rid of some of their liabilities and gave an assessment of the value that was lower than reality.
  Mr. Greenway: That is true. There is a problem in some cases because schemes merely sent a cheque, so there is no other information, and there is disparity between what it cost to transfer out of the scheme and what it cost subsequently to transfer back in. That is all old territory and we accept that.
  I suggest to the Economic Secretary that the problem lies in the insistence by the Financial Services Authority and the PIA that if—
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: In a moment. I want to make an important point. The regulator is saying that if the financial viability test reveals that the advice was reasonable, the policyholder should still be sent a questionnaire asking him to recall exactly what was discussed at the time. We understand why: in those days, the standard of record-keeping was not so high and we did not have the detailed files that we have now. PI insurers have taken great exception to the questionnaire because they see it as an admission of guilt—a confession that there might be something wrong. Of course, that wholly undermines the legal basis on which the PI insurance was underwritten and generally predicated.
  In many cases, it will be clear from a simple look at the financial viability test that the advice given was bad and that compensation is due. However, it will speed the phase 2 process considerably if we have the financial viability test without the questionnaire, or perhaps with a questionnaire that is phrased rather more sensibly than the one now proposed.

  765
  I ask the Economic Secretary to consider two other crucial points. First, in suggesting that the arrangements for phase 2 should be marginally different from those for phase 1, we are not saying that phase 1 was wrong. It is not our intention to criticise the way in which phase 1 was conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I have had this argument many times. I have always taken the view that under phase 1, the majority of cases were clearly going to require compensation. As I have said in the House before, I am appalled that so many insurance companies accepted much of the business in question. They must have known that it was wrong for them to do so.
  Phase 2 is quite different. Many of the problem cases are transfers. The House passed the primary legislation that provided the opportunity to transfer, so Parliament must have thought that it was a worthwhile exercise. In effect, however, to judge by the way in which it seems that phase 2 is likely to be conducted, it is almost inevitable that almost all the transfers will be non-compliant. That cannot be right. We are not in denial; we are simply asking whether things can be done fairly and sensibly.
  The second point involves the serious problem of professional indemnity insurance. No one has yet mentioned the Rothschild Assurance plc v. Collyear judgment, which was passed on 29 September. I am not surprised that no one has referred to it because these are very technical matters. That judgment effectively says that it is in order for an IFA to give a blanket declaration to his PI insurer. Until that judgment, PI insurers were refusing to accept blanket declarations. The consequences of what has now happened are extremely dire.
  Our business faced a threefold increase in its premium. We managed to make our own blanket declaration before the end of October and negotiated a better arrangement elsewhere, but only with a £25,000 excess on each and every claim. That is now commonplace in the market. If we are not careful, we shall find that IFAs, whether or not they survive the phase 2 review, will be driven out of business because they cannot afford the PI cover. The cover that they have is not adequate, and it may well prove unacceptable to the regulator because the excess is too great in relation to the total volume of business.
  We have to restore some stability to a collapsing professional indemnity insurance market. That is why resolving the problem of the questionnaire in respect of the financial viability test is utterly crucial. The PI insurers have taken grave exception to the questionnaire, but I hope that in the few weeks that we have left before the phase 2 process starts—we are not asking for it to be delayed—we can find an acceptable solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said that the Association of British Insurers is still not satisfied with the detailed arrangements, a point which it made to the all-party insurance and financial services group only two weeks ago, at our previous meeting.
  I plead with the Economic Secretary to sit down and discuss this. She may not realise what her diary secretary has done today, but it has been agreed that the Independent Financial Advisers Association will see her on 19 November. We must find a solution which the ABI, IFAs, PI insurers, her Department and the regulator can live with. I believe passionately, and agree wholeheartedly with those who feel strongly about this, that we must resolve the matter as quickly as we reasonably can,
  766
  but that means that the arrangements must be practical, sensible and workable. They could be, but, at the moment, they are not.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I wanted to take part in the debate because I believe that a major injustice is being inflicted, especially on independent financial advisers, on some insurance companies and possibly on a great many policyholders.
  Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I make it clear from the outset that people who were genuinely mis-sold pensions need compensation, and we must all support any moves towards that. To provide adequate and fair compensation, without destroying many independent financial advisers and without penalising other policyholders, the review must be fair. I believe that it is not.
  I shall outline some ways in which the review is unfair, both in its concept and its application. There is an automatic assumption that pensions were mis-sold; indeed the title of the debate is "Personal pensions mis-selling". The letter that companies are forced to send to their clients is headed "Your Pension: Were you badly advised?". Mis-selling is presumed to have taken place, before the company has even had a chance to get a response from its clients. It is assumed to be guilty in every case, without those cases having been proven.
  Consideration of how the process starts perhaps explains what I am getting at. The client does not approach the company with a complaint, as is the case in every other walk of life. The company, as we have heard, has to write to all its clients, in a prejudicial way, inviting them to request a review of a policy which they may have been totally happy with.
  That process not only undermines companies and the industry, which is not in the best interests of the public, but is grossly unfair and against the spirit of natural justice. Companies are required to badger their clients into requesting reviews, even though many of them have shown, and will show when contacted, that they have no interest at all in such reviews.
  Once a request for a review has been received, the review begins and firms are, in the words of the Economic Secretary's letter to hon. Members dated 14 October, required to put matters right if they have broken rules in force at the time of giving advice, and if the investors concerned have suffered financial loss. In my view, however, the rules which prevailed at the time the advice was given were not rules at all—they were guidelines.
  People in large companies were employed to sell pension plans, although, as I said in an intervention, that is not strictly true because they were self-employed and existed on that basis with the blessing of the regulator and the Inland Revenue. They were not taken on as advisers, nor as consultants; they were salesmen who often worked on a commission-only basis, and were rewarded when they made sales and fired when they did not. There are differences between the way in which people were allowed to operate at that time and the stricter conditions that they now have to work under.
  The practice of best advice was introduced in 1986, but if the regulator had been serious about ensuring that best advice was given he should have introduced a

  767
  professional qualification for financial services at that time. I understand that such a qualification exists now, but it was barely a requirement for the selling of insurance products during the period covered by the review— 1988–94.
  It is therefore questionable whether the rules referred to in the Minister's letter were broken. It is my submission that, 10 years on, it is virtually impossible to assess exactly what advice was given, and even more difficult to judge that advice against the background and the economic conditions that prevailed at that time.
  A judgment on whether a pension was rightly or wrongly sold should be made against growth rates at that time and not against current rates. A personal pension plan sold in 1988 may have appeared to all concerned far more attractive an investment than it does now, especially given the raid that the Labour Government have made on ACT credits.
  The advice given during the period in question was somehow supposed to take into account factors that could not have been known at the time. The decisions taken at the time must be put in context. It is not right to penalise someone for giving the best advice at that time, even if it did not turn out to be correct. It is a long-standing principle of British justice and democracy that legislation should not be retrospective. It is not fair to judge the sales of pensions in the 1980s against the standards and penalties that apply in the 1990s.
  Even if it were possible to look back 10 years accurately, a financial comparison cannot be made. The review must compare the actual and stated provision offered by an occupational pension scheme with the likely benefits of a personal pension plan. However, that is not a comparison of like with like. Growth rates have fallen from their 1988 level; personal pension plans may compare less favourably with occupational schemes at today's level. But what if growth rates increase over the remaining life of the pension plan? How would the two then compare? It is impossible to say, so it is impossible to satisfy the second requirement in the Minister's letter— that a financial loss must have been suffered by the investor before compensation is payable.
  The only time such a judgment can be made is when the person retires and draws on that pension. A comparison made in any other way is pure guesswork, and is unfair to the firm and possibly to the policyholders. It is like accusing someone of murder when the victim has not yet died.
  That is especially so during the second phase of the pension review, which considers the cases of younger people. Younger people may have 30 years to go before they claim their pension. How on earth can an estimate be made of what their pension will be worth in 30 years' time? What about the effects of inflation? Younger people will not stay in one job—as people did years ago—and that will have an impact on the value of an occupational pension. Personal pension plans are flexible in that they are linked to the person, not the job. Occupational schemes, for all their merits, are not.
  Are charges for a transfer from one occupational scheme to another to be taken into account when assessing the relative values? Are they judged separately for every person for whom the review is being carried out?
  768
  Precisely how has that been carried out? How do the regulators know to which company individuals are likely to transfer, or for how long they will stay in their present job, to which the occupational pension is linked?
  A further consideration when making a comparison between occupational and personal pensions is the viability and sustainability of occupational schemes. Some schemes, which could be called in-out schemes, have recently come under pressure, and their continued funding puts pressure on the resources of the services provided by the organisations that run them. The teachers' pension scheme and the police pension scheme are two such examples. Are those carrying out the review able to judge the financial and non-financial aspects of the respective schemes? I suggest that that is impossible.
  What about the other benefits that a private pension plan offers which are not merely financial? Such benefits include the flexibility that such a plan offers, allowing policyholders to draw their pension at any time between the ages of 50 and 75. How many occupational pension schemes offer that degree of flexibility?
  Provision for early retirement is now threatened in a number of these in-out schemes. Is allowance made for that when calculating the respective worth of occupational schemes and private pension plans?
  What about the death-in-service benefit comparisons? People dying in their 20s would undoubtedly have more money credited to their estates from occupational schemes than people in private schemes; but people dying in their 50s could have accumulated far more capital in private schemes than they would have in occupational schemes. How have the regulators assessed that factor?
  Not only is it difficult to assess whether the rules have been broken, and whether a policy holder has suffered a financial loss; it is difficult to assess who should pay compensation for any mis-selling that may have occurred. We have heard various views on who should pay, but all the larger companies will do is pass on any compensation payments that they make, or any fines that they pay, to the with-profits policy holders. Companies' ability to do that is unfair on the small independent advisers whom the industry itself advises people to consult in preference to single companies. Independent advisers have no one to whom they can pass on costs; in such circumstances, they will simply go out of business.
  I ask the Government to look at the way in which the second phase of the review, in particular, is being conducted. All that I have said so far relates to the past, but I would add that the financial services industry is extremely important to the country. If people lose faith in it, that will be to their great detriment. I urge the Government to ensure that such a thing does not happen again, by stating that a recognised professional qualification must be obtained before anyone is allowed to become involved in the industry. Let me stress the need to protect the innocent companies that have worked so hard for so many years, so that they do not have to go out of business owing to a heavy-handed approach to regulation.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: One of the joys of speaking last in a debate through which one has had to sit is benefiting from the experience of other speakers. Tonight's debate has demonstrated one of the

  769
  great joys of being in the House of Commons. It was a delight to hear the speeches of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and, indeed, my neighbour the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I must add that I have no interest to declare, apart from the interests of a constituency which, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), boasts more independent financial advisers than any other constituency in Britain. I was glad to learn that it also contains the former company of the hon. Member for Ryedale.
  I listened to the debate with interest. Given the exercise in misinformation and sophistry that we have witnessed, the Government and their regulators should be congratulated on the spectacular success of their handling of the so-called pensions mis-selling review. For too long the pensions mis-selling scandal has been a convenient vehicle for the nurturing of populist tendencies and the furthering of political and regulatory ambitions, and has provided an easy target for the filling of sensational news space. The prevailing attitude has been, "Never mind the justice, just feel the self-righteousness"; there has certainly been a sense of that this evening.
  The purpose of regulation is simple: to protect the investor from the excesses of those who might seek to misguide him for personal gain. Yet, under the phase 2 procedures, the regulator has designed a process that will ensure that clients will always have a case for compensation, and the financial adviser will always be in the wrong. That approach is closer to tyranny than to regulation.
  Many of my constituents are employed as independent financial advisers or work for them, either running their own firms or as part of larger organisations, and that must apply to nearly every Member of Parliament. Along with many others, I suspect, I have received few complaints about the services that those advisers provide: in fact, I have not received one complaint since my election. Yet they provide as many as 15,000 jobs throughout the country and most of them, or many of them, are at risk if phase 2 is allowed to progress in its present form.
  It does the Economic Secretary to the Treasury no credit that her letter to Members of Parliament was so dismissive of what was a serious attempt by the IFAA to bring this subject into wider debate. If an association is not allowed to lobby Members of Parliament in the way it did, it is a sad state of affairs, although I admit that today's debate is welcome and my constituents pass on their thanks to the Economic Secretary for holding it.
  Let me assure the House that I and the people whom I represent are committed to the view that clients of independent financial advisers who have been negligently or poorly advised should receive proper compensation; that is not in doubt. There can be no argument about it. Independent financial advisers should and must be held to account, just like large companies.
  However, the process and methodology by which phase 2 is to be carried out goes far beyond what is required to provide an equitable solution to the problems. There is a danger that, in the natural desire to compensate those who were mis-sold pensions, enthusiasm is being carried to the point of trying to ensure that no one can ever lose any
  770
  money. It is much like going to the races and the bookies being obliged to give people a return even if their horse falls at the first fence.
  Yes, there was mis-selling and scandal in many of those cases that fell within phase 1 of the review: those who were close to retirement, have now retired or have even died. Rightly, those people and their families must receive proper recompense; but with phase 2, another scandal is upon us: the decimation of the independent financial adviser sector, more through the inequity and artificiality of the phase 2 review process that has been set down by the regulator and supported by the Government than by any malpractice by independent financial advisers.
  The majority of phase 2 cases are in respect of people who are under 35 and therefore have many years to go before retirement. To view those cases in the same light as those under phase 1 simply cannot be justified.
  The regulator affirms that individual cases will be judged in terms of the rules in force at the time the advice was given. If those rules were broken, the case must be reviewed to find out whether the client has suffered financial loss as a result of acting on the independent financial adviser's advice. That is reasonable, but pension transfers were transacted from July 1988 and no specific guidance as to the regulator's requirements for the handling of that type of business was issued until early 1994, after the Securities and Investments Board identified possible cases of misadvice following the KPMG investigation.
  I heard what the Economic Secretary said earlier: she dismissed those allegations. I would like her to put a paper in the Library demonstrating when the regulations were brought in, so that we can have a clear, definitive statement on that.
  The regulator's response to KPMG's investigation was to impose stringent standards, drafted with the exact knowledge of hindsight and with retrospective effect, in the pretence that those standards had existed from the outset. They had not. It is important to realise that the Financial Services Act 1986 came into effect only in 1988. As we know, it was an unfortunate coincidence that the Act was in its infancy at the very time when the pension transfer business first started to be transacted.
  There was an acceptance that all parties would require time for a "learning curve" to adopt procedures, to develop systems and to familiarise those who gave financial advice to clients with the practices required to comply with the new legislation. That, too, was right; it happens in any industry.
  That explains why, from 1988 to 1994, regulators did not find significant rule-breaking in the sectors that are now being pursued with such crusading zeal. That regulatory zeal, fortified with the certainty of hindsight, will render nearly all the cases that fall within phase 2 in breach of the rules of the time, as now defined by the regulator.
  The injustice does not end there. Having failed the now virtually impossible rule breach test, a case must be reviewed to identify whether there has been mis-selling and to quantify the amount of compensation due to the client. For the purpose of assessing whether the individual has suffered any financial loss, the regulator states that the advice can be measured by comparing the estimated benefits of retirement that the occupational pension scheme would provide with the estimated benefits from

  771
  the alternative personal pension. Both calculations should be made using projections of future growth and expectations of annuity rates such as could be reasonably deduced from the investment conditions when the advice was given. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, that is the so-called financial viability test.
  Again, that is an extremely reasonable approach—except that the regulator then imposes on the process the requirement that the client complete a questionnaire that requires the exact recall of specific events in the advice process that happened as long ago as 10 years. Most people cannot remember where they went on holiday 10 years or even five years ago, let alone recall the specific detail of the hotel bedroom or the lunchtime menu. How realistic is it to expect them to have a precise recall of every detail of the complicated process involved in reaching a decision as to whether to transfer a pension from an employer's scheme to a private pension?
  In the regulator's view, failure by the individual to give a positive response to each of the questions on the questionnaire is just about conclusive proof that the individual has been misadvised. Surely that is nonsense. If the only thing that comes out of the debate today is that the Economic Secretary drops the questionnaire from phase 2, we will have had a very successful debate.
  I am sure that most people are perfectly honest and would answer truthfully to the best of their ability—particularly Liberal Democrats. However, because of all the publicity surrounding this issue, an expectation of compensation has been built up which even the most honest of citizens might find hard to resist.
  The regulator then requires a different calculation method to be used to assess whether the individual is due compensation. That method ignores the reasonable assumptions made when the advice was given, based on the investment conditions of the time, in favour of assumptions based on current market conditions. That is a grossly inequitable approach and can have no result other than to ensure that the majority of cases that come within phase 2 are artificially deemed to be due compensation. That offends against natural justice.
  It is a fact that investment market conditions are ever changing and that future growth of the funds and annuity rates will reflect market movements, up as well as down. Recently, we have seen a significant downturn in investment markets and a steep decline in bond yields which has reduced current annuity rates to the lowest in living memory.
  On the "Today" programme on 2 November, the Chancellor boasted that one of the successes of the Government's financial policy was that annuity rates were at their lowest for 35 years. When the Minister replies, perhaps she will say whether that is deliberate Government policy. If it is, it impacts significantly on phase 2 and undermines its credibility. At some time in the future, I can see that annuities may be removed as a compulsory way of securing people's pensions if that is Government policy. It is hardly surprising that, based on current conditions, the estimated returns under personal pension plans are showing a significant shortfall compared with the figures quoted as long ago as 10 years.
  In 1988, when the first transfer cases took place, the annuity rate for a man aged 65 was 11 per cent. In 1992, the equivalent rate was 10.5 per cent., by 1994 it was
  772
  9.5 per cent. and today the rate is 8 per cent. It is mathematically simple to deduce that those who took advice in 1988 now require 37 per cent. more retirement funds to produce the same pension. The figure is 31 per cent. for those who acted in 1992 and 19 per cent. for those who transferred in 1994. That is caused not by poor advice or mis-selling, but purely by movements in the investment markets which are outside the adviser's control.
  Are we really to believe that, over the next 20 to 30 years, which are the retirement years for most phase 2 cases, investment markets will show no recovery? The approach is so fundamentally flawed and so biased against the adviser that, were the cases to be brought to a court of law, they would be unlikely to succeed. Why then should the financial services industry be expected to make compensation payments on the basis of a calculation that is arbitrary and demonstrably inequitable, and which will result in windfall payments to many who have absolutely no justifiable claim?
  If phase 2 of the pensions review is allowed to proceed in its current form, the role of financial adviser will be changed dramatically. Not only will it be expected that sound, professional financial advice should be given, but the adviser will be required, year by year, to have the ability to predict precisely movements in investment markets and to guarantee returns at any given point. In the past 18 months, the Government have failed to make such predictions. How is it reasonable to expect independent financial advisers to do so over a long period?
  Today's debate has dealt with many of the flaws in phase 2 and demonstrated the House's unanimity on the need to resolve the pensions mis-selling issue. We look now to the Government to show some sense and reason in trying to conclude the exercise swiftly and without punishing independent financial advisers who were not at fault.
  9.35 pm
  Ms Hewitt: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to our excellent debate. We have heard from at least two of the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)—
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is a trustee.
  Ms Hewitt: Forgive me; we have heard from three trustees—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] We have heard from four trustees. It is encouraging to know that the pensions of right hon. and hon. Members are in such safe hands.
  We have heard from several hon. Members on both sides of the House—including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)—who have extensive knowledge of the industry and the law. We have heard also from hon. Members—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett)—with deep constituency experience of the impact that personal pensions mis-selling has had on the lives of individuals.

  773
  Tomorrow, I shall, of course, read the full debate with interest, to ensure that I have not inadvertently overlooked any point. I shall also draw the debate to the attention of the regulators, just in case they do not look at it for themselves.
  As several hon. Members have said, much common ground has been demonstrated in the debate, and I warmly welcome it. There is clear agreement on both sides of the House that there was mis-selling of personal pensions. There is agreement also on the scale of the mis-selling, and that the mis-selling was a scandal. Moreover, there is agreement that the situation must be put right: as a matter of justice to the individuals who have lost savings and future retirement income; to ensure confidence in the industry—including independent financial advisers, who, I assure the House, will have an extremely important role to play; and to provide thereby a sound basis for people's future pensions and savings.
  I regret to say that I cannot agree with all the points that have been made in the debate. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) suggest that the progress that has been made on the review is attributable to the previous Government's actions. Although I am in no way criticising my predecessor, Angela Knight—whom I look forward to meeting in her new role—I should draw the House's attention to the facts.
  In March 1997, three months after the first deadline for priority cases had passed, only 15 per cent. of those cases had been resolved. The figure has now reached about 90 per cent. due to the tough action and the tough stance that my predecessor took and that I shall maintain. Hon. Members who welcome the progress that has been made with phase 1 must in all honesty give credit where it is due to the tough stance of the present Government, particularly my predecessor.
  I regret the suggestion by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that the Government's tough action had been motivated by political advancement or self-righteousness. I hope that I misunderstood him, but he certainly seemed to make that suggestion. The facts as I have given them make it very clear that the Government and my predecessor were motivated entirely by a determination to get the mis-selling scandal put right in the interests of consumers, who are our constituents. That is what we have done and will continue to do.
  A succession of points have been made about independent financial advisers. Several hon. Members have complained about the burden that is being placed on IFAs. Let me make it clear that there is an issue for IFAs to face up to: according to the information provided to us that we have published, three of the firms that we have been monitoring—all IFAs—have missed their targets for completing all priority cases. If we look back at the original deadline of 31 December 1997, we see that more than 600 small IFAs failed to meet their first priority target.
  Of the phase 1 cases, the FSA has estimated that, on average, an IFA will deal with 1.8 cases of personal pensions mis-selling and in phase 2 the average will be 2.1 cases. That is not a heavy burden. An IFA—an individual or a firm—who has given good advice and not mis-sold personal pensions has nothing to fear from the phase 2 review. Of course the burden is greater for those
  774
  who did not keep proper records of their business at the time or who failed to preserve such records—an action for which there is no excuse whatever. It was made clear when the extent of personal pensions mis-selling first came to light that records should be kept, and in many cases preserved indefinitely.
  Many hon. Members have suggested that the review is retrospective. Let me deal with that again in some detail. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough admitted, the regulators' review guidance specifically states:
  "It goes without saying that the question of whether a firm was at fault in compliance terms must be judged without the wisdom of hindsight."
  So let us look at the rules that were in force at the time. They obliged a regulated firm to inform itself about the client's circumstances and objectives and to give suitable advice, to give its client adequate information so as to understand the nature and effect of the recommended transactions, to ensure that the client understood the risks, and to give clear and not misleading information.
  The FIMBRA conduct of business rules that were in force at the time state, for example, that a transaction should not take place unless the adviser can satisfy himself that
  "the client understands the extent to which he will be exposed to risk".
  The rules also state quite unambiguously that the investment should suit the circumstances of the client and that the adviser should recommend the best product available for the client. The rules were and are perfectly clear in their meaning, and certainly would not extend to selling an unsuitable product to an unknowing investor.
  The hon. Members for Ryedale and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) mentioned professional indemnity insurance, on which there are serious issues. The regulators and the majority of the insurers reached an accord in January 1996 on the terms under which the review could proceed without negating IFAs' insurance. The FSA is confident that the design of phase 2 is consistent with that accord. The regulators see no case for a different approach for PI insured firms. That accord allowed firms to send revised letters and questionnaires to investors.
  The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford asked whether I was willing to meet the IFA association. Of course I am. I look forward to doing so later this month and discussing the issues with the advisers face to face. However, the point that I made in opening the debate stands—the IFAs who are dragging their feet on phase 1 must take action to complete phase 1. The sooner they get on with phase 2, the better.
  The right hon. Member for South Norfolk, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and others asked how the loss will be calculated, and suggested that it was wrong to calculate it on the basis of the situation in force at the time that the review is made. I underline the point that I made in opening the debate: whether a personal pension was mis-sold is judged by reference to the rules and standards in force at the time, but the extent of the loss, if any, must be assessed at the time that the review of the case is made.
  Conservative Members shake their heads, but they should listen. The guidance on how that should be done is based on the independent advice of senior members

  775
  of the actuarial profession. The Government Actuary has confirmed that the methodology was appropriate, and that the actuarial assumptions fell within a range that actuaries would regard as acceptable for these purposes.
  In all respects, the review process reflects the practice of the courts. If it did not, phase 2 investors who believed that they had suffered loss would have a redress in the courts that was not available to them under the regulatory action that we are ensuring. That would place a far greater burden of uncertainty on the IFAs and the firms responsible for mis-selling.
  Although losses for phase 2 cases are generally lower than for the first priority cases, they are none the less widespread and material. Extensive research conducted by the FSA in deciding how phase 2 should be conducted estimates that there are nearly 1 million transfer cases, and where there is a loss it averages £4,000; 154,000 cases of opt-outs, with an average loss ranging from £3,500 to £7,250; and up to 700,000 cases of non-joiners, with an average loss in the range £2,250 to £12,000.
  Those are significant sums. The idea put forward by one hon. Member, that £11 billion is a mere drop in the bucket compared with the total funds under management, will be of no comfort to younger investors who were ill advised and suffered loss as a result.
  Several hon. Members have suggested that there should be no immediate review for the younger investors, and that no loss should be calculated until they reach retirement age. If it is difficult to conduct a review now, eight or 10 years after the mis-selling may have taken place, it will be virtually impossible to do so when the young investors retire, by which time the IFA or firm that sold the personal pension may have merged, gone out of business, retired, died or destroyed the records.
  The suggestion is absurd, and would have the additionally damaging effect on the industry of leaving it in total uncertainty for 20, 30 or even 40 years as to the extent of the losses for which compensation might in future have to be paid. As every hon. Member will know, it is precisely the pension contributions that people make when they are young that are of the most value to them in securing a decent standard of living when they retire.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No. I gave way extensively during my opening remarks, and I still have a great deal of material to get through, and many points to which I wish to respond.
  However, perhaps I should have dealt earlier with the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which was about the PASS initiative by the Association of British Insurers. As he said, that was only for phase 1. Many IFAs are still struggling to complete phase 1, but if they need help with phase 2—no doubt many will—I certainly hope that those running the PASS initiative will consider their requests sympathetically. The issue had not been brought to my attention before.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised an important point when he made a persuasive case about the value of the present polarisation rule. That matter is being reviewed by the Financial Services Authority now. Strong arguments are made on both sides, and I want to defer judgment until the FSA has completed its work.
  776
  It has also been suggested—by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, I think—that rebate-only cases should be completely excluded from phase 2. I have no doubt that that idea will be considered by the FSA if, as the review unfolds, there is good reason for dealing differently with a particular category of case. It is far too early to make a judgment now.
  The FSA has been keen throughout to learn from the experience of the industry in implementing phase 1. Phase 2 is identical in most respects to the phase 1 procedure, with which even the Independent Financial Advisers Association says that it is now content. The exception, of course, is the way in which firms will be actively required to seek out investors and bring appropriate cases within the review.
  That is being done because the regulators know, as do the Government, that awareness of a possible pensions mis-selling will be considerably lower among younger investors than it was among those who were close to, or had already reached, retirement age when the personal pensions mis-selling scandal first came to public attention.
  It is unreasonable to suggest, as many hon. Members have, that the onus should be on those clients, those investors, to come forward, with no initiative being taken by those upon whom the responsibility must fall.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No. I have already said that I have a great deal to get through in my closing remarks, and I do not intend to give way.
  I wish to refer to the question—raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and by the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Bournemouth, West—of where the costs of pensions mis-selling fall. The insurance directorate issued guidance to insurers in October 1994 on where the costs of compensation for pensions mis-selling should fall. That guidance applies to phase 2 just as it did to phase 1 of the review. The insurance directorate of the Treasury is monitoring compliance with that guidance.
  The basic principle, which is very simple, is that the costs should be shared fairly among those parties which stood to gain from the sale of the pension. That will include both the shareholders and the policyholders in a proprietary company. In the case of mutual insurers, there is no alternative but for policyholders to be used. In the case of shareholder-owned companies, we consider it reasonable for the with-profits policyholders to bear a proportion of the costs, following the principle that they share in the good times as well as the bad, to the extent that they stood to share any profits made from the sale of pensions contracts involved—and, of course, provided that that does not lead to a failure to meet policyholders' reasonable benefit expectations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, who is extremely knowledgeable on the subject, mentioned orphan assets and inherited estates, which is a distinct— but none the less linked—issue. Our objective remains to protect policyholders in line with the normal position that with-profits policyholders should share in the whole surplus of a with-profits fund—usually in the proportion of at least 90 per cent. Any exceptions to that norm need to be carefully justified. However, the precise

  777
  circumstances of each case differ, and it is not always easy to judge where the legal ownership of these often substantial surpluses lies.
  In many cases, use of the inherited estate to meet personal pensions mis-selling costs is a sensible way to protect policyholders from immediate and severe cuts in their bonuses. However, as I have said, we will continue to monitor the way in which the costs of compensating the victims of pensions mis-selling are being met, and we will take any necessary action to protect policyholders' reasonable expectations.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) asked whether the costs should not instead fall upon the individuals who themselves sold the pensions, or who were managing the firms responsible for that mis-selling. It is important to stress that the sales managers and the sales force were often carrying out company policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth pointed out, in some cases those who were sent out to sell were placed in a quite impossible position, and it would be utterly wrong to expect the cost of compensation to fall on those individuals.
  The responsibility for compliance goes right to the top of the company. The Financial Services Authority has the power to fine individuals within firms if any of them are found responsible for systematic malpractice, although that evidence is not always easily available.
  I wish to refer to our pensions policy, which the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford made much of. The story in the Daily Mail to which he referred—as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear—has no foundation whatever. The pensions review and the stakeholder pensions proposals that we are developing are on track, and will be disclosed in the forthcoming Green Paper.
  The abolition of the payment of tax credits to pension funds is part of a reform of the structure of company taxation which is in line with our determination to secure long-term growth in the economy and to remove the perverse incentive that payable tax credits gave to companies to distribute dividends rather than retain profits for investment.
  I must end by stressing that phase 2 of the pensions review will go ahead. The Treasury and the regulators will continue to work with the industry to ensure good progress. I urge the industry to co-operate with us and the regulators, and to build on the progress that we have at long last made in the past 18 months.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Ordered,
  That Mr. Eric Clarke be added to the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  Farming
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak about the farming industry and to highlight the problems that face farmers in my constituency, who have had one of the most dismal years since the 1973 crisis.
  The north-west is the second most affected area in Britain as regards the crisis in farming. Chorley has approximately 500 farmers. They are predominantly livestock farmers, although there is some arable in the lower areas of the constituency. They have all been hit hard by the bad summer and the turndown in stock prices. A ewe costs as little as £5 on Clitheroe market today, compared with £60, 10 years ago. In the past year, five of my farmers have sold up and one has had to get rid of his entire stock of pigs for next to nothing, losing thousands of pounds. Many more farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy.
  The Tenant Farmers Association estimates that the average income of farmers has fallen by nearly 55 per cent. in the past year to just over £7,000. Most of my tenant farmers rent their land from North West Water or RJB Mining. Perhaps those companies could forgo six month's rent to allow the farmers to recover and give them a chance to keep farming, especially given some of the profits made by the utilities.
  The situation is desperate in Chorley and throughout the country. Farmers in my constituency have pleaded with the Government for help. Without drastic action to solve the crisis, we will witness the decline and perhaps the extinction of a valuable industry and a great tradition in Britain.
  I welcome the measures that the Government have taken so far to deal with the problems created by years of Conservative neglect. They have responded positively by providing agrimonetary compensation totalling £85 million in just two months and have so far retained the calf processing aid scheme to support the market for beef, which I hope will continue after November.
  The Government have supported Britain's farmers in fighting for an end to the beef ban and have met the cost of enforcement of controls on specified risk materials from cattle and sheep in 1998–99. That support is worth £35 million and has helped livestock producers.
  One of the best ways actively to repair the industry is to lend our support and back the "Buy British" campaign. It is vital that we not only restore the British public's confidence in British meat, but actively promote the sale of British produce. Today, the National Farmers Union launched its "Proud to Serve British" campaign, which was attended by my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The campaign will target catering companies by encouraging them to buy British and to demonstrate that at retail outlets with the use of promotional material. I have one of the posters here.
  One cannot underestimate the role that catering companies can play in supporting fanning. Families in Britain spend 26 per cent. of the annual food budget on eating out and turnover in catering outlets is rapidly on

  779
  the increase. In 1998, we spent £23 billion on catering and that figure is set to rise to at least £32 billion by the new millennium. However, only 50 per cent. of caterers buy their produce from a British source. We need to tackle that problem and to ensure that more caterers buy up to 100 per cent. from the United Kingdom. In the NFU's "Great British Food" survey of the general public, respondents said that they would like more British food to be served in local restaurants, cafes and pubs. Some 47 per cent. of the public state that their main reason for buying British is to support the rural economy, which the Government also support. We should build on that and make sure that everyone has the opportunity to purchase quality British produce.
  I welcome the announcement by the Ministry of Defence that it is to serve British beef to the United Kingdom armed forces. That commitment will give a boost to the industry and help to restore confidence in beef among the British public. I hope that the MOD will soon follow suit with lamb. The lifting of the ban on beef on the bone next March will be another big step on the road to recovery.
  We should now concentrate on schools, local education authorities, hospitals and other large establishments, which have a part to play in boosting the farming industry. We need a commitment from them that they will put beef back on the menu and make a concentrated effort to buy the British beef that we love.
  We must put our full weight behind the campaign to back British produce. I hope that the people of the UK will show their support. We should actively encourage the public to purchase British produce by emphasising the high standards of our products.
  I have already suggested to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should consider imposing stricter standards on imported meat and dairy produce. Often, inferior standard produce is imported and sold at a lower price. That must be stopped, by ensuring that meat and dairy produce adhere to high standards. The animal welfare standards observed in the UK should be applied to produce entering the UK market from abroad. For example, in the UK a qualified vet is required to be on hand at all slaughterhouses, but does the same rule apply in Greece and elsewhere—say, central America? What saving is made by not having to apply such strict standards in slaughterhouses there? If we applied equal controls, other countries would not be able to cut costs. We would be on an equal footing and furthermore, that would benefit animal welfare in other countries.
  If a car is imported into the UK, we are careful to ensure that it meets all safety criteria to match our British standards. Why should meat and dairy produce be any different? I hope that the Minister will consider that.
  I am disappointed by the way in which the supermarkets have acted during the crisis. It is about time that they acknowledged the vast problem. Instead of retaining the huge profits that they have been making, they should consider paying a fairer price for meat. Large supermarkets can afford to reduce their profits for the sake of a valuable industry, but instead they join together to maintain high retail prices. Soon they will no longer be able to offer the consumer a wide range of quality British products, as their greed will destroy the industry.
  780
  I welcome the fact that some supermarkets are beginning to see that. Sainsbury's, for example, now ensures that 90 per cent. of its produce is of British origin. Asda has removed New Zealand lamb from its shelves, in a move designed to boost Britain's struggling sheep farmers. I hope that Asda will pay a good price for the good quality lamb that it will sell.
  In general, however, the supermarkets refuse to pay a fair price for meat and in some cases operate like a cartel, agreeing to keep prices high. Supermarkets may claim to be in competition when they sell products at rock-bottom prices, such as a tin of beans at 7p, but I do not see any savings being passed on to the consumer on beef, pork or lamb. I want a fair price for a quality product to be paid to farmers. That will protect farmers' livelihoods and allow the continuation of the farming industry and shoppers' choice.
  Overall, I support the Government's efforts. They have acted swiftly to address the crisis in farming, and slowly but surely we are getting back on track. However, we need more support. I welcome the strong commitment to the UK farming industry and to the rural economy demonstrated in the intention to introduce market-oriented reform of the common agricultural policy.
  I hope that we can get firmer backing for British produce to give the industry a boost; further agrimonetary compensation, especially for livestock farms; and more aid for farmers to help them in the short term and to ensure that this vital industry does not collapse.
  I also welcome the support offered today by the Government to the "Proud to Serve British" campaign. The campaign is a drive to promote the quality and high standards of British farm products, and is an ideal way of restoring confidence and increasing agricultural sales. A similar campaign worked in the 1970s to counteract the worst farming crisis this century. I think that this is the way forward and will boost the industry again. I believe that farmers also have a part to play: when they need to buy a new tractor, they should also show a commitment to buying British.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I thank the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this brief debate. I shall try to express some of the real desperation that is felt by many members of the farming community in the area of Somerset that I represent. One such farmer came up to me in Kingsbury Episcopi last Saturday, as the rains came down and the floodwaters came up, to tell me about the woes of many farms in his area. A farmer from Nunney approached me during my village tour to show me the slip from Frome market, which revealed that he had gained 18p net per calf. The pig farmers in Wanstrow and Truddoxhill tell me that they are losing many pounds on every weaner that they take to market.
  It is unheard of in my experience and in that of many farmers to see every farming sector down at the same time, but that is the situation at present. It is often said that farmers are prone to crying wolf, but this time it is not a false alarm: our farmers are in desperate straits. That is backed up by the statistics. A recent survey in the south-west found that farm profits in the region are down by 79 per cent. on average. That compares with an average of 49 per cent. throughout the country. An even

  781
  more alarming study conducted by the university of Exeter revealed that the average net farming income for lowland livestock farmers in the south-west will be £100 this financial year—we are returning to the days of Thomas Hardy with that sort of figure.
  I assure the Minister that I do not think that the crisis in agriculture began on 2 May last year. There has been an on-going problem with which some Ministers have struggled manfully. They have done some of the right things, but the farming community and I would like to see more action on behalf of the farmers. First, the Government must recognise that the crisis exists not just in the upland areas but for lowland farmers as well. There is much concentration, for obvious reasons, on the upland farms and the difficulties that rural communities in those areas face. The lowland livestock farms of Somerset and the levels are not great ranches, but small, often tenant farms. As the hon. Gentleman said, those farmers are really suffering at present.
  Secondly, I believe that a basket of short-term measures could be applied at this stage. I hope that the new Minister of Agriculture will examine some of those options. As the hon. Gentleman said, those short-term measures include agrimonetary compensation, which could be applied to the lowland, as well as the upland farms. The retention of the calf scheme beyond November would be not only a good signal but a stimulus to the beef industry to believe that better times may be ahead. The rendering industry is absolutely destitute at present. There is no rendering industry, and that is causing enormous problems for many farmers.
  We must ensure that there is fair competition. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely correct in his comments in that regard. I hope that current moves will be successful in ending the beef ban, and I congratulate those Ministers who conducted the negotiations. However, we must ensure that there is fair competition with imports and that we are competing on level ground in terms of animal welfare and the quality of food imports.
  We need to get to grips with the supermarkets and the profits that they continue to make while farming in this country is going down the drain. We must ask whether those profits are acceptable. We also need to examine interest rates, which are having a disastrous effect on all manufacturing industry—and farming is no exception. Some of us would argue in favour of a particular route out of the impasse, but that problem must be addressed on a national basis.
  We can also do better in marketing United Kingdom produce. The United Kingdom generates extremely good farm produce. As for the south-west and particularly Somerset, I believe that we have some of the most wholesome and high-quality produce when compared with the produce of anywhere else that anyone cares to name. Yet I do not believe that we are marketing our produce as effectively as we could either in this country or abroad. More emphasis needs to be put on marketing.
  I hope that the Minister will not talk, as colleagues have done, about fundamental restructuring of the industry. Of course there are pressures on the industry and of course there will be fall-out from that. However, when we talk about restructuring and "increased efficiency", we may be talking about the loss of the traditional family farm and the forcing of many smaller and medium-sized enterprises into agri-business, into the large conglomerates that own
  782
  a great deal of land but employ very few people. We may be losing the high standard of animal welfare which is inherent in many good family farms, where people care about the animals that they are looking after, and encouraging the growth of mono-culture, which is something that most of would prefer not to see.
  Let us not talk about restructuring and efficiency, save the efficiency that comes from having a vibrant agricultural industry that employs local people, looks after animals well and provides for the best produce that we can produce.
  It was a great disappointment to us in Somerset when the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was not able to come to Somerset to the Royal Bath and West show. It was the first time for a very long time that Ministers had not been present at the show. That is something that I hope will be put right by the Ministry this year. I invite the Minister, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and any of his colleagues to come to Somerset to see for themselves the position in which we find our industry and perhaps learn from the experiences of so many of my constituents, who are finding life extremely difficult and are looking for help.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I shall briefly and rapidly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). He represents a constituency that hosts exclusively the Royal Lancashire show each year, which is famous and historical. He presented his case profoundly and sincerely, and offered an excellent defence of the interests of British farmers in the north-west and throughout the United Kingdom. It was commendable and I congratulate him on it.
  I shall speak exclusively about the area that I represent. Perhaps one would not think that Leigh and Wigan have rural areas where there are pig farmers, who almost exclusively are running small businesses. They are facing unfair competition. I say from my experience in Europe— tomorrow I am having discussions in Paris with the Agricultural Committee of the Council of Europe—that British pig food is quality production. It is subject to quality control and high standards, including those of animal welfare. We have higher standards than any of our continental competitors.
  I feel for our farmers. We are talking of losses of about £30 to £35 on every pig that is reared, fed and sold. Many farmers face the stark scenario of bankruptcy. I know that the Government have taken commendable initiatives on which we have congratulated them but we are faced with unfair competition that hurts British producers. That unfair competition takes the form of inferior quality products. If our farmers maintain their standards they will face, obviously, a decline in their income. They cannot understand why that should happen.
  Butchers in my constituency are also concerned—this is the supermarket argument. Everybody knows that the price of British beef or imported beef is propped up by the artificial prices and margins of other goods in the supermarket. That needs investigation by Committees of the House.
  I am astonished—I would not say that I was shocked—that no Conservative Members are present to discuss British farming interests. I cannot believe that they are so

  783
  indifferent to those interests after their party's tremendous failure at the general election. Their lack of commitment to farming is revealed by their absence this evening, and it is shameful.
  I conclude with a topical phrase—buy British. I say to absent Conservative Members that that is the British way. At their party conference they tried to use farming to demonstrate to the country that they are back on the agenda.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on the powerful and knowledgeable way in which he made his case. He spoke in great detail about the effects of the recession in agriculture on his local farmers. I listened carefully to his points and I shall respond to them in a moment.
  I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who made a similar case about the effects in Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), who made a good case about the pig industry. I am sympathetic to that case as I come from north Lincolnshire, which is a major pig-producing area.
  I acknowledge that apart from the hon. Members whom I have already mentioned, the debate is attended by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), but not a single Conservative Member. When the Liberal Democrats held a debate last Monday, Conservative attendance was also very poor. That demonstrates who has farmers' interests and those of the rural economy at heart.
  I recognise that most sectors of farming, but particularly the livestock sector, are having a difficult time. The ministerial team has been listening carefully to representations by organisations such as the Tenant Farmers Association, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley mentioned, and many individual farmers throughout the country.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledged what the Government have already done to alleviate the pressures on farming. Last winter, we provided an extra £85 million of support for the beef and sheep industries. We also absorbed £35 million of start-up charges for the cattle traceability scheme, which has helped the industry a great deal.
  I listened to my hon. Friend's points about the calf processing aid scheme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is considering that and other measures. That scheme is a two-edged sword and people in the industry have argued for its end. It must end at some point and although we concede that that will cause welfare problems, the scheme itself has caused such problems.
  I agree that one of the most important actions that we can take to restore confidence to the livestock sector is to get the ban on British beef lifted. We are in the final stages of achieving that. A tremendous amount of work has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister and
  784
  his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). That will probably be discussed at the next Agriculture Council in November. There is no doubt that lifting the ban will send the right signals to the industry.
  It is worth mentioning that one of the reasons why the livestock sector is facing such difficulties is that it faces the on-costs of specified offal removal. We must have such regulations and the extra costs because of the catastrophe of BSE, which has hit not only the beef industry but the whole livestock sector. The previous Administration made some terrible mistakes in dealing with BSE, and we are still feeling the reverberations and repercussions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley made some good points about what can be done to help the livestock sector. He mentioned the promotion of the high standards of British meat production. We accept his case and, indeed, recently held a catering seminar chaired by Lord Donoughue. Its aim was to encourage the catering industry, which is a major sector of the economy, to use more British products. We argue that case not simply because we are British, although I was moved by my hon. Friend's patriotism.
  The fact that a product is British is not enough. We argue for the use of British products on the basis of quality and welfare and hygiene standards. As my hon. Friend rightly said, our products conform to the highest standards in the world, and that fact needs to be borne in mind in the interests of fair and open competition. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh mentioned the pig industry. I understand what he said as I represent an area that is one of the centres of the British pig industry. Our British pig producers have put a great deal of effort and a great many resources into raising welfare standards and ending the sow stall and tether systems. In addition, pigs in this country are not fed meat and bone meal, as they often are on the continent.
  I must stress that the pig industry has not come to the Government asking for more subsidies—in fact, it is not subsidised. It has asked only for recognition of its high welfare and quality standards, and it is absolutely right to do so. I might have a little word of encouragement for the industry. Today, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture met the British Retail Consortium, which represents all the major retail supermarkets. It has agreed with my right hon. Friend that it will no longer stock pigmeat or bacon that comes from sow stall and tether systems or from pigs that are fed meat and bone meal. That is a tremendous step forward. As I said, this is not about being a little Englander but about fair competition.
  Of course, some continental producers produce pigmeat to the same standards as we do. That is fine; that is what fair competition is about, but it is not unreasonable for the British Retail Consortium to recognise the particularly high standards that prevail in pig production in the UK. Of course, the customer also wants high standards. The consortium also discussed with the Ministry the fact that some imported meat is packed in the UK and then marketed as British meat. It has assured us that it is going to take action in that regard, and I congratulate it on that.

  785
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley rightly said, the Ministry of Defence is sourcing 100 per cent. of its pigmeat, 50 per cent. of its bacon and—eventually—all of its beef from the UK. We shall of course use our influence on other Departments and on local government, not in an attempt to restrict trade but in order to get recognition of the high standards operated by the livestock sector.
  We have been listening to suggestions from the industry and have listened to the points made this evening. We have also been considering the various options. Of course, there are cost implications involved in any
  786
  package, and any measures have to take their place among other Government priorities when it comes to the allocation of available resources. It is the kind of case that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has made this evening, and the way in which he has made it, that influences the Government. I assure him that he can tell his farmers tomorrow that we have listened carefully to what he and his colleagues have said. I assure him that what he has said tonight will influence what happens.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Stolen Property
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what estimates he has made of the total value of church furniture, ornaments and other items that have been stolen from churches open to the public in the past 12 months. [57069]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  This is not a matter for the Church Commissioners. I understand that there is no central register kept of thefts from Church buildings in England. However, figures from the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which insures most Anglican Churches in England, show that, in 1997, 1,974 cases of theft were reported from Anglican Churches insured by the EIG in England and Scotland. The items stolen were insured for some £1.5m. These records do not show whether the church was open to the public at the time of the theft.

  Millennium Arts Festival
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Commissioners are taking to encourage the Church of England to support local schools participating in the JC2000 Millennium Arts Festival for Schools. [57476]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Although not a matter for the Commissioners, I understand from the Church of England Board of Education that a quarter of the Schools in England, many of them Church schools, have already indicated an interest in the JC2000 Millennium Arts Festival for Schools. The Church of England is actively involved, through its network of Diocesan Directors of Education, in the support of 5,000 Church of England schools in England, and many other schools have connections with their parish Church. The Board of Education expresses its support for this exciting and imaginative millennium project.

DEFENCE

  Defence Estates Organisation
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Estates Organisation for 1998–99. [58406]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following key performance targets have been set for the Defence Estates Organisation for 1998–99:

  Key Target 1:
  Establish cost of disposals (including internal costs and consultancy fees, but not works in aid) as a percentage of disposal receipts and set targets for improvement.
  440
  Key Target 2:
  Achieve gross disposal receipts of £150 million.

  Key Target 3:
  Complete transfer of title to new owner of 90 per cent. of disposals within three years of property being passed to DEO for disposal.

  Key Target 4:
  Complete initial assessment against Business Excellence Model.

  Key Target 5:
  Complete internal IIP and external customer survey and submit reports to the Owners Advisory Board, together with proposed targets for improvement.

  Key Target 6:
  Appointment of external project managers for capital works projects:

  a: 99 per cent. achievement within one month for appointments made through Term Commissions or Partnering arrangements.

  b: 90 per cent. achievement within 5 months for all appointments.

  Mr. Raymond Bristow
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the medical tests conducted on Gulf War Veteran Warrant Officer Ray Bristow of the 32 field hospital in the Royal Army Medical Corps in respect of suspected health damage arising from exposure to depleted uranium dust during the Gulf War. [57090]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence is aware that Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a US physician, is reported as having carried out tests for the presence of depleted uranium (DU) on some UK Gulf veterans, including Mr. Raymond Bristow. However, we have not yet seen details of either the tests which have been performed or the results obtained. Accordingly, the MOD cannot comment on Dr. Durakovic's reported findings.

  The MOD is well aware that a link has been suggested between possible exposure to DU and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans. However, this is only one of a number of factors which have been suggested as causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses and, pending further medical and scientific evidence, my Department is keeping an open mind on this issue.

  Any Gulf veteran who is concerned that his or her health has been adversely affected by Service during the Gulf conflict, including possible exposure to DU, is urged to seek a referral to the MOD's Medical Assessment Programme.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons in the regular battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment were born in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom, (c) the Republic of Ireland and (d) elsewhere. [57581]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Members of the Royal Irish Regiment (General Service), whose place of birth is recorded as being in the four areas specified, are detailed in the table.
  441

  Place of birth

  Number

  Northern Ireland

  348

  Remainder of the United Kingdom

  249

  Republic of Ireland

  33

  Elsewhere

  5

  Total

  635

  West Indies Guard Ship
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to alter the rules for engagement for the West Indies Guard Ship; and if he will make a statement. [57748]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are no plans to do so at present. Nonetheless, Rules of Engagement, including those for the West Indies Guard Ship, are reviewed on a regular basis in the light of changing operational circumstances.

  Chile
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he or his ministers or officials had arranged, prior to 17 October, with representatives of the Chilean Navy; when such meetings were due to have taken place and where; and if the possible purchase by the Chilean Navy of British destroyers or frigates was to be discussed. [57523]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Before 17 October, many regular and routine meetings took place between UK and Chilean officials on a range of defence matters both in the UK and Chile.

  Representatives of the Chilean Navy were scheduled to meet my officials for exploratory discussions relating to their frigate replacement programme during a planned visit to the UK at the beginning of November. This will now not take place as originally planned.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he or his ministers or officials have had with representatives of the Government of Chile since 1 May 1997; what was discussed at each such meeting; who was present; and what agreements were reached. [57524]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: I, my Ministerial colleagues, the Chiefs of Staff and my senior officials have met Chilean Defence Ministers and Commanders in Chief on 21 occasions in the UK, Chile and elsewhere since 1 May 1997.

  Discussions covered a wide range of matters of mutual defence interest, including defence exports. No formal agreements were concluded, although the two sets of annual defence cooperation talks established proposals for military assistance and defence cooperation over the forthcoming year. In addition, regular routine meetings have taken place between UK and Chilean officials on a range of defence matters.

  Helicopters (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums have been paid to farmers in Northern Ireland as compensation for livestock damaged by 442
  low-flying helicopters in each of the last 10 years; and what guidance is issued to helicopter pilots to minimise such damage. [56294]

  Mr. Spellar
  Prior to March 1994 the records relating to compensation paid out for damage to livestock by low-flying helicopters were maintained manually and to retrieve the information requested would, even if possible, involve disproportionate cost. However, figures for the total amount of compensation paid to claimants in Northern Ireland due to helicopter activity from April 1989 to March 1994 are set out.

  £

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  594,899

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  1,240,680

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  2,796,735

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  4,170,361

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  6,456,702

  For the remainder of the 10-year period computer records show compensation paid out to claimants for damage to livestock as follows:

  £

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  5,743,922

  1 April 1995–31 March 1996

  1,426,424

  1 April 1996–31 March 1997

  442,040

  1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  460,021

  1 April 1998–30 September 1999

  184,953

  The form in which the information is compiled does not indicate whether the claimants who received compensation payments were farmers. The figures also include elements of loss/damage to fencing, silage, land etc. To produce a breakdown of the individual amounts paid in each case to reflect the amount of compensation paid for animals only would again involve disproportionate cost.

  The guidance issued to helicopter pilots with regard to minimising damage applies to all pilots, regardless of where they are serving, and is highlighted at an early stage of their training. Damage to crops and livestock can be caused only by low-flying. Pilots are reminded that, when such activity is necessary, whether due to prevailing operational commitment or weather constraints, appropriate action should be taken, in particular where there is a known or perceived sensitive area—for example, hospitals, stables etc.—to minimise the impact of their actions on the local community.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters are presently in use in Northern Ireland; and how many(a) flights took place, (b) flying hours were recorded and (c) complaints were received in each of the last three years. [56379]
  443
  Mr. George Robertson
  There are currently 40 helicopters operated by the Royal Air Force, Army Air Corps and Royal Navy which have an operational tasking in Northern Ireland. Records of individual flights in the Province over the last three years are not maintained; however, 81,174 flying hours were recorded in the period concerned. These are as follows:

  Dates

  Flying hours

  1 January 1996–31 December 1996

  28,911

  1 January 1997–31 December 1997

  30,083

  1 January 1998–30 September 1998

  22,180

  Formal records on complaints about military helicopters were not kept until the beginning of 1997. In that year 749 complaints were recorded, and at the end of August in the current year, 475 complaints had been recorded.

  Surveillance Towers (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of British Army surveillance towers in Northern Ireland in (i) September 1994 and (ii) October 1998; and what plans he has to remove further towers from use in the next six months. [56394]

  Unit

  Strength

  Length of tour

  The 1st Battalion The Scots Guards

  569

  2 years—until March 2000

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  566

  2 years—until August 2000

  The 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry

  623

  2 years—until March 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  605

  2 years—until May 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  606

  2 years—until December 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)1

  609

  2 years—until March 1999

  42 Commando Royal Marines

  577

  6 months—until March 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales)

  552

  6 months—until November 1998

  The 12th Regiment Royal Artillery

  403

  6 months—until October 1998

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales—Prince of Wales Division

  545

  6 months—until December 1998

  The 39th Regiment Royal Artillery2

  277

  6 months—until January 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons) (Scottish Division)

  510

  6 months—until December 1998

  1The 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the 39th Regiment Royal Artillery, respectively the Province Reserve Battalion and me Urban Reinforcement Battalion, are fully committed to Northern Ireland, although only one company of each was deployed in the Province at 30 September 1998. The 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales, the Rural Reinforcement Battalion, is also fully committed to Northern Ireland but was not deployed in the Province at that time.

  Note:

  Figures as at 30 september 1998

  In addition, there are 6 Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, totalling 4,431 soldiers, comprising both full-time and part-time members, which are wholly committed to service in Northern Ireland. The security situation is kept under constant review and the level of Army support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary adjusted accordingly in line with their requirements. However, it is the Department's policy not to disclose details of future deployments to the Province.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the overall strength in September 1998 of British military forces in Northern Ireland broken down into numbers attached to the (i) Army, (ii) RAF, (iii) Royal Navy, (iv) RIR Home Service full-time and (v) RIR Home Service part-time. [56396]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  444
  Mr. George Robertson
  In September 1994 there were surveillance towers at 10 hilltop sites in the South Armagh area, 2 towers in Londonderry and 3 surveillance posts mounted on blocks of flats within Belfast, in October 1998 there were the same number of sites in South Armagh and Belfast, but only one in Londonderry, the other having been closed in 1995. In addition to surveillance towers, the security forces maintain a number of other structures which are used for a variety of observation purposes.

  The security situation is kept under constant review and the configuration of the military infrastructure adjusted accordingly. However, there are no plans to withdraw any of the towers from use over the next 6 months.

  British Forces (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the British Army regiments currently deployed in Northern Ireland, indicating the number attached to each and the estimated duration of their tour of duty; and if he will make a statement on planned deployment during the next 12 months providing there is no unforeseen change in the security context. [56397]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The British Army Infantry Battalions—and one Royal Marine Commando— currently committed to Northern Ireland are listed in the table, along with their strength and planned tour length:

  Strength

  Army (General Service)

  110,873

  Royal Air Force

  1,152

  Royal Navy

  321

  The Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service Full Time)

  2,627

  The Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service Part Time)

  1,961

  Total

  16,934

  1Includes the Province Reserve Battalion and the Urban Reinforcement Battalion which are fully committed to Northern Ireland although only one company of each was deployed to the Province as at30September 1998. Also includes the Rural Reinforcement Battalion which was committed but not deployed at that time

  Note:

  Figures as at 30 September 1998
  445
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Army and RIR barracks are maintained in Northern Ireland; if he will cost and itemise major works projects(a) completed over the last 12 months and (b) already under way, initiated or committed in the next 12 months. [56398]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There are currently 44 bases used by the British Army including the Royal Irish Regiment, in Northern Ireland which are occupied by a platoon or more of troops. These include bases which are exclusively military or which are shared with the RUC. It does not include RUC stations which have a token military presence, surveillance towers, observation posts, Permanent Vehicle Check Points (PVCPs), or patrol bases which were previously PVCPs.

  A continual programme of maintenance and development exists to keep the Army estate in good operational order. Within the last 12 months 7 major works projects costing £300,000 or more have been completed at a total value of £21.415m. These projects were at the following locations:

  £ million

  Location

  Cost

  Thiepval Barracks

  2.612

  Massereene Barracks (3 projects)

  13.821

  Hollywood

  2.253

  Ballykinler

  1.184

  New Barnsley

  2.545

  There are currently 29 major works projects costing £300,000 or more, with a total value of £54.696m, under way, initiated or committed in the next 12 months. These projects are at the following locations:

  £ million

  Location

  Cost

  Ballykinler (4 projects)

  4.067

  Drumadd

  0.960

  Omagh (3 projects)

  8.500

  Ballykelly (3 projects)

  3.570

  Aldergrove (4 projects)

  13.000

  Hollywood (3 projects)

  3.595

  Kinnegar

  2.500

  Thiepval Barracks (7 projects)

  14.080

  Magilligan

  3.174

  Mahon Barracks (2 projects)

  1.250

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date, and at what level, the decision was taken to permit administrative facilities at(a) Wellington Barracks, (b) Catterick Barracks and (c) other premises within his responsibility to be used for (i) answering phone calls, (ii) replying to mail and (iii) other activities associated with the campaign for the release of guardsmen Fisher and Wright; and what was the cost to public funds. [56297]
  446
  Mr. George Robertson
  The Fisher and Wright Release Group is an independent organisation which is run by former members of the Scots Guards and is not supported from public funds. The Group was not permitted the use of Army administration facilities in connection with its campaign, nor was assistance provided from any Army establishment.

  The Group consists of former members of the Regiment who are entitled to enter the Scots Guards Regimental Headquarters. They thus held their initial meetings at Wellington Barracks in 1997. The Regimental Colonel subsequently directed that these meetings should cease to take place within the Headquarters. The Group has used a P.O. Box number as a point of contact since 10 July 1997 and has not held any further meetings at the Regimental Headquarters.

  As the two Guardsmen are still members of the Scots Guards, its Regimental Headquarters has inevitably been a natural focal point for ex-Servicemen who wish to express their support for the Release Group's activities. Any telephone calls or letters that have been received for this purpose have, however, been immediately redirected to the Release Group.

  My Department has also received a number of representations both in support of and against the Guardsmen.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, Chicksands
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the refurbishment of the Priory at the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre at Chicksands; and if his Department has borne this cost. [57314]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Defence Intelligence and Security Centre (DISC) is based at Chicksands. The cost of refurbishing the Priory Officers' Mess at DISC is currently forecast at £4.731 million, and is being met by my Department.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many American visiting forces are based at the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre at Chicksands; and for what purpose. [57315]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are 10 US personnel attached to the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre at Chicksands to support training and exercises, particularly where there is a mutual US/UK interest. Some may deploy on operations where there is a combined national interest, subject to approval from the respective governments.

  Force Research Unit (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the application of exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in respect of Questions concerning expenditure and staffing levels of the Force Research Unit in Northern Ireland. [56400]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have reviewed the application of the exemption in this case and I am satisfied that this information should continue to be withheld under the terms of the Code of Practice.

TREASURY

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy retrospectively to increase the rate of capital gains tax for funded unapproved retirement schemes from 23 per cent. to 34 per cent. [58255]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This capital gains tax change is not retrospective. It is normal practice for capital gains tax reforms to apply to gains realised after the date of announcement of the changes.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue receipts by month so far this year from excise duties on tobacco; and what is his forecast for total receipts for 1988–99. [58208]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amounts of revenue receipts by month this year are as follows:

  Excise duty

  £ million

  January

  33

  February

  42

  March

  105

  April

  1,635

  May

  18

  June

  49

  July

  101

  August

  269

  September

  469

  Total

  2,721

  The total tobacco revenue forecast for 1998–99, published in the March 1998 Financial Statement and Budget Report, is £8.9 billion.

  Duty-Free Sales
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules will apply for sales on ferries of goods bought at port of loading following the abolition of duty free sales inside the European Union. [58209]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The arrangements which will apply for sales of goods on board ferries, for passengers to take away, following the abolition of intra-EU duty free sales are still being considered. The Commission recently set out, in a press release, their thinking on how the successor regime will work and the Government are giving very careful consideration to this. It is based on the existing provisions of Council Directive 92/12/EEC At the EU Excise Committee meeting on 1 October the UK reserved its position to allow time for a full appraisal of the Commission's position.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with European partners about the tax regime which will apply after the abolition of duty free sales inside the European Union. [58210]
  448
  Dawn Primarolo
  The last time that the abolition of intra-EU duty free sales was discussed at a political level with EU partners was at the ECOFIN Council meeting on 19 May 1998 where a number of Finance Ministers made it clear that they opposed any re-opening of the decision to abolish. Subsequent discussions, on the operation of the successor regime, have been at official level in the Commission chaired EU Excise Committee. Customs and Excise are also entering into a bi-lateral and multi-lateral discussions with a number of other member states to work through the detail of how a successor regime might work in practice.

  Working Groups
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the reports of the Treasury-sponsored working groups on(a) the financing of high technology companies and (b) smaller quoted companies. [58338]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  These two working groups have now reported to me and I have today placed copies of their reports in the Libraries of both Houses, and they are available on request from the Treasury's Inquiry Unit.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to veto all EU proposals regarding the harmonisation of corporation tax rates. [58204]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Direct tax is primarily a matter for Member States at national level. Decisions on European tax issues are subject to unanimity. The Government will have no hesitation in using the veto when it is in the UK interests to do so.

  Age Concern (VAT)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 43, if he will permit Age Concern, Essex to defer implementing value added tax on its home support service pending the review by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of such levies. [58089]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs are now consulting interested parties to agree the circumstances in which home support services will be exempt from VAT as charity welfare services. Charities including Age Concern, Essex should not anticipate the outcome of the consultation, but where they have paid VAT on services which are subsequently determined to be exempt, they may reclaim the overpaid tax from Customs subject to the normal rules.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Albania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance has been provided to Albania in the past five years; and what assessment she has made of its impact. [56918]
  449
  Clare Short
  UK Government assistance to Albania began in 1993 and has focused on the regulation of capital markets, rural development, health reform, good government and the development of civil society. We have also provided assistance to Albania through contributions to multilateral organisations such as the EU, and during last year's disturbances we provided significant emergency assistance.

  Early in 1997 there was a hiatus in bilateral assistance to Albania due to civil disturbances. Since then the programme has been restarted and it is focusing on strengthening governance and civil society, rural development and health reform.

  Figures for UK bilateral and multilateral assistance are as follows:

  Bilateral:

  Year

  (£)

  1998–99

  1800,000

  1997–98

  749,104

  1996–97

  1,038,000

  1995–96

  1,093,000

  1994–95

  1,153,447

  1993–94

  861,113

  1forecast

  Multilateral: (UK share)

  Year

  Total (£)

  Of which EC

  1997

  1—

  1—

  1996

  7,800,000

  5,900,000

  1995

  6,100,000

  3,900,000

  1994

  5,400,000

  3,100,000

  1993

  14,560,000

  13,100,000

  1not yet available

  We shall be assessing the overall impact of past assistance as we develop future programmes of assistance in the region.

  Cash Limits
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes will be made to the cash and running costs limits for her Department in 1998–99. [58027]

  Clare Short
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class III, Vote 1 will be increased by £12,607,000 from £1,620,700,000 to £1,633,307,000 and the running cost limit will be increased by £3,893,000 from £62,135,000 to £66,028,000.

  ODA/DFID funding allocated to renewable energy projects

  £

  1998/99

  1997/98

  1996/97

  1995/96

  1994/95

  Total

  Bangladesh

  —

  21,979

  82,972

  17,405

  —

  122,356

  China

  86,344

  49,380

  44,900

  41,275

  37,526

  259,425

  Ethiopia

  79,250

  14,518

  159,331

  65,050

  —

  318,149

  Ghana

  40,000

  36,678

  —

  —

  —

  76,678

  Honduras

  —

  —

  —

  20,230

  12,720

  32,950

  India

  42,680

  103,595

  158,810

  79,905

  25,795

  410,785

  Indonesia

  42,118

  1,387,524

  2,078,631

  979,867

  201,072

  4,689,212

  Kenya

  46,930

  46,875

  10,600

  11,300

  107,674

  223,379

  Nepal

  71,145

  46,915

  61,649

  49,188

  44,000

  272,897

  Peru

  204,830

  291,250

  90,227

  45,142

  68,726

  700,175

  450

  £

  Rollover of underspend on 1997–98 cash limit

  11,221,000

  Partial take up of running costs end of year flexibility carryforward

  1,893,000

  Outward PES transfer to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Class II, Vote 2)

  507,000

  Increase in Vote Cash limit

  12,607,000

  The increase on the running cost limit is in respect of the take up of end of year flexibility carryforward as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36, and a transfer of resources of £2,000,000 from the Unallocated subhead.

  The increases will be offset by transfers and a claim on the Reserve and therefore will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to change the 1998–99 External Finance Limit for the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [58407]

  Clare Short
  The External Finance Limit for CDC for 1998/99 will be increased by £15,000,000 from minus £15,000,000 to zero. Advances to CDC in the current financial year will total £35,919,000 equal to loan repayments by CDC, achieving net zero financing in 1998/99. The increase will be offset within DFID's existing provision and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Renewable Energy Projects
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the funding allocated for renewable energy projects for each of the last five years by country. [56928]

  Clare Short
  Developing renewable energy was part of the former ODA's energy strategy. Renewable energy then featured in the Development White Paper, as it has a clear contribution to make to our sustainable livelihoods and environmental protection objectives.

  A table listing the funding allocation for renewable energy projects over the last five years follows. This includes projects funded by Aid and Trade Provision and Joint Funding Scheme. Large scale hydro power (above 1MW) projects are not included in the table, however, as they are not covered by the accepted definition of renewable energy.
  451

  ODA/DFID funding allocated to renewable energy projects

  £

  1998/99

  1997/98

  1996/97

  1995/96

  1994/95

  Total

  Philippines

  —

  —

  23,100

  17,875

  —

  40,975

  South Africa

  46,980

  50,300

  29,156

  9,000

  —

  135,436

  Sri Lanka

  75,143

  83,333

  61,636

  117,360

  137,504

  474,976

  Tanzania

  59,765

  274,649

  153,713

  11,300

  —

  499,427

  Thailand

  241,530

  1,098,866

  957,391

  218,837

  518,774

  3,035,398

  Uganda

  79,300

  18,625

  10,600

  11,300

  —

  119,825

  Vietnam

  —

  —

  23,100

  17,875

  —

  40,975

  Zimbabwe

  99,242

  100,817

  73,141

  73,949

  32,277

  379,426

  UK

  —

  —

  64,765

  —

  110,476

  175,241

  International

  31,504

  14,363

  241,996

  373,008

  26,940

  687,811

  Total

  £1,215,257

  3,625,304

  4,083,722

  1,786,858

  1,296,544

  12,007,685

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what methods the Environment Agency record facilities which use genetically modified organisms in industrial processes and which may release these organisms in waste streams; what is the location of the facilities; and what genetically modified substances are produced. [56332]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The Environment Agency is required by section 64 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to maintain a register of waste management licences which it has issued for the recovery or disposal of waste. The register is open for inspection by members of the public free of charge. The information which must be included on the register is set out in regulation 10 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. It is not possible separately to identify from the register those facilities which dispose of waste derived from GMOs as opposed to other types of waste.

  Under separate legislation, the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 (as amended in 1996 and 1998), all premises which undertake activities with GMOs in containment are notified to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The Contained Use Regulations also require that all GMOs which have a potential to cause harm to humans or the environment are inactivated before they are disposed of. There is no explicit requirement to inactivate those GMOs which would not cause harm and which would have limited survival in the environment. However, there is a requirement that physical barriers are in place. It is HSE's experience that users of large scale facilities routinely inactivate all GMOs prior to disposal.

  There are 34 large scale facilities notified to HSE, although not all of these are necessarily undertaking large scale work at this time. A list of these will be placed in the Library of the House. Not all of these large scale facilities are for industrial production. Some undertake only research. HSE does not hold the data requested on all large scale activities undertaken. The data that are held are not in an easily retrievable form and where the substance produced is not a live GMO this falls outside of the scope of the Contained Use Regulations. Therefore, I regret that I cannot give a list of the genetically modified substances produced.
  452
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what acreage of land used as trial sites for GM crops is currently under cultivation. [57225]

  Mr. Meale
  There are approximately 717 acres of land currently under cultivation with trials of GM crops in the UK.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement in his policy regarding the need for bypasses of villages and small market towns. [56727]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our policies for management and investment in the trunk road network are set out in A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England. Traffic calming schemes can bring environmental benefits to local communities by reducing speeds and improving safety. But in some cases the volume of traffic passing through a town or village may be such that the only way of improving the environment significantly is to remove traffic by building a bypass.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has to ensure a more efficient processing of PFI projects. [56931]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department is working with the Treasury Taskforce in implementing the recommendations of the Bates Review for streamlining the Private Finance Initiative.

  Regulations have been amended to help facilitate local government PFI schemes and an explanatory note on PFI and Public/Private Partnerships in local government was issued in September. The Department has strengthened its private finance unit, which plays a central co-ordinating and advisory role. We shall continue to liaise with local government representatives and the Public Private Partnerships Programme about procedures for handling applications for revenue support.

  Sprinklers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the building regulations to require the installation
  453
  of sprinklers as a fire precaution in (a) residential accommodation, (b) schools and other education buildings, (c) offices and (d) hospitals. [57184]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The guidance given in the Approved Document to Part B on how to comply with the Requirements of Part B of the Building Regulations, which deals with fire safety, is currently under review. However, there are no plans to amend the fire safety requirements in Part B of the Building Regulations for the installation of sprinklers on buildings of this type.

  Designated Beaches
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria that have to be met before a local authority can apply for a beach to be designated under the European Bathing Directive. [57072]

  Mr. Meale
  The Bathing Water Directive defines 'bathing water' as running or still fresh water and sea water in which bathing is not prohibited and is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers. The Government also takes into consideration, as evidence that the waters are well used by bathers, the existence of facilities associated with popular bathing areas.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the privatised water companies currently providing water meters free of charge to customers who wish to transfer to a metered tariff. [57071]

  Mr. Meale
  According to the Director General of Water Services' "1998–99 report on tariff structure and charges" (a copy of which is in the Library) the following water undertakers in England and Wales provide meters free of charge to their domestic customers where they are installed in the company's preferred location: Anglian Water, Bournemouth and West Hants Water, Bristol Water, Dee Valley Water, Essex and Suffolk Water, Folkestone and Dover Water, Hartlepool Water, Mid-Southern Water, Severn Trent Water, South East Water, Sutton and East Surrey Water, Thames Water and Wessex Water.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he, other Ministers or officials of his Department have had with his Italian counterparts concerning the availability of storage capacity in Italy for reprocessing radioactive wastes to be returned from the United Kingdom. [57093]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has no record of any such discussions. I refer my hon. Friend to the Parliamentary Answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry on 10 June 1997,Official Report, column 415, and 5 February 1998, Official Report, column 787.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what communications his Department has with the relevant authorities in the countries from which the United Kingdom has imported spent fuel for reprocessing at(a) Sellafield
  454
  and (b) Dounreay, in respect of (i) the provisions to return reprocessing wastes and (ii) the capacity in each country to store returned radioactive waste. [57092]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has no specific communications on these issues, with the relevant authorities in the countries concerned.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to respond to the advice on the scope and contents of the core scientific research programme on intermediate level radioactive waste published by the Government's Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee in October. [57100]

  Mr. Meale
  Government policy on intermediate level radioactive waste, including the nature of the associated scientific research programme, will be considered when informed by the conclusions of the House of Lord's Select Committee on Science and Technology's inquiry into nuclear waste management. The advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee will be taken into account at that time.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is his Department's planned timetable for the assessment of the Environment Agency decisions on the proposed variations to BNFL's authorisations to discharge liquid and gaseous radioactive waste from Sellafield; [57103]

  (2) if he will publish the unredacted version of the PA Consulting report on the business case for the Sellafield mox nuclear fuels plant submitted to the Government by the Environment Agency. [57104]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Agency's draft determination was received today on 2 November. Requests have been received for the Secretary of State to call in the application for his own determination. These requests are under careful consideration and the Secretary of State will reach a decision as soon as he is able to do so. One of the issues raised in the call in requests, which the Secretary of State will consider, is whether sufficient information has been released into the public domain to allow consultees to comment on the application.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what consideration he will give to the health, environmental and proliferation implications of further moves towards the full operation of the British Nuclear Fuels Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant at Sellafield in his assessment of the Environment Agency' s proposed decision on the plant; [57221]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposed decision by the Environment Agency to allow the British Nuclear Fuels Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant at Sellafield to proceed to the next stage of commissioning. [57222]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The Agency's draft determination was received on Monday 2 November. Requests have been received for the Secretary of State to call in the application for his own determination. These requests are under careful consideration. In deciding whether to exercise the

  455
  statutory powers of call in all relevant factors will be taken into account. The Secretary of State will reach a decision as soon as he is able to do so.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how(a) computers and (b) CD-Roms were disposed of after the demise of Teesside Development Corporation in April. [57613]

  Mr. Meale
  Although the Teesside Development Corporation ceased its operational activities at the end of March, it continued in existence until the end of June in order to produce its final report and accounts and wind up its affairs. I understand that the Corporation disposed of its computer equipment during that final three-month period, after inviting competitive bids and having wiped clean the disks, as part of a packaged disposal of its office furniture and equipment.

  Land Use Database
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals the Government have to provide resources to councils to enable the setting up of the National Land Use Database proposed in the White Paper, Planning for the Communities of the Future; and if he will make a statement. [57416]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are committed to raising the proportion of new homes expected to be built on previously developed land to 60 per cent. over the next ten years. The National Land Use Database (NLUD) is important to the achievement of that objective.

  Comprehensive information about the amount of land devoted to different uses is not currently collected in any nationally consistent way. This new database, which my Department is developing in partnership with the Local Government Management Board, Ordnance Survey, English Partnerships and local authorities, will eventually comprise a definitive database of land use in England, in a form that can readily be kept up to date.

  For the first phase, results for which will be available in April, local authorities have been asked to provide information on previously developed sites in their area that may be available for redevelopment for new housing or other uses. This information will assist in the setting of regional targets for the re-use of previously developed land for housing, as announced in the policy document "Planning for the Communities of the Future".

  With our partners in NLUD, we have taken a number of steps to assist local authorities in providing the information. These include:
  workshops—6 workshops have been arranged across the country to discuss with local authorities practical issues about the compilation of the database;
  database—each local authority will be given a copy of a customised database, to help them in capturing the information;
  surveyors—English Partnerships will be contracting surveyors to visit each local authority to assist them in drawing up their list of sites;
  456
  Geographic Information System (GIS) tools—suppliers of GAS software to local authorities are being encouraged to develop tools to assist local authority staff to capture site boundaries in computer form;
  helpline—there is a dedicated helpline for local authorities to call if they have queries.

  In addition, we recognise the tight timetable for supply of the data and have extended the deadline to early February 1999.

  This initiative has the full support of the Local Government Association and will be an invaluable resource to local authorities in the future.

  Packaging (Recovery)
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many prosecutions of eligible companies failing to register under the terms of the packaging recovery note provisions have taken place since the scheme was introduced; [57602]

  (2) how many companies have registered under the terms of the packaging recovery note provisions in each of the years of its operation. [57601]

  Mr. Meale
  Under the provisions of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 eligible businesses have obligations to: to register with the relevant Environment Agency (Environment Agency or Scottish Environment Protection Agency) or join a registered compliance scheme, provide packaging data, and pay a fee by a specified date (1 April);
  to recover and recycle specified tonnages of packaging waste and to certify to the relevant Agency that the recovery and recycling obligations have been complied with. The obligation to recover and recycle packaging waste took effect from 1 January 1998 and evidence of compliance with the 1998 targets must be submitted by 31 January 1999.

  Obligated businesses are able to demonstrate compliance with the Regulations by obtaining a Packaging Waste Recovery Note (PRN) from an accredited reprocessor or by following the alternative approach to compliance set out in the Agencies' guidance. So far the Environment Agency has approved 191 companies as accredited reprocessors.

  The Environment Agencies have a duty to monitor compliance with the Regulations. Businesses that fail to comply with the Regulations may be subject to prosecution by the Agencies. The Environment Agency views particularly seriously the non-registration of obligated businesses. The Environment Agency is carrying out a programme of visits and follow-up inquiries to companies which it believes may need to be registered. Where this has been established, the business has registered.

  However, the Agency's announcement of 23 October, copies of which are being placed in the Library, clearly warns businesses that prosecutions will now follow after a 7 November deadline for 1998 registrations.

  In 1997 there were 3,839 businesses registered under the terms of the Regulations. In 1998 there are 3,813 registrations to date. When account is taken of the subsidiary businesses covered by the registration of a group of companies, the number of businesses covered by registration is 8,832 businesses.

  Local Government White Paper
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow local democratically elected authorities to agree alternative structures for political leadership other than those proposed in the Government's local government White Paper. [57683]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Within the 3 models proposed in the White Paper—directly elected mayor with cabinet, cabinet with a leader, and directly elected mayor and council manager—the scope for local diversity is great. If practice subsequently points up the possibility of other further valuable models for separating out the executive from the scrutiny role, the Government intend to provide for them to be available to local authorities.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the additional powers and freedoms proposed for the beacon councils to all democratically elected councils in England and Wales. [57676]

  Ms Armstrong
  Beacon councils will be a key driver in modernising local government, setting the pace of change, and acting as a test bed for new freedoms and flexibilities. The transfer of freedoms and flexibilities to other councils will be considered in the light of experience by beacons. We will consult widely before establishing the scheme for beacon councils.

  English Nature
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that no conflict of interest arises as a result of the Chairman of English Nature being also a non-executive director of a water company; and if he will make a statement. [57898]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Baroness Young was required to seek consent from the Minister to join the Board of Anglican Water. The Minister gave his consent noting that Baroness Young's predecessor combined both posts without difficulty, and there are adequate provisions for dealing with conflicts of interest in English Nature's Council's Code of Practice.

  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those organisations with which he has had discussions during the consultation on his paper, a Public Private Partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd.; and when he expects to reach his conclusions. [57915]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government published a consultation paper on their preferred option for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. on 20 October 1998 and responses to the paper have been requested by 31 January 1999. We will take account of the views expressed when reaching final decisions on the proposal early next year.

  Since the consultation paper was published there have been no discussions with interested parties on the issues raised in the paper. I have, however, given evidence to the Transport Sub Committee and propose to have a meeting shortly with representatives of the CAA and NATS Trade Unions.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the statutory bodies and agencies which receive Government funding to promote energy efficiency and (b) the level of funding each received in the last year for which figures are available. [57907]

  Mr. Meale
  In 1997–98, the Government provided funding to 6 organisations to carry out programmes promoting energy efficiency. None is a statutory body or agency. Details of the funding they received are as follows:

  Organisation

  £ million

  BRECSU (Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme)

  7.9

  ETSU (Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme)

  7.8

  EAGA Ltd. (Home Energy Efficiency Scheme)

  74.3

  Energy Action (Scotland)

  0.1

  NEA

  0.7

  Energy Saving Trust

  19.7

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department spent on the promotion of energy efficiency in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [57906]

  Mr. Meale
  The funding made available by my Department on programmes to promote energy efficiency across all sectors in the United Kingdom in the years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 is set out as follows:

  1995–96: £128.5 million

  1996–97: £116.0 million

  1997–98: £110.5 million.

  Under the government's Comprehensive Spending Review, my Department's spending on programmes to promote energy efficiency is planned to rise to a total of £222.6 million in 2001–02.

  Road Traffic Reduction
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to secure a reduction in road traffic levels over the next three years. [57710]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government made clear in the recent White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" that, in order to tackle the congestion and pollution that is caused by road traffic, we need to reduce the rate of road traffic growth. We also said that we want to see an absolute reduction in traffic in those places and streets where the greatest environmental damage is done. The White Paper set out how we plan to achieve these objectives through integrated transport policies acting at the national and local level.

  The first reports contained assessments of how, and over what time scale, our policies are expected to impact on road traffic will be produced during 1999. The Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 obliges each local traffic authority to produce a report assessing existing and forecast levels of traffic on those roads for which it is the highway authority, and the results of its consideration of whether or not to set targets for road traffic reduction on

  459
  local roads in its area. We expect local authorities to submit the first, non-statutory interim, reports in July 1999 as part of their provisional local transport plans. In the light of these interim reports and plans, analysis of the impact of other measures we are proposing on road traffic, and advice from the independent Commission for Integrated Transport which we will be setting up, we will produce our first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 on the question of national targets for road traffic reduction by the end of 1999.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of catalytic converters on the levels of plutonium in the air; what recent studies have been carried out to establish those levels; and if he will make a statement. [57226]

  Mr. Meale
  Catalytic converters are not expected to have any effect on the levels of plutonium in air. However, they do contain platinum group metals. My Department commissioned a report from the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine in 1994 on the levels of these metals in the UK environment. The report concluded that there is no evidence of risks to human health from the use of platinum group metals in vehicle catalytic converters.

  Local Authorities (Guidance)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to issue guidance to local authorities to assist them in reviewing their decision-making structures in advance of legislation to give effect to his White Paper proposals. [57781]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government welcomed the publication on 21 September by the Local Government Association of such a document entitled "Modernising Political Management Arrangements—Options within the Existing Legislative Framework".

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out for each year from 1992–93 to 1998–99 the(a) amount of RSG, (b) real value of RSG in April 1998 prices, (c) proportion of the RSG that reflects demographic and other volume changes and (d) proportion of RSG that accounts for new responsibilities. [57783]

  Ms Armstrong
  The following table sets out total Revenue Support Grant (RSG) paid to English local authorities between 1992–93 and 1998–99 in cash, and in real terms at 1998–99 values using the GDP deflator.
  460

  Revenue Support Grant (RSG)

  £ million

  Year

  RSG Cash

  RSG Real terms

  1992–93

  16,679

  19,450

  1993–94

  17,052

  19,371

  1994–95

  18,497

  20,715

  1995–96

  18,314

  19,931

  1996–97

  18,024

  19,030

  1997–98

  18,675

  19,217

  1998–99

  19,500

  19,500

  The total of all local authorities' Standard Spending Assessments (so-called "net Total Standard Spending", or "net TSS") is that portion of local authority expenditure which the Government wish to support through general grants such as Revenue Support Grant. In deciding net TSS, we take into account relevant demographic and other volume changes affecting local authority services, as well as new local authority responsibilities, the scope for efficiencies, and the amount the country as a whole can afford. Because the settlement represents our assessment of local government spending needs in the round, it is not possible to say how much has been included either for particular, or in total for, new responsibilities and other pressures.

  Area Committees
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to allow local authorities which choose to establish area or neighbourhood committees to delegate decision-making on matters concerning their locality. [57782]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Bringing councils closer to the people and empowering local communities is at the heart of our policies. We believe the new political management structures proposed in our White Paper—"Modern Local Government—In touch with the people" (Cm 4014)—will ensure councils are best able to take decision which are open, accountable, and meet the needs of all their local neighbourhoods and communities.

  Low-energy Lightbulbs
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the use of low-energy lightbulbs. [57669]

  Mr. Meale
  The energy efficiency of lighting is a significant environmental issue, given that lighting accounts for about a fifth of the electricity consumed in the UK. Research carried out for my Department suggests that there is economic and technical potential to save 32 per cent. of that energy. The Government already support a wide-ranging programme of measures, at national and European level, to encourage energy efficient lighting; and consultation is under way about further ways of delivering the potential savings.

  At a national level, our Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme provides valuable guidance to building professionals on cost-effective, energy efficient lighting measures. In addition, we are currently reviewing provisions in the Building Regulations to see, amongst other things, how standards of lamp efficacy, lighting system control and encouragement of better use of

  461
  daylight might be improved, for both new buildings and existing ones. Promotion of energy efficient lighting is carried out by the Energy Saving Trust, both through its overall "Energy Efficiency" campaign and through a new project, "Lightswitch", aimed at the non-domestic sector.

  At EU level we continue to support common and co-ordinated policy measures to provide product information, raise product standards and facilitate the procurement of energy efficient lighting products. This activity is closely informed by the Market Transformation Programme, which we run in the UK to research the trends in the market and to consult with a full range of stakeholder groups about possible measures for hastening improvements in performance. An important next phase of the action coordinated at EU level will be the introduction of mandatory energy labels for light bulbs, on which we plan to have UK Regulations in place next June.

  While continuing work of this kind to promote the uptake of more efficient lighting equipment, we shall also continue to promote general messages about using lights more efficiently, through my Department's "Are You Doing Your Bit?" campaign.

  Windfarm (Lambrigg)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will call in the planning permission granted by South Lakeland District Council for a windfarm at Lambrigg, Cumbria. [57865]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am currently considering whether the planning application should be called in. I will ensure that the hon. Member is notified of the decision as soon as possible.

  Rural Action
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received options from the Rural Action National Steering Group on the future funding of Rural Action. [58267]

  Mr. Meale
  No, but we understand that the contractor for the Rural Action National Steering Group has prepared a draft Business Plan setting out a strategy for the future of Rural Action and proposals for its funding. The draft is under consideration by The National Steering Group.

  Road Noise
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies into the potential for reducing noise from roads in residential areas he undertook during the preparation of the roads White Paper. [58245]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England confirmed that we will continue to develop noise reducing surfaces. Account was taken of recent developments in road surfacing technology but no new studies were undertaken.

  Rating Review (West Dorset)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess 462
  the effects on business in West Dorset of a rating review for non-domestic rates, conducted in 2000, but based on rental values of April 1998; and if he will make a statement. [58243]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The next non-domestic rating revaluation in England will come into force on 1 April 2000 and will be based on rental values at 1 April 1998. The revaluation will not be completed until late 1999, and therefore, it is too early to predict its effects on business in West Dorset.

  Parish Trustees
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to encourage trustees under any circumstances to act under the Local Government Act 1972, section 13(3) and section 13(4) in the absence of a direction being given by the relevant parish meeting. [58222]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The appointment of Parish trustees, who are simply the depository of the title to parish property, is a matter for the parish meeting. A judgment of the Court of Appeal has indicated that they may take steps appropriate for the protection of parish property provided that those steps are not in conflict with any direction given by the parish meeting.

  Motor Vehicles (Imports)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow an increase in the number of personal imports of motor vehicles from outwith the EU. [57938]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A public consultation began on 14 October about proposals to alter the existing arrangements for importing cars and light goods vehicles that have not been type-approved in the EU. We propose to tighten the personal import rules, so that only individuals who have lived abroad for at least 12 months, and have used the vehicle there for at least six months, will be able to use the current Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) inspection. For other non type-approved imports, we propose an end to the fixed limits on the number of vehicles of any one model that may enter service, coupled with an enhanced SVA inspection of the key safety, security and environmental standards that have to be met before the vehicle can be licensed and registered. These enhanced standards are broadly equivalent to EU type-approval but can still be applied at reasonable cost. The proposed measures are designed to improve the choice of vehicles available to consumers, whilst maintaining the safety and environmental standards appropriate for use in Britain.

  Wild Boar (West Dorset)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to eliminate feral populations of wild boar in West Dorset. [58247]

  Mr. Meale
  Whilst we are keeping the situation under review, the small numbers of animals estimated at present to be in Dorset are not believed to pose any immediate threat to health, safety or native biodiversity. Therefore, there are no plans to eradicate the animals.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running cost limits for 1998–99. [58337]

  Mr. Prescott
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, my Department's cash limits will change as follows. All references to the take-up of end year flexibility refer to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's announcement of 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 131–36.

  (i) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 1—Housing, construction, regeneration, countryside and wildlife, England—will be reduced by £9,200,000 from £1,801,539,000 to £1,792,339,000. This decrease is the result of reducing spending on private sector renewal on Section P. It will allow an increase in provision by £9,200,000 on the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 13— Ordnance Survey.

  Paragraph 5 of the introduction to the 1998–99 Main Estimate for Class VI, Vote 1 says that the Urban Regeneration Agency will surrender to the Consolidated Fund any receipts in excess of £11.6 million. The figure should have read £116 million.

  (ii) the DETP/LACAP(e) (Local Authority Capital-Environment) non voted cash limit will be increased by £3,234,000 from £924,998,000 to £928,232,000 to allow further Supplementary Credit Approvals to be issued to local authorities to enable funding of additional Cash Incentive Scheme grants. The increase results from the take-up of end year flexibility.

  (iii) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 2—Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety—will be reduced by £3,425,000 from £364,579,000 to £361,154,000. The reduction arises from the take-up of £172,000 capital end year flexibility and an increase of £36,403,000 to provide for the write-off of debt owed by the Humber Bridge Board to the Public Works Loan Board, less an inter vote transfer from this vote to Class VI, Vote 6, of £40,000,000 reflecting London Transport's responsibility for the Croydon Tramlink project.

  (iv) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 3—Environmental protection and water—will be increased by £537,000 from £334,237,000 to £334,774,000. The increase results from the take up of the £582,000 capital end year flexibility to increase grant in aid to the British Waterways Board; and an inter vote transfer of £147,000 from Class XVII, Vote 1 (Property Advisers to the Civil Estate) to increase grant in aid to the Environment Agency to pay for additional accommodation costs; offset by inter vote transfers from this vote to Class XIII, Vote 3 and Class XIV, Vote 2 for the Scottish and Welsh regional energy efficiency offices (£40,000 and £44,000); to Class XIII, Vote 3 for grant to Energy Action Scotland (£24,000); and to Class VI, Vote 5 to allow for increased Departmental running costs following the winding up of the UK Ecolabelling Board (£84,000).

  As a consequence of (iv) above, there will be an increase to the external financing limit for the British Waterways Board of £582,000 from £52,690,000 to £53,272,000. This change will enable the Board to fund urgent works on the canal network.
  464
  (v) the DETR/LGR (Local Government Reorganisation) Non-Voted Cash Limit will be decreased by £750,000 from £126,550,000 to £125,800,000, reflecting savings on the Local Government Residuary Body's borrowing approvals. This saving will be used to offset an increase outside the cash limit on Class VI, Vote 4 (Local Government and Regional Policy, England) to pay for the costs of emergency financial assistance to local authorities.

  (vi) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 5—Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration—will be increased by £2,642,000 from £437,850,000 to £440,492,000. As a consequence of the changes to the Vote, the gross running cost limit for the Health and Safety Executive has increased by £249,000 from £156,696,000 to £156,945,000 and the gross running cost limit for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has decreased by £16,000 from £603,653,000 to £603,637,000.

  The changes reflect the take-up of £2,500,000 of the available £6,000,000 capital end year flexibility as well as inter-vote transfers: from Class V, Vote 1 of £150,000 and Class IX, Vote 1 of £250,000 in respect of capital costs for the Government Offices for the Regions; from Class V, Vote 1 of £300,000, of which £249,000 will be classified as running costs, for the additional costs to the Health and Safety Commission in enforcing the Working Time Regulations; and, from Class VI, Vote 3 of £84,000 for the running costs from absorbing the functions of the UK Ecolabelling Board; offset by inter-vote transfers from this Vote to Class XIII, Vote 6 of £50,000 and Class XIV, Vote 3 of £50,000 for energy efficiency work and an increase in appropriations-in-aid of £542,000 for the Sale of PSA Services Businesses.

  (vii) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 6—Transport Industries—will be increased by £130,000 from £75,060,000 to £75,190,000. The change is a result of increases in the latest estimates of the National Bus Company pensions case legal costs. London Underground's external finance limit will be increased by £69,000,000 from £523,250,000 to £592,250,000. This relates to the take-up of £29,000,000 capital end year flexibility and an inter-vote transfer from Class VI, Vote 2 of £40,000,000 in respect of the Croydon Tramlink.

  (viii) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 11—Office of the Rail Regulator—will be increased by £120,000 from £8,800,000 to £8,920,000. This increase reflects the take-up of £120,000 capital end year flexibility. There will also be a reduction of £205,000 from £8,400,000 to £8,195,000 in running costs to be transferred to capital within the cash limit. Such additional funding will allow the scheduled maintenance and refurbishment of office space currently occupied by the Rail Users Consultative Committee (RUCC) for Scotland to proceed.

  (ix) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 13—Ordnance Survey—will be increased by £9,200,000 from £3,762,000 to £12,962,000. The increase reflects investments and expenditure necessary for Ordnance Survey to prepare for the move to a Trading Fund on 1 April 1999 and results from a transfer from the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 1.
  465
  The overall increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Trans-European Networks
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the United Kingdom schemes that(a) have received and (b) will receive funding from the European Union in respect of trans-European networks, indicating in each case (i) the

  United Kingdom transport schemes in receipt of EU Trans European Network (TEN) funding

  All figures in million ecu

  Column 1 Scheme

  Column 2 Total amount awarded to date

  Column 3 Total amount received

  Column 4 Total estimated eligible cost of scheme for TEN support

  Column 5 TEN award (Col.2) as a percentage contribution of total scheme costs (Col.4) for corresponding period

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  91.000

  71.300

  668.700

  14

  West Coast Main Line

  34.800

  24.927

  360.615

  10

  Ireland-UK-Benelux Road Link (Studies in England)

  5.400

  2.700

  24.963

  22

  RDS-TMC Implementation in the UK

  1.150

  0.575

  2.600

  44

  Newry-Dundalk cross border road link study

  0.325

  0.162

  0.325

  100

  ROADLINK Traffic Information System

  0.300

  0.150

  0.600

  50

  Aeronautical Telecom Network Implementation study

  0.745

  0.372

  1.490

  50

  European Coastal VHF Infrastructure for GMDSS

  0.125

  0.050

  3.750

  3

  Great Western Lines study (Bristol-Penzance)

  0.800

  0.400

  1.600

  50

  Pre-op. studies Automatic Dependent Surveillance/CPDLC

  0.800

  0.400

  1.600

  50

  Traffic Management studies—Wales

  0.400

  0.200

  1.100

  36

  A75 The Glen improvement

  1.300

  0.650

  13.052

  10

  UK Ports studies (1997 group)

  0.700

  0.350

  1.500

  47

  Trans Pennine Strategic Environmental Assessment study

  0.245

  0.123

  0.475

  52

  Manchester Airport Ground Interchange Phase 1

  0.500

  0

  5.453

  9

  London Luton Airport People Mover study

  0.600

  0.300

  1.230

  49

  UK Ports Rail Access Studies

  0.600

  0.300

  1.447

  41

  Ports Vessel Traffic System & VTMIS Studies

  0.500

  0.250

  1.191

  42

  Telematics & Traffic Management on the TERN

  1.000

  0.500

  4.100

  24

  Harwich Port Access & Interchange facilities

  0.500

  0.200

  5.440

  9

  Cardiff Airport Access Road study (1998 Phase)

  1.300

  0.650

  2.653

  49

  Stranraer Area Integrated Transport Package

  1.000

  0.400

  2.100

  48

  Note:

  RDS-TMC—Radio Data System-Traffic Message Channel

  GMDSS—Global Maritime Distress and Safety Service

  CPDLC—Controller Pilot Data Link Communication

  VTMIS—Vessel Traffic Management Information System

  TERN—Trans European Road Network

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  "News At Ten"
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the Prime Minister's Press Secretary regarding the proposal to change the time of "News at Ten". [57214]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: None.
  466
  name of the scheme, (ii) the amount received, (iii) the total cost of the scheme and (iv) the proportion of (iii) represented by (ii) expressed as a percentage. [57692]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The details requested are in the following table. Trans-European Network (TEN) funding is paid in stages. Therefore it is necessary to distinguish between the amount of support awarded to a scheme and the amount actually received to date. Total estimated eligible costs for TEN support for a scheme are, in the case of ongoing projects for which further bids are expected to be made in future years, for the period 1995 to 1998 inclusive, and are not whole life scheme costs.

  Spending Plans
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out his Department's spending plans in each of the next three years in 1998 prices. [57205]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The Department's spending plans for the next three years at 1997–98 prices may be found in Table A3 on page 109 of the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper (Cm 4011) published in July.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997,

  Sponsored body

  Role

  Name

  Remuneration

  Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites

  Member

  Stuart Bryan

  N

  Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  Chairman

  John Tusa

  N

  Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  Member

  Mary Rose Beaumont, BA(Hons)

  N

  Advisory Council on Libraries

  Member

  Grace Kempster

  N

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  Trustee

  Jane Sharman, CBE

  N

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  Trustee

  John Heritage Pavitt

  N

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  Trustee

  Robert Clow Esq.

  N

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  Trustee

  William Cadell

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Chairman

  Gerrard (Gerry) Jude Robinson

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Prudence Skene

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Anish Kapoor

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Antony Gormley

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Cllr. George Loggie

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Derrick Anderson

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Joanna McGregor

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Deborah Bull

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Christopher Price

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  David Brierley, CBE

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  David Waldorf Astor, CBE, FRSA

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Rod Natkiel

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Roger Reed

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Trevor Phillips

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Hilary Jane Veronica Strong

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Professor Andrew Motion

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Professor Christopher Frayling

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Professor Raymond Cowell

  N

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Professor Stuart Timperley

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Chairman

  Alan Parker, CBE

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Deputy Chairman

  Joan Bakewell

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Lord Dafydd Elis Thomas

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Alan Howden

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Eric Senat

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Gus Macdonald

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Ronnie Kells

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Simon Olswang

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Tony Elliott

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Charles Denton

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Barry Norman

  N

  British Film Institute Governors

  Governor

  Professor Brian Winston

  N

  British Library Board

  Member

  Bernard Naylor

  Y

  British Library Board

  Member

  Professor Michael Anderson

  Y

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Alan E.M. Britten, MA

  Y

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Des Wilson

  Y

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  John Jarvis

  Y

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Patrick McKenna

  Y

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Deputy Chairman

  Suzanne Warner

  Y

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Sioned Wyn Thomas

  Y

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin

  Y

  Crafts Council

  Member

  David H. Davis

  N

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Janice Tchalenko

  N

  Crafts Council

  Member

  John Buston

  N

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Paul Biddle

  N

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Jennie Moncur

  N

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Andrew Fane Esq.

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  HRH The Duke of Gloucester, KG, GCVO

  N

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Lady Elizabeth Gass, DL

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Susan Lois Underwood

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Loyd Daniel Gilman Grossman

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Bridget Cherry, FSA

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Candida Lycett Green

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Amanda Arrowsmith

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Kirsty McLeod

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Professor Eric Fernie, CBE

  Y

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  The right hon. the Lord Faringdon

  Y

  English Sports Council

  Acting Chairman

  Trevor Brooking, MBE

  Y

  English Sports Council

  Member

  Garth Anthony Crooks

  N

  468
  indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56786]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information requested is in the following
  469

  Sponsored body

  Role

  Name

  Remuneration

  English Sports Council

  Member

  Carol Gustafson

  N

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Jennifer Robson

  Y

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  David Lunn

  Y

  Geffrye Museum

  Trustee

  Philip Hedley

  N

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Member

  Baron Inge of Richmond

  N

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Member

  Dr. Simon Richard Jones, LVO

  N

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Member

  Jane Sharman, CBE

  N

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Member

  M. Herbert MA (Oxon), FCA, FRSA, CBE

  N

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Member

  Angela Heylin

  N

  Horniman Museum

  Trustee

  Professor Kenneth Gregory

  N

  Horniman Museum

  Trustee

  Professor Sir Ghillean Prance, FRS

  N

  Imperial War Museum

  Trustee

  Kate Adie, OBE

  N

  Independent Television Commission

  Member

  Alistair G. Balls, CB

  Y

  Independent Television Commission

  Member

  Sir Michael Checkland

  Y

  Independent Television Commission

  Member Wales

  Winston Roddick, QC

  Y

  Library and Information Commission

  Chairman

  Matthew Evans, CBE

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Claire Rayner

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Councillor Edwin Arram, CMA, MBIFM

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Dr. R.A. McKee BA, MA, PhD, ALA, MllnfSc, FRSA

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Dr. Sandra Ward

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Derek Law

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Mark Wood

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Grace Kempster

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Professor Judith Elkin

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Sir Charles Chadwyck-Healey

  N

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer

  N

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  Chairman

  John Lee

  N

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  Trustee

  Rajkumari Williamson

  N

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  Vice-Chairman

  Virginia Halliwell

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Chairman

  Lord Puttnam of Queensgate, CBE

  Y

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Carol Vorderman

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Catherine McKeever

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Dr. Chris Evans, OBE

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Clive Gillinson

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  David Wardell

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Dr. Bridget Ogilvie DBE, ScD

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Francois Matarasso

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Genista Mcintosh

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Janice Kirkpatrick

  N

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Trustee

  Sir Martin Rees

  N

  National Film and Television School Governors

  Governor

  John McVay

  N

  National Film and Television School Governors

  Governor

  Roger Bolton

  N

  National Film and Television School Governors

  Governor

  Tim Bevan

  N

  National Film and Television School Governors

  Governor

  Kate Wilson

  N

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Chairman

  The Hon. David D. Sieff

  Y

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member England

  Steven Howard Burkeman

  N

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member England

  Barbara Joan Lowndes

  N

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member England

  Stella Rosemary Clarke, DL, CBE

  Y

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member N. Ireland

  John Simpson

  N

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member N. Ireland

  William Bell Osborne

  N

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member N. Ireland

  Noel Stewart

  Y

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Scotland

  Ronald Edward Partington

  N

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Scotland

  Anne Clark

  N

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Scotland

  Kay Hampton

  N

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member UK

  Amanda Janet Jordan

  Y

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member UK

  Tessa Baring

  Y

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member UK

  Sir Adam Nicholas Ridley

  Y

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Wales

  Thomas Henry Jones

  Y

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member Wales

  Elisabeth Watkins

  N

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Chairman

  David McDonnell

  N

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Councillor Frank Prendergast

  N

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Dr. Janet Kear

  N

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Graham Barrie Marsh

  N

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Voirrey Elizabeth Branthwaite

  N

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Professor Preston Theodore King

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Chairman

  The Baroness Pitkeathley, OBE

  Y

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member

  Dr. Sian Griffiths

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member

  Dugald Mackie

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member

  Melinda Letts

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member

  Nita Clarke

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member

  Professor Eric James Bolton

  N

  470 471

  Sponsored body

  Role

  Name

  Remuneration

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member

  Professor John Allan Patmore, CBE

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member England

  Jill Helen Barrow

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member N. Ireland

  Roisin McDonough

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member Scotland

  David Campbell

  N

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member Wales

  Jane Hutt

  N

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Chairman

  Michael Holroyd

  N

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Member

  Claire Tomalin

  N

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Member

  Hilary Marry Mantel

  N

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Member

  Linda Hopkins

  N

  Radio Authority

  Deputy Chairman

  Michael Moriarty

  Y

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Member

  Ian Gow

  N

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Member

  Sir Jack Baer

  N

  Royal Armouries

  Member

  Richard Whiteley

  N

  Royal National Theatre

  Chairman

  Sir Christopher Anthony Hogg

  N

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Hon. Peter Benson

  N

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Michael Oliver

  N

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Joan Bakewell

  N

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Sue MacGregor, OBE

  N

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Sir Ian McKellen, CBE

  N

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Sir Thomas Stoppard

  N

  Royal Parks Ministerial Advisory Board

  Member

  Barbara Abensur

  N

  Royal Parks Ministerial Advisory Board

  Member

  Frank Constable

  N

  S4C

  Chairman

  Ifan Prys Edwards

  Y

  S4C

  Chairman

  Elan Closs Stephens

  Y

  S4C

  Member

  Cefin Campbell

  Y

  S4C

  Member

  Nic Parry

  Y

  Theatres Trust

  Chairman

  Sir John Drummond

  N

  Theatres Trust

  Member

  Martyn Heighton

  N

  Theatres Trust

  Trustee

  John Muir

  N

  Theatres Trust

  Trustee

  Yvonne Brewster

  N

  Theatres Trust

  Trustee

  Sir Stephen Harry Waley-Cohen

  N

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Chairman

  Lord Stewartby

  N

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Trustee

  John Casey

  N

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Trustee

  Patrick Finn

  N

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Trustee

  Dennis Jordan

  N

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Trustee

  Professor Norman Palmer

  N

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Trustee

  Dr. Jack Ogden

  N

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Chairman

  Sir Rodney Walker

  N

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Member

  Trevor Brooking, MBE

  N

PRIME MINISTER

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 1 September 1998, when(a) he, (b) his advisers and (c) staff in the Cabinet Office have (i) received communications from and (ii) had discussions with (1) representatives of the US Government and (2) companies with a commercial interest in the development of GMOs, in respect of genetically modified organisms, indicating the nature of such communications and meetings. [57703]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: I, Ministers, advisers and other civil servants receive representations from and meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with representatives from foreign governments and with interest groups outside Government. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available.

  The Government's position on GMOs was explained on 21 October 1998 by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, Sub-Committee D. Ministers have made it
  472
  clear that public health and the protection of the environment are the Government's first priority on GMOs. On the same day I announced the establishment of a new Cabinet Committee to oversee developments in the area of biotechnology.

  Pörtschach
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed transfer of political powers from Her Majesty's Government to the WEU; [57918]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the proposed transfer of military powers to the WEU. [57917]

  The Prime Minister
  This was an informal meeting of the Heads of Government at Pörtschach, in preparation for the full European Council in Vienna, at which a broad range of issues were discussed. No formal decisions were taken.

  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave today, Official Report, column 473, to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend). The Government have not proposed to transfer political or military powers to the WEU.
  473
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if the proposals set out by Her Majesty's Government at Portschach on the establishment of a closer EU defence formation included extension of qualified majority voting; [58010]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the differences between the proposals his Government set forward at Portschach on more integrated EU defence, and those established in the Treaty of Amsterdam; [58011]

  (3) if he will list documents pertaining to the proposals of Her Majesty's Government to the Portschach Conference which his Government have distributed to other member states as regards closer defence co-operation. [58012]

  The Prime Minister
  This meeting of the Heads of Government was an informal meeting in preparation for the full European Council in Vienna, at which a broad range of issues were discussed. No formal decisions were taken.

  At the meeting, I made clear my wish to see Europe examine ways of developing its defence identity. I did not put forward any detailed proposals and did not propose the extension of Qualified Majority Voting. The Government have not distributed any documents to other Member States of the European Union on closer defence co-operation. I stressed that NATO should remain the foundation of collective security. I made clear it that the starting point for discussion should be the 1996 Berlin decision on the European Security and Defence Identity and the Treaty of Amsterdam.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a Royal Commission to review the effectiveness of and justification for animal experiments. [57875]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to ensuring that animals are used in scientific procedures only where this is fully justified. Furthermore, we are working to ensure that the highest possible standards of animal welfare are implemented.

  We have, for example, already announced:
  that we are promoting the development and use of alternatives (which reduce the number of animals used, refine procedures to minimise suffering, and replace animal use) where possible—the budget made available to the Animal Procedures Committee to sponsor research on alternatives has been increased by 42 per cent. and scientists will now be required to demonstrate what consideration they have given to the use of alternatives;
  an end to the test of cosmetic products on animals;
  that we are exploring the possibility of extending this ban to cover cosmetic ingredients—in the meantime, no new licences to test cosmetic products or ingredients have been issued since May 1997;
  a ban on the use of animals to test tobacco or alcohol products;
  that further funding has been secured to increase the complement of the Inspectorate from 18 to 21, seven new inspectors recruited to fill these and other vacancies;
  that, through the European Commission, we are putting pressure on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to delete the LD50 test from its list of regulatory safety tests;
  that ethical review processes will be required in all establishments from April 1999;
  474
  a ban on the use of Great Apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and orang-utans);
  that the use of ascitic animals in monoclonal antibody production will be phased out; and
  an increase to the number of animal welfare experts on the Animal Procedures Committee.

  We have not ruled out a Royal Commission. The Government believe, however, that it is best to use the available resources to make immediate improvements to the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 until such time as we are able to make a considered judgment about the merits of such a proposal.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what changes have been made to the arrangements for pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and opposition parties since the evidence by the then Head of the Civil Service to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 27 November 1985; [57954]

  (2) if the contacts between senior civil servants in the Treasury and the then shadow Chancellor before the 1997 General Election were directed exclusively to questions of organisation. [57955]

  The Prime Minister
  The current arrangements for pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and Opposition parties do not differ significantly from those in place in 1985. The only substantial change since 1985 was agreed after the 1992 General Election to take account of the fact that, under our electoral arrangements, it is only the last possible date for the next General Election that is known in advance. At the suggestion of the then Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister agreed that it should be possible for such contacts to take place from 16 months before the 1992 Parliament would complete its maximum five-year term. Previously, contacts had been allowed to begin in the last six months of a five-year Parliament, an arrangement which was considered to have precluded effective contacts before the 1983 and 1987 General Elections.

  The format for such contacts remains essentially the same as that set out by the then Head of the Home Civil Service in 1985. The purpose of the meetings is to allow Opposition parties to inform themselves of factual questions of departmental organisation and to inform senior civil servants of any organisational change of Government. Such meetings are confidential on both sides. These were the arrangements governing all contacts in the run-up to the 1997 Election.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to require all task forces and equivalent bodies to publish their working papers and minutes on the Internet. [57774]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government encourage greater openness of public bodies, wherever practical and appropriate. The extent to which the records of any specific task force or review group are published or placed on the Internet is a matter for the relevant sponsoring Department.

  Inter-ministerial Committees
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each of the inter-ministerial committees, indicating(a) when it was established, (b) who chairs it and (c) the frequency of its meetings. [57775]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1123–35.

  Council of Europe (50th Anniversary)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe. [56917]

  The Prime Minister
  We intend to mark the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe in London on 5 May 1999 with an evening reception in St. James's Palace where the Statute was signed. We shall invite key representatives of the Council of Europe from Strasbourg and from foreign Governments, as well as a broad range of people from UK organisations most closely involved in Council of Europe activities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will also be making a speech in the Palace of Westminster on the same day. We have separately invited Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede to chair the UK National Committee which will organise other events independently of Government.

  Belfast Agreement
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the request of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights to be consulted about the structure and scope of bodies established as part of the Belfast Agreement. [56298]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 403.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Profession (Recruitment)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, what targets he has set to broaden recruitment within the legal profession. [56139]

  Mr. Hoon
  Recruitment to the legal professions is primarily a matter for the professions themselves. Both the Bar Council and the Law Society have adopted policies designed to ensure that entrance to the profession is based on merit alone. This is something which the Government strongly support.

  Rights of Audience
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, when he proposes to grant solicitors full rights of audience; and if those rights will be extended to barristers who have left private practice and are now employed. [56140]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government published a consultation paper in June which set out our plans to extend the rights of audience both of solicitors in private practice and of 476
  employed barristers and solicitors. Extending rights of audience will require primary legislation, and I hope we will bring proposals before Parliament at an early opportunity.

  Law Centres
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for establishing law centres in areas which do not at present have them. [56142]

  Mr. Hoon
  Yesterday 2 November 1998, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor outlined our proposals for a Community Legal Service, which will aim to ensure that every area will have access to a comprehensive network of legal service providers, of consistently good quality, so that people with actual or potential legal problems are able to find the information and help they need. I hope Law Centres will play a full part in the Community Legal Service. A consultation document on the detail of our proposals for the Community Legal Service will be published early next year.

  Judiciary (Criminal Investigations)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, what is his Department's policy on the suspension with pay of members of the judiciary, pending criminal investigations. [56143]

  Mr. Hoon
  Each case must be considered on its own merits. However the Lord Chancellor would not normally consider it appropriate for a judge who was the subject of serious criminal proceedings to continue to sit pending the outcome of the case. Where the salary of a judge in such a position is protected by statute (as with Circuit Judges) salary must by law continue to be paid in full throughout this period. Such salary protection which prevents the salary of serving judges from being reduced or withheld whilst they continue to hold office is a vital part of securing the independence of the judiciary. Judges may be removed from office only in limited circumstances and subject to the relevant statutory provision. The Lord Chancellor may remove a Circuit Judge only on the grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity.

  Ministerial Meetings (Law Society)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many times in the last 12 months he has met representatives of the Law Society; and what was discussed. [56144]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the last 12 months I have met representatives of the Law Society in a formal capacity on 7 occasions, to discuss conditional fees and legal aid, small claims, standard fees, the legal aid reforms, legal aid remuneration and the proposed changes to ancillary relief.

  Family Law Act 1996
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if the first six information meeting pilots on the Family Law Act 1996 have been completed; and if he will place in the Library his Department's assessment of the success of the pilots. [56949]
  477
  Mr. Hoon
  Three of the first six pilots closed in March 1998. Independent research relating to these and later pilots is still continuing.

  Marriage Support Services
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what initiatives his Department has taken to assist marriage support services. [56950]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department currently provides core funding to six marriage support and research organisations. For the financial year 1998–99 further funding has been given to eight pilot and research projects. Nearly £3 million has been allocated this year. The Lord Chancellor has commissioned an independent review of the Department's funding of marriage support. Details will be announced shortly. The results of the review will assist the Lord Chancellor in developing a strategy for the effective allocation of resources to marriage support services.

SCOTLAND

  Economy
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has made of the effects on the Scottish economy of the lower growth assumptions for the UK economy in 1998–99. [56111]

  Mr. Dewar
  The most recent independent forecast from Business Strategies Limited, published last month, suggests that growth in Scottish GDP will be slightly below UK growth in 1998 but will exceed UK growth in 1999. Unemployment in Scotland continues to fall, and employment to rise.

  Incomes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people he estimates in Scotland have household income below half of the national average; and what steps he is taking to alleviate the impact of poverty. [56114]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We estimate that some one million people in Scotland have incomes below half the national average. The Government are determined to tackle poverty and promote social inclusion and we are doing so by a range of policies which are designed, first, to support families; secondly, to provide opportunities for all who can to work; and thirdly, to provide security and protection for the most vulnerable.

  Bankruptcy
  Dr. Lynda Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the operation of bankruptcy law in Scotland. [56115]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office is considering responses to a consultation paper on Apparent Insolvency which proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985; and has recently held a follow up consultation on Protected Trust Deeds.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of total per capita Government expenditure in Scotland in 1999–2000. [56116]

  Mr. Dewar
  The latest available estimate for Government spending per capita in Scotland is for 1995–96. The figure in that year was £6,010.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that Scottish service men are able to vote in the elections to the Scottish Parliament. [56117]

  Mr. McLeish
  Scottish service men and women are already provided for under existing legislation. We see no need for this to be amended. Provided that they have made a service declaration to appear on the register in Scotland they will be eligible to vote by proxy no matter where in the world they will be at the time of the elections to the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the future Scottish Parliament on his accountability to hon. Members. [56118]

  Mr. McLeish
  The establishment of the Scottish Parliament will alter the range of issues for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible. The Government intend to submit evidence to the Procedure Committee for its inquiry into the procedural consequences of devolution shortly.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing a Scottish Parliament. [56130]

  Mr. McLeish
  The estimated construction costs of the building at Holyrood will be around £55 million, including site acquisition costs and demolition costs but not including fees and VAT. The actual cost will depend on the final design, and the price of construction, which will be determined by competitive tender.

  The annual running costs of the Scottish Parliament will depend on a number of factors yet to be settled including the hours of operation. The current estimate is around £30 million.

  A1
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will designate the Al trunk road as a core national route. [56119]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The term "core national route" relates to nationally important routes in England. Decisions on priorities for trunk road investment in Scotland will be taken in the light of the current Strategic Roads Review.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to modify the regulations covering the ownership, management and inspection of private residential homes and nursing homes for the elderly. [56121]
  479
  Mr. Galbraith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave him on 4 November 1997,Official Report, column 156, and 17 March 1998, Official Report, column 569. These indicated that legislation on the regulation and inspection of residential and nursing home care and domiciliary care will follow when a suitable opportunity presents.

  Cullen Report
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations on the introduction of a national system to ensure that there are adequate checks on the suitability of youth leaders and workers. [56123]

  Mr. Galbraith
  We are discussing across Government a package of measures aimed at preventing unsuitable persons from obtaining access to children. We expect to announce our conclusions on this shortly.

  Housing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the quality of Scotland's housing stock. [56125]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Almost £500 million of public money has been allocated for housing in Scotland in 1998/99 and an additional £300 million has been made available over the next three years linked, in particular, to the development of the New Housing Partnership initiative. These resources, together with the private finance which they will attract will provide new and improved stock in all housing tenures across Scotland. We are also improving housing quality by investing in home energy efficiency, linked to the New Deal, by the introduction of barrier free standards in new housing funded by Scottish Homes and by bringing empty houses back into use through the Empty Homes Initiative.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the higher and further education sector in Scotland to discuss funding levels. [56126]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On 26 October I met representatives of the Association of Scottish Colleges. We discussed funding for the further education sector, and the Association told me they welcomed the Government's announcement that we are to invest an additional £214 million into further education over the next three years, to support further increases in student numbers, enhance quality in delivery and stabilise the financial position of the sector.

  On 30 October, I addressed a Forum of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals at which, among other topics, funding was discussed. At the Forum I announced a further funding boost of £15 million for Scotland's Higher Education sector; this is in addition to the extra £230 million we are investing in Scottish higher education over the next three years. This additional funding will be vital in meeting the Government's objectives of widening access to higher education and modernising teaching and research to support a knowledge economy. It was, I believe, strongly welcomed by the higher education sector.
  480
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the procedure for selection of boards of management of colleges of further and higher education in Scotland. [56127]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 sets out the requirements regarding the composition of the Boards of Management of further education colleges, and eligibility criteria for their appointment. Beyond these statutory requirements, however, appointments to the boards of management are for individual institutions themselves to determine and I have no plans to review that procedure.

  With assistance from the Department, the Association of Scottish Colleges (ASC) established a working group on college governance in 1997. Guidance was then issued by the ASC to the sector on issues such as written public appointment procedures and the operation of search and nomination committees. The guidance reflects the recommendations on public appointments set out in the second report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The ASC are presently surveying the extent to which Boards of Management have taken this guidance on board.

  I expect Board procedures for the appointment of members to comply with the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 and have regard to the advice and recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish local authorities regarding the level of public expenditure per head in 1998–99. [56128]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regularly to discuss a wide range of financial and other matters.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish Enterprise to discuss developments in the Scottish manufacturing sector. [56129]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston have regular meetings with Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of issues affecting the Scottish economy including developments in the Scottish manufacturing sector.

  Fishing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take measures to assist young people entering the Scottish fishing industry as skipper-owners. [56110]

  Mr. Macdonald
  There is help available for young fishermen wanting to become skippers through training programmes operated by the Sea Fish Industry Authority and by Local Enterprise Companies.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the use of closed circuit television for combating crime in Scotland. [56124]

  Mr. McLeish
  In January 1996, The Scottish Office published an evaluation report into the effectiveness of closed circuit television in combating crime and the fear of crime in Airdrie, where twelve open street CCTV cameras had been operating since 1992. A separate evaluation was subsequently undertaken on the Glasgow

  Percentage

  Employ

  1995

  Real terms

  1996

  Real terms

  1997

  Real terms

  1998 terms

  Real terms

  Doctors and dentists

  2.5 to 3.0

  -0.9to0.4

  3.6 to 5.8

  1.2 to 3.4

  3.4

  0.3

  5.2

  1.6

  Nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine

  13.0

  -0.4

  13.0

  10.6

  3.3

  0.2

  3.8

  0.2

  NHS non review body

  13.0

  -0.4

  13.0

  0.6

  3.3

  0.2

  3.8

  0.2

  Police

  3.0

  -0.4

  3.5

  1.1

  3.5

  0.4

  4.0

  0.4

  Fire

  3.5

  0.1

  4.4

  2.0

  4.8

  1.7

  22—

  2—

  Local government

  2.2

  -1.2

  2.9

  0.5

  2.5

  -0.6

  3.0

  -0.6

  Scottish teachers

  2.0

  -1.4

  3.0

  0.6

  2.5

  -0.6

  3.0

  -0.6

  1In 1995 and 1996 national NHS pay awards of 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively were supplemented by locally negotiated pay additions

  2Due in November

  Notes

  1. The above public sector pay groups account for around 90 per cent. of Scottish public sector pay

  2. As pay negotiations have been delegated to individual Civil Service Departments and to many NDPBs it is not possible to give a single meaningful figure for this sector

  3. In 1997 the local government settlement was underpinned by a minimum rate of £4 per hour

  4. The real term estimates of increases in pay have been made using the average "headline" RPI rate for the calendar years in question. For 1998 the deflator used is the average for the year to date

  Equality in Employment
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that local authorities require suppliers and contractors of services to promote equality in employment and non-discrimination. [56959]

  Mr. McLeish
  Good procurement practice is essential if local government is to obtain real improvements to service cost and quality under Best Value. I recognise the restrictions the Local Government Act 1988 places on local authority tendering. Legislation amending the existing provisions is likely to be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Intestate Succession Rules
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the current rules of intestate succession to allow surviving cohabitants or step-children who are neither the natural children of the deceased nor adopted by them to apply to a court for a discretionary provision out of the estate of the deceased. [57394]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Law Commission, in its 1992 Report on Family Law, recommended that a surviving cohabitant should be able to apply to a court for a discretionary provision out of the deceased's estate, whether or not there is a will. I hope to issue a consultation paper shortly on family law in Scotland, in which I shall be asking for views on this recommendation.

  The Scottish Law Commission has also considered the position of step-children in the law of succession in Scotland, but did not make any recommendation on this in its 1990 Report on Succession. It did recommend that
  482
  city centre CCTV scheme. A final report has been submitted by the researcher and is currently being prepared for publication.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) actual and (b) real increases in pay in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99 of public sector employees in Scotland. [56954]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information is as follows:

  natural and adopted children of the deceased should have a fixed share of the estate. I am, however, seeking views on an alternative suggestion that children should only be able to claim from the estate the amount that the deceased would have owed them as aliment had he or she lived. Under such a system step-children who had been accepted as children of the family could be owed aliment and would have a claim on the estate.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the health trusts in Scotland to discuss the proposed reorganisation of the NHS trusts in Scotland. [56112]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I chair meetings of Chairmen and General Managers of Health Boards and Chairmen and Chief Executives of Trusts on a quarterly basis. The options for Trust configuration were the subject of widespread consultation by Health Boards and, in making their recommendations, Health Boards took the views expressed into account. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I announced the reduction in the number of NHS Trusts from 46 to 28 on 3 September. We remain committed to ensuring that the new configuration of Trusts will reduce bureaucracy so that the maximum amount of resources are available for direct investment in patient care.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice has been given and what administrative guidelines issued to ensure that an arrested person is aware of the implications of failing to mention
  483
  a material fact concerning the offence of belonging to a proscribed and specified organisation; and if he will place in the Library a copy of such documents. [56319]

  Mr. McLeish
  A letter was sent to Scottish Chief Constables on 15 September outlining the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. The letter advised that a special warning be given to anyone being questioned about membership of a specified organisation, so that they are aware of the implications of failing to mention a fact material to the offence. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library. A Scottish Office Circular of guidance on the Act will be issued shortly.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals have been(a) charged, (b) summarily convicted and (c) convicted on indictment under section 2 or the equivalent section of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 relating to membership of a proscribed organisation in each year since enactment; what percentage of those convicted in each year received a prison sentence; and what percentage of those were sentenced to a term of less than one year. [56318]

  Mr. McLeish
  On the basis of the latest information, no individuals have been proceeded against or convicted in Scottish courts for an offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, or equivalent sections.

  Cancer Deaths
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what proportion of deaths in Scotland were due to cancer in each of the last five years. [56983]

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

  Cancer1deaths in Scotland, 1993–1997

  Year

  Number of deaths from cancer

  As a percentage of all deaths

  1993

  15,458

  24.1

  1994

  15,164

  25.6

  1995

  15,224

  25.2

  1996

  15,171

  25.0

  1997

  14,889

  25.0

  1Underlying cause of death categories included—International Classification of Diseases etc., ninth revision (ICD 9), codes 140–208, malignant neoplasms.

  Council Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which tenants' organisations in Scotland he has met to discuss stock transfers of council housing. [56120]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have met the Scottish Tenants' Organisation and some of its affiliated federations of tenants on a number of occasions to discuss general housing issues, including stock transfers.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the number of job losses in Scotland over the last two months. [56122]
  484
  Mr. Macdonald
  In recent weeks there have been several significant job loss and job creation announcements. The net balance of these job losses and gains can be judged only some months afterwards, as company plans often change. The latest official figures on a non-seasonally adjusted basis show that, over the year to June-August 1998, ILO unemployment in Scotland fell by 26,000 and that total employment increased by 13,000.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's current estimate of the cost to be borne by Scottish local authorities on spending to cope with the problem of the date 2000 on computers in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 and of the contribution from central Government towards meeting these costs. [56961]

  Mr. McLeish
  There is no central estimate of the total cost to local government. It is for each local authority to form its own estimate of cost and to consider how costs are to be met within the funds available. The priority is to ensure that every authority is in fact tackling the issue. To that end, the Scottish Office is funding a post of Year 2000 project manager in COSLA. In addition, and as a result of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, £10 million has been included in the 1999–2000 local government finance settlement. No provision was made in 1998–99.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Northern Ireland Questions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on future handling of Northern Ireland questions following the permanent establishment of a Northern Ireland Assembly. [56401]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly will reduce the direct responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and consequently the matters for which she is accountable to the House. I have no immediate plans to alter the arrangements for Northern Ireland questions. The Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into the procedural consequences of devolution and this is one of the subjects I expect them to address. I will be giving evidence to that Committee soon.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Holding Centres
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how and when she intends to respond to the principal recommendations of the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres in his most recent report. [56402]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following consultation with relevant interested parties, the Secretary of State wrote to the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres on 26 August 1998 in response to matters raised in his Fifth Annual Report. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
  485
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have been detained in each of the holding centres in each month since September 1997. [56385]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of persons detained in each of the Holding Centres since September 1997:

  Year

  Month

  Castlereagh

  Gough

  Strand Road

  1997

  September

  21

  12

  1

  October

  0

  29

  2

  November

  0

  31

  4

  December

  0

  9

  6

  1998

  January

  43

  7

  0

  February

  60

  0

  0

  March

  67

  0

  0

  April

  61

  7

  0

  May

  32

  8

  0

  June

  31

  4

  0

  July

  51

  7

  0

  August

  33

  5

  0

  September

  35

  25

  0

  Total

  434

  144

  13

  Note

  Castlereagh Holding Centre was closed for refurbishment during the period October to December 1997

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 293, on what date she

  Persons detailed in holding centres September 1997 to September 1998 (inclusive)—by month and holding center

  Castlereagh

  Gough

  Strand Road

  Month

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1997

  September

  18

  3

  21

  11

  1

  12

  1

  —

  1

  October

  —

  —

  —

  29

  —

  29

  2

  —

  2

  November

  —

  —

  —

  29

  2

  31

  4

  —

  4

  December

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  9

  6

  —

  6

  1998

  January

  40

  3

  43

  7

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  February

  57

  3

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  March

  65

  2

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  April

  56

  5

  61

  4

  3

  7

  —

  —

  —

  May

  32

  —

  32

  8

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  June

  29

  2

  31

  3

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  July

  44

  7

  51

  6

  1

  7

  —

  —

  —

  August

  31

  2

  33

  5

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  September

  33

  2

  35

  25

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  405

  29

  434

  136

  8

  144

  13

  —

  13

  Flags and Emblems
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance is available for non-departmental public bodies concerning displays of flags and emblems; how many NDPBs displayed the Union Flag at least once in the last 12 months; and if he will list those NDPBs that displayed a union flag on 12 July. [56291]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  NDPBs in Northern Ireland are aware of the guidance contained in the Fair Employment 486
  replied to the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres; and on what date her letter was deposited in the Library. [56386]

  Mr. Ingram
  I wrote to the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres on 23 February 1998 in response to a number of outstanding matters raised in his Fourth Annual Report which the Secretary of State had been unable to address in her earlier letter to him of 26 September 1997. My letter was inadvertently not placed in the Library of the House at that time. I have now made arrangements for this to be done.

  The Secretary of State's letter of 26 September 1997, together with my letter of 23 February 1998, represents the Government's full response to the Independent Commissioner's Fourth Annual Report.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) male, (b) female, (c) under 18 year old, (d) 18 to 25 year old, (e) over 25 year old, (i) republican, (ii) loyalist and (iii) other suspects have been detained in the holding centres in the 12 months from September 1997 to September 1998. [56384]

  Mr. Ingram
  Set out are the numbers of males and females detained at each of the three holding centres during the period September 1997 to September 1998.

  The RUC does not hold information in the form necessary to answer the question in full. A manual check of the records of each of the centres would be required; this could not be done within the timescale allowed for reply and would incur disproportionate costs.

  Commission's Code of Practice relating to the display of flags and emblems. The Union Flag is flown on Government Buildings on a number of scheduled days during the year and, while NDPBs are made aware of these dates, it is a matter for each body to exercise its own discretion as to whether or not the flag should be flown.

  Information on how many NDPBs displayed the Union Flag at least once in the last twelve months and those which displayed it on 12 July could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  487
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many days and on what occasions in the last year the Union Flag was flown outside the(a) Northern Ireland Electricity regional offices on the Campsie industrial estate and (b) other offices of the NIE. [56290]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on the flying of the Union Flag by private companies is not held by Government. I understand that Northern Ireland Electricity issued a statement on 11 August 1998 setting out the company's policy on the display of flags and emblems.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 630, what were the staffing levels of the RUC in September 1998 (i) in total, and (ii) broken down (a) by gender, (b) by perceived religious/community origin and (c) by numbers and percentages of full-time, reserve full-time, and reserve part-time staff. [56387]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table sets out the information requested as at 1 September 1998.

  Rank

  RUC

  FTR

  PTR

  Total

  CBI

  Male

  6,644

  2,343

  782

  9,769

  Female

  846

  217

  407

  1,470

  Total

  7,490

  2,560

  1,189

  11,239

  CB2

  Male

  625

  177

  30

  832

  Female

  82

  27

  33

  142

  Total

  707

  204

  63

  974

  CB3

  Male

  268

  156

  11

  435

  Female

  8

  9

  5

  22

  Total

  276

  165

  16

  457

  Sub total

  Male

  7,537

  2,676

  823

  11,036

  Female

  936

  253

  445

  1,634

  Total

  8,473

  2,929

  1,268

  12,670

  Percentage CB1

  88.40

  87.40

  93.77

  88.71

  Percentage CB2

  8.34

  6.96

  4.97

  7.69

  Percentage female

  11.05

  8.64

  35.09

  12.90

  Note

  CB1—Perceived to be from Protestant community

  CB2—Perceived to be from the Roman Catholic community

  CB3—Other

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) serving and (b) former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary held personal protection firearms on 10 April; how many new weapons have been issued since then; and how many weapons have been handed in. [56293]

  Mr. Ingram
  Figures detailing how many serving and former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary held firearms for personal protection are not available for 10 April 1998, and could be obtained only at 488
  disproportionate cost. However, on 26 October 1998, 12,699 handguns (which are available for personal protection) were on official issue to serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and 619 were on loan to former members.

  Since 10 April a total of 189 handguns have been issued to serving Royal Ulster Constabulary members and 306 have been returned.

  Prisoners (Accelerated Release)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners have applied to the Prison Sentence Review Commission for an accelerated release date; on how many cases the commission has made a determination; and for unsuccessful applications, what reasons were given. [56393]

  Mr. Ingram
  Statutory responsibility for these matters lies with the Sentence Review Commissioners. I have asked the joint Chairmen, Mr. Brian Currin and Sir John Blelloch, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Sir John Blelloch to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 3 November 1998:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for information concerning applications made under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. In her answer the Secretary of State advised that, as statutory responsibility for this matter lay with the Sentence Review Commissioners, I would reply.
  I can advise that, up until 29 October 1998, 512 prisoners have applied to the Sentence Review Commissioners for a declaration that they are eligible for release in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Of these, 221 prisoners have received substantive determinations advising that their applications had been successful. There have been no substantive determinations advising that the applicant had been unsuccessful.
  A copy of this letter will be placed in the library of the House of Commons.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the qualifying prisoners whose release has been accelerated as a result of a determination made by the sentence review commission, in each case indicating the(a) nature of the offence, (b) date of conviction, (c) original sentence, (d) sentencing jurisdiction, (e) original release date after remission or estimated on the basis of average figures in the case of life sentences and (f) accelerated release date. [56390]

  Mr. Ingram
  Statistical information in the format requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of individual prisoners are not given for sensitivity and safety considerations; however, I will arrange for a written reply to be made to my hon. Friend which will detail available statistical information on prisoner releases which have been accelerated as a result of determinations made by the Sentence Review Commissioners.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate, on the basis of those prisoners who have been given accelerated release dates and those who would expect to be released in the next two years, how many prisoners will be released in each month up to August 2000. [56391]
  489
  Mr. Ingrain
  The information requested is not readily available in the detail specified in the question and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, similar information was provided on the basis of quarterly projections in my response to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on 2 November 1998,Official Report, columns 363–64.

  Military Strategy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the meetings and describe the other steps taken to prepare the publication of an overall review of military strategy in Northern Ireland. [56380]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have regular and frequent meetings with the Chief Constable, and with officials, to discuss security related issues. Before the end of the month I intend to publish a strategy paper setting out our approach to normalisation.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice has been given, and what administrative guidelines issued, to ensure that an arrested person is aware of the implications of failing to mention a material fact concerning the offence of belonging to a proscribed and specified organisation; and if she will place in the Library a copy of such documents. [56289]

  UDA

  UVF

  LVF

  VFF

  RHC

  PIRA

  INLA

  HMP Maze

  73

  65

  19

  —

  —

  112

  26

  HMP Maghaberry

  37

  24

  11

  6

  4

  16

  14

  HMP Magilligan

  12

  11

  —

  1

  —

  6

  2

  HM YOC

  1

  4

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  Totals

  123

  104

  30

  9

  4

  136

  43

  Border Crossing Points
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received concerning the re-opening of border crossing points BCP 92 and BCP 93; and what further plans she has for these roads. [56383]

  Mr. Ingram
  While I am not aware of any representations received concerning the re-opening of border crossing points BCP 92 and BCP 93, consideration is being given to their future.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will report progress on making good(a) Border Crossing Point 171 at Aghalane Bridge, County Fermanagh and (b) other border crossing points not yet restored to full usage after the lifting of closure orders. [56382]

  Mr. Ingram
  Work is progressing satisfactorily at Border Crossing point 171, and the bridge should be ready for use by Spring 1999.

  There are only two other Border Crossing points which remain unopened since the revocation of closure orders: Border Crossing Points 92 and 93 in South Tyrone. I have no immediate plans to re-open the road at Annaghroe or the bridge at Knockaginny Wood.
  490
  Mr. Ingram
  A letter was sent on 11 September 1998 to the Chief Constable of the RUC outlining the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 and suggesting a form of words for an additional special warning be given to anyone being questioned about membership of a specified organisation, in order that they are aware of the implications of failing to mention a fact material to the offence. The letter also emphasises that inferences can be drawn only where the accused has had access to a solicitor before questioning. A copy of the letter is being placed in the Library today. Further advice on the administration of the 1998 Act will be issued in due course.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current prison population of members or associates of each specified proscribed organisation. [56392]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information is held for management purposes in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners where applicable. It should be noted, however, that with the exception of HMP Maze where such links are more clearly defined, this information is based on a combination of factors including the offence, sympathies and associates. These figures do not include prisoners who are regarded as having only either Loyalist or Republican sympathies.

  The most recent statistics for the week commencing 26 October 1998 are as follows:

  Murray Judgment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to introduce legislation to comply with the Murray judgment at the European Court of Human Rights. [56292]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are actively considering their response to the ECHR judgment in the case of John Murray v the United Kingdom and hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future which will outline how procedures in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are to be affected.

  The Government have already incorporated the ECHR ruling in the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998.

  Vehicle Checkpoints
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the location of permanent vehicle checkpoints in (i) September 1997 and (ii) October 1998, indicating where structures have been dismantled or removed. [56381]

  Mr. Ingram
  The locations of permanent vehicle checkpoints in Northern Ireland in September 1997 and October 1998 are as follows:
  491

  As at September 1997

  As at October 1998

  Cloghogue (Newry/Dublin Road)

  PVCP removed—Patrol Base still in use

  Aughnacloy

  To be removed (announced 30 September)

  Bessbrook (3)

  Reduced structures but still in use

  Mahon Road, Portadown (2)

  Removed

  Letterkenny Road, Londonderry

  Inactive and vacated but structure still present

  Muff, Culmore Road, Londonderry

  Inactive and vacated but structure still present

  The Hump, Strabane

  Inactive and vacated but structure still present

  Rosscor Bridge

  Inactive but structure still present

  Wattle Bridge

  Inactive but structure still present

  Mullan Bridge

  Inactive but structure still present

  Gortmullan

  Inactive but structure still present

  Annaghmartin

  Inactive but structure still present

  Killyvilly

  Inactive but structure still present

  Clonalty Bridge

  Inactive but structure still present

  Belfast International Airport

  Inactive and vacated but structure still present

  In September 1997 there were 18 permanent vehicle checkpoints in Northern Ireland. Only three are still in operation, for the protection of the security force base at Bessbrook, Country Down. Two have been totally removed, one partially (the adjacent patrol base is still occupied). A further 8 structures are still present and manned, although the checkpoint is inactive. Three others have been vacated by the security forces. The remaining one at Aughnacloy will be demolished shortly. The continuing need for permanent vehicle checkpoints is kept under constant review. Any further changes will depend on the assessment of threat at the time.

  Police Authority
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total work force of the

  Table 1(a): All permanent NICS seconded to PANI by community background at 1 January 1998

  Occupational Groups

  Protestant

  %Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  %Roman Catholic

  Not determined

  %not determined

  Total

  1 Managers and administrators

  269

  81.5

  41

  13.0

  6

  1.9

  316

  2 Professional occupations

  6

  50.0

  4

  33.3

  2

  16.7

  12

  3 Associate professional and technical occupations

  38

  86.4

  4

  9.1

  2

  4.5

  44

  4 Clerical and secretarial occupations

  1,459

  84.0

  243

  14.0

  34

  2.0

  1,736

  5 Crafts and skilled manual occupations

  190

  86.8

  14

  6.4

  15

  6.8

  219

  6 Personal and protective service occupations

  57

  74.0

  6

  7.8

  14

  18.2

  77

  8 Plant and machine operatives

  7

  87.5

  0

  0.0

  1

  12.5

  8

  9 Other occupations

  221

  81.9

  17

  6.3

  32

  11.9

  270

  Total

  2,247

  83.8

  329

  12.3

  106

  4.0

  2,682

  Table 1(b): All permanent NICS seconded to PANI by gender at 1 January 1998

  Occupational Groups

  Male

  %Male

  Female

  %Female

  Total

  1 Managers and administrators

  126

  39.9

  190

  60.1

  316

  2 Professional occupations

  8

  66.7

  4

  33.3

  12

  3 Associate professional and technical occupations

  39

  88.6

  5

  11.4

  44

  4 Clerical and secretarial occupations

  241

  13.9

  1,495

  86.1

  1,736

  5 Crafts and skilled manual occupations

  218

  99.5

  1

  0.5

  219

  6 Personal and protective service occupations

  58

  75.3

  19

  24.7

  77

  8 Plant and machine operatives

  8

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  8

  9 Other occupations

  121

  44.8

  149

  55.2

  270

  Total

  819

  30.5

  1,863

  69.5

  2,682

  492
  Northern Ireland Police Authority, including staff seconded from the Civil Service; if she will list the principal occupational sub-divisions or descriptive groups of staff; and what is their composition in respect of (a) gender and (b) perceived religious/community origin. [56388]

  Mr. Ingram
  At 1 January 1998 the total workforce of the Police Authority, including staff seconded from the Civil Service, was 3,402.

  The total workforce has been broken down by Standard Occupational Classification.

  Tables 1 (a) and 2 (a) provide a breakdown by perceived religious origin. Tables 1 (b) and 2 (b) provide a breakdown by gender.
  493

  Table 2(a): All permanent PANI direct recruits by community background at 1 January 1998

  Occupational Groups

  Protestant

  %Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  %Roman Catholic

  Not determined

  %not determined

  Total

  1 Managers and administrators

  11

  78.6

  2

  14.3

  1

  7.1

  14

  2 Professional occupations

  19

  59.4

  7

  21.9

  6

  18.8

  32

  3 Associate professional and technical occupations

  94

  82.5

  12

  10.5

  8

  7.0

  114

  4 Clerical and secretarial occupations

  12

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  12

  5 Crafts and skilled manual occupations

  22

  84.6

  2

  7.7

  2

  7.7

  26

  6 Personal and protective service occupations

  123

  71.9

  40

  23.4

  8

  4.7

  171

  9 Other occupations

  308

  87.7

  20

  5.7

  23

  6.6

  351

  Total

  589

  81.8

  83

  11.5

  48

  6.7

  720

  Table 2(b): All permanent PANI direct recruits by gender at 1 January 1998

  Occupational Groups

  Male

  %Male

  Female

  %Female

  Total

  1 Managers and administrators

  9

  64.3

  5

  35.7

  14

  2 Professional occupations

  25

  78.1

  7

  21.9

  32

  3 Associate professional and technical occupations

  76

  66.7

  38

  33.3

  114

  4 Clerical and secretarial occupations

  7

  58.3

  5

  41.7

  12

  5 Crafts and skilled manual occupations

  23

  88.5

  3

  11.5

  26

  6 Personal and protective service occupations

  93

  54.4

  78

  45.6

  171

  9 Other occupations

  109

  31.1

  242

  68.9

  351

  Total

  342

  47.5

  378

  52.5

  720

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many buildings comprise the police estate; if she will cost and itemise major works projects(a) completed over the last 12 months and (b) already underway, initiated or committed in the next 12 months; how many part-time police stations are currently in operation; and what savings are estimated in the next 12 months as a result of the improved security situation. [56389]

  Mr. Ingram
  In pursuance of section 4 of the Police Act (NI) 1970, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland maintains 167 buildings. Eight of these premises are wholly or partially used for the purposes of the Police Authority.(a) Over the last 12 months two new stations were built at Coagh and Loughgall costing £1,600,000 and £1,690,000 respectively. A further £3,100,000 was spent on 35 other projects, mainly in the areas of fire certification, health and safety and general upgrading of accommodation.
  (b) Twenty-five major projects totalling £4,500,000 are currently underway or are scheduled to be committed within the next 12 months. No new builds are involved and apart from two major health and safety projects (£850,000 for the provision of flat roof edge protection and £560,000 for asbestos related work) the bulk of the money has again been allocated to fire certification work and general improving of accommodation.

  The number of part-time RUC stations currently in operation is 64.

  Information regarding
  "what savings are estimated in the next 12 months as a result of the improved security situation"
  is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Family Policy
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an announcement on family policy. [58336]

  Mr. Straw
  On Wednesday 4 November, at 9am, the Government will publish a consultation document, 'Supporting Families'. Copies of the document will be placed in the Library and will be available from the Vote Office.

  Telecommunications (Interception)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it a requirement for an application for a warrant to be made where(a) MI5 and (b) the Police wish to obtain information from telecommunications operatives in respect of call origins, destination, duration and frequency; [57571]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 4 December 1997, Official Report, column 299, when he intends to introduce legislation (a) to bring interception on private networks into the statutory framework and (b) to introduce further measures to regulate interception of communication. [57573]

  Mr. Straw
  During the debate on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill on 2 September 1998,Official Report, column 749, I announced that I had put in hand a comprehensive review of the interception regime, and that a consultation document on this would be published in due course. The consultation document will address private side interception and access to data held by telecommunications operators. Legislation will be introduced at the next opportunity.

  Terrorist Attacks (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans are in place to protect
  495
  the public from terrorist attacks involving chemical weapons, with particular reference to the areas around American bases. [57312]

  Mr. Straw
  A series of classified contingency plans exist for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats including those which might involve the threatened or actual use of chemical weapons. In the interests of national security and the protection of the public these are regularly reviewed, tested and updated in the light of changing circumstances. The same arrangements apply at those sites made available to the United States Visiting Forces as at any other sites in the United Kingdom which might be vulnerable to attack.

  Surveillance Systems
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what controls exist to regulate in respect of computer-controlled surveillance systems capable of identifying faces(a) those persons programmed to be identified and (b) the use made of the information gleaned; [57716]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the civil liberties implications of (a) the use of and (b) the safeguards applicable to the operation of the computer-controlled surveillance system in Newham. [57715]

  Mr. Straw
  The Data Protection Act 1984 regulates the use of automatically processed information relating to individuals. With limited exceptions, holders of such information must register with the Data Protection Registrar and comply with the Act's legally enforceable data protection principles. Among other things, these require personal data to be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully, held only for specified and lawful purposes and not used or disclosed incompatibly with these purposes. I understand that the Data Protection Registrar will be meeting the Metropolitan Police and the London Borough of Newham in the near future to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure compliance with the principles.

  Any closed circuit television (CCTV) systems recording images of individuals which do not come within the ambit of the 1984 Act are expected to be covered by the Data Protection Act 1998. This gives wider enforcement powers to the Registrar, who will be re-titled Data Protection Commissioner. They include a new power to issue codes of practice as to good practice. Although these would not have direct statutory force, they would amplify how the enforceable data protection principles should be applied to the data use concerned. I understand that the Registrar has begun preparatory work on the preparation of a code of practice for CCTV.

  Security Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that access to personal files held by MI5 is restricted to those with a clear need to see them, and that there are detailed audit trails to identify which officers or sections have had access to that information, and the reasons for that access. [57565]
  496
  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service already has in place procedures to ensure that access to its personal files is restricted to those with a need to see them, and audit arrangements which track and record internal access to any file.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require an independent assessment to be carried out before any decision by MI5 to destroy files is implemented. [57567]

  Mr. Straw
  The case for independent scrutiny of the destruction of Security Service files is under consideration including the circumstances where this might be appropriate and the form such scrutiny might take.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that files held by MI5 that are marked for destruction or might reasonably be thought to be so classified had they been assessed, are not used for vetting purposes. [57566]

  Mr. Straw
  Those Security Service files that have been reviewed and marked for destruction have been withdrawn from the Service's central file index and are not available to desk officers for any purpose. Those old and closed files, which have yet to be reviewed for destruction, remain centrally recorded but the Security Service may neither carry out inquiries into the subject nor add substantive information to the file. The current policy is that the Service will not apply information from its records in response to vetting inquiries merely on account of the subject's membership of organisations once considered to be subversive.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many individuals information is held by MI5 by means of computerised indices. [57564]

  Mr. Straw
  In my statement to the House on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, I made public for the first time information concerning the number of files held by the Security Service, including the number of files on which inquiries may be made. I do not propose to disclose further details about the Service's record management systems.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rights he proposes to introduce for individuals upon whom files are held by MI5. [57568]

  Mr. Straw
  In its latest Report, the Intelligence and Security Committee indicated that it intends to consider the question of whether individuals should have rights in connection with any Security Service files held on them. I shall await the Committee's findings before deciding whether to make any changes to the existing arrangements.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow renewal of project licence applications to be subject to independent assessment of non-animal alternatives before deciding whether or not to grant them. [57714]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have undertaken to delete from the notes, for the completion of application forms for licences and certificates, the phrase "Your application will be treated in confidence at all stages". However, section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  497
  Act 1986 remains in force and we will not be able to disclose information that either has been given in confidence or we have reasonable grounds for believing was given in confidence. It remains the duty of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to advise on applications.

  Section 24 of the 1986 Act will be reviewed under our proposals for freedom of information legislation.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the proposal of the Intelligence and Security Committee to give itself an additional investigative capacity. [57570]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 21 of the Government Response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual Report, which was published on 28 October 1998 (Cm 4089).

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit(a) Switzerland and (b) the Netherlands to study their illegal drug use reduction policies. [56915]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to visit either Switzerland or the Netherlands to discuss drugs policies. Home Office officials are, however, in regular contact with their counterparts responsible for drug use reduction policies in those countries, through the Council of Europe and, in the case of the Netherlands, the European Union.

  Juries
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict the use of juries in criminal trials in the Crown courts. [56141]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have published two consultation papers this year about jury trials. The first paper, on use of juries in serious fraud trials, invited views on the principle of whether the system is likely to operate better and with a greater degree of public confidence if, in a small number of complex fraud trials, a traditional jury were to be replaced by another method of determining the facts. Views were also sought on four possible alternative methods of trial. The consultation paper on determining the mode of trial considered whether defendants should continue to be able to choose to be tried by a jury in cases which magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear. We are currently considering the responses to both these consultation exercises.

  Police
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the formula to be used to allocate resources to the areas transferring out of the Metropolitan Police to neighbouring police forces and the methodology used in its derivation. [57572]

  Kate Hoey
  The principal police funding formula will continue to be used to determine resource allocations for all forces and will be published in the Police Grant Report. The forces bordering the Metropolitan Police 498
  District (MPD) have indicated that there will be additional costs in 1999–2000 associated with the proposed changes to the MPD boundaries. We are considering their bids for extra funding to help meet these transitional costs. No decisions have yet been taken about the allocation of funding to forces bordering the Metropolitan Police or other forces for 1999–2000 or beyond. We expect to announce provisional funding allocations for 1999–2000 and the formula used in a draft Police Grant Report to be published towards the end of the year.

  Hemp
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on licence fee levels for the growing of hemp. [58254]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The licence fee for hemp cultivation was reviewed in 1997 in consultation with the National Farmers Union and representatives of the industry. The new annual fee has been set at £320; this is being phased in over this year and the next two.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the benefits of using laser-scanners to track stolen vehicles by reading licence plates. [58268]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers are currently considering how the most effective use can be made of automatic number plate recognition technology for law enforcement purposes.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what identity documents are required to be produced by people visiting prisoners at Belmarsh Prison. [57337]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Any of the following documents are accepted as proof of identity for visitors to prisoners at Belmarsh:

  Driving Licence

  Passport

  Utilities Bill

  Rent Book

  Benefit Book

  Immigration Papers

  Medical Card

  Letters on Official Headed Notepaper.

  Domestic visitors to Category A prisoners are subject, in addition, to the Approved Visitors Scheme, which includes mandatory photographic identification which is verified by the local police.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are available at Belmarsh Prison to allow visits to prisoners by disabled people. [57336]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Wheelchair access is possible to the three areas of Belmarsh prison where visits take place. Male and female disabled toilets are available in the main visits hall. On entry to the prison disabled visitors are searched in a private cubicle.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Register of Electors is made available in electronic form to commercial mailing companies. [58253]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Regulation 55 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 gives electoral registration officers a discretionary power to supply electronic data copies of the register to non-electoral users. A fee is charged to cover the costs incurred.

  The sale of the electoral register is being considered by the Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which I chair, following a short consultation exercise in the summer. One of the issues to be explored further will be the availability of copies of the register and the fee charged.

  Firearms (Licence Fees)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the shotgun licence fee. [58266]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have made it clear that they intend to review the fees charged for firearm and shotgun certificates in due course to see if any changes might be made to the current arrangements. Fees have always been set at a level that covers the cost of administration, and the Government have no intention of raising these to punitive levels.

  Following the Dunblane tragedy, and the subsequent legislation, there has been a rise in the amount of work that the police are required to carry out in administering the licensing system. On this basis, it is only proper and realistic for us to look again at fee levels.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been given, and what administrative guidelines issued, to ensure that an arrested person is aware of the implications of failing to mention a material fact concerning the offence of belonging to a proscribed and specified organisation; and if he will place in the Library a copy of such documents. [56316]

  Mr. Straw
  A letter was sent on 11 September to all Chief Officers of Police in England and Wales outlining the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 and advising that where a suspect has been arrested for an offence relating to membership of a proscribed organisation which is also specified, the interviewing officer should give a special warning after the standard caution. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been(a) charged, (b) summarily convicted and (c) convicted on indictment under section 2 or the equivalent section of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 relating to membership of a proscribed organisation in each year since enactment; what percentage of those convicted in each year received a prison sentence; and what percentage of those were sentenced to a term of less than one year. [56315]
  500
  Mr. Straw
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of people charged.

  We have no record of any prosecutions or convictions in England and Wales for offences under section 2 since the 1989 Act came into force.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are presently detained in each special secure unit, stating(a) the nature of crimes for which the prisoner was convicted, (b) the national origin or citizenship of the prisoner, (c) their special category status, (d) how long the prisoner has been housed in an SSU and (e) how many three-monthly medical examinations have been conducted in that time. [56337]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 29 October 1998, five prisoners were held in Special Secure Units (SSUs), four at Whitemoor and one at Belmarsh. Only prisoners categorised as Category A-Exceptional Escape Risk are held in SSUs.

  The table gives the information requested including the number of three monthly medical reviews conducted. These reviews are part of the operating standards for SSUs and are provided in addition to the normal health care facilities available to every prisoner. Formal medical reviews were phased in during 1997.

  category A exceptional escape risk prisoners held in special secure units

  Nationality

  Offence

  Time spent in SSU

  Number of three monthly health reviews

  American

  Murder

  3 years 5 months

  5

  British

  Drugs offences

  7 months

  2

  Colombian

  Drugs offences

  1 year 3 months

  4

  Turkish

  Drugs offences

  5 years 4 months

  5

  Turkish

  Drugs offences

  3 months

  1

  Irish Prisoners (European Convention)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to officials responding to Irish prisoners who seek repatriation under the European Convention for Sentenced Prisoners and are concerned that their application may be affected by the sentence review legislation required under the Belfast Agreement. [56338]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Officials deal with repatriation applications in accordance with Government policy.

  Diarmuid O'Neill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order that copies of statements provided by police to the coroner be made available to the relatives of Diarmuid O'Neill at least four weeks prior to the opening of the resumed inquest into his death. [56339]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to direct the release of documents in connection with an inquest, but, wherever possible, we hope that information can be provided to families in advance.
  501
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received the Police Complaints Authority report on the death of Diarmuid O'Neill; what prosecutions or disciplinary actions were recommended in the report; on what date the inquest will be resumed; on what dates the relatives of the deceased were informed of the circumstances of his death; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [56317]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police investigation has been completed and copies of the report have recently been sent to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), Her Majesty's Coroner and the Crown Prosecution Service. PCA investigation reports are not normally sent to the Home Secretary or made public.

  Decisions as to any criminal or disciplinary action to be taken are matters for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the PCA. If the cause of death and the circumstances in which it occurred have not already been established in the course of criminal proceedings, the coroner may resume the inquest once the criminal proceedings are completed to inquire into these questions.

  Schengen Agreement
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if signatories of the Schengen Agreement now recognise the certificate of identity otherwise known as the brown British travel documents; what has been the impact of their policy on(a) those given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom and (b) those unable to obtain a travel document or passport from their own country who have indefinite leave to remain; and what steps his Department has taken on this matter. [57720]

  Kate Hoey
  The Certificate of Identity issued to certain foreign nationals living in the United Kingdom is issued in accordance with international custom, complies with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards, and guarantees the holder's return to this country within its validity. However, we are aware that some holders of these documents experience difficulties when applying for visas to travel both within Europe and beyond.

  It is a matter for the competent authorities of each country to decide whether to accept into their territory an individual or the holder of a particular type of document. This is not something over which the issuing authority can exert any influence.

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where(a) transcripts and (b) all additional material arising out of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's scrutiny of the evidence relating to the Hillsborough disaster are held; and in what form. [57477]

  Mr. Boateng
  Transcripts of meetings, prepared by Harry Counsel and Co., are held in paper form at the Home Office. Additional material arising out of the scrutiny is also held in paper form at the Home Office. Copies of as much as possible of the evidence considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith have been placed in the Library. The scrutiny papers do not form part of the material held by South Yorkshire Police.
  502
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if South Yorkshire Police hold(a) transcripts and (b) the additional material arising out of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's scrutiny of the evidence relating to the Hillsborough disaster on computer disk. [57478]

  Mr. Boateng
  South Yorkshire Police do not hold copies of either transcripts or additional material arising out of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's scrutiny of the Hillsborough disaster. Hard copies of these documents are held on file at the Home Office.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if South Yorkshire Police hold the(a) statements, (b) amended statements and (c) other documentation collected by West Midlands police during the investigation of the Hillsborough disaster on computer disk. [57480]

  Mr. Boateng
  All statements collected by West Midlands Police during the investigation into the Hillsborough disaster, including the amended statements by South Yorkshire Police officers, are held by South Yorkshire Police in their original paper form, and also on the HOLMES computer. Other documents collected by West Midlands Police are also held by South Yorkshire Police in their original form, but were not entered on the HOLMES computer.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if statements collected by West Midlands Police in respect of the Hillsborough investigation were entered on the Holmes computer. [57481]

  Mr. Boateng
  I can confirm that statements collected by West Midlands Police in respect of the Hillsborough investigation were entered on the HOLMES computer.

  Police Statements
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what length of time statements entered on the Holmes computer are retained and what arrangements are made for their archival storage when they are removed from the computer system. [57479]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that under rules developed by the Crime Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, information, such as witness statements, generated during a police investigation and entered onto Holmes is retained on the computer while the case remains active and then transferred to magnetic tape for archival storage. Information relating to closed cases for which a life sentence has been awarded is retained for the life of the convicted offender. For determinate sentences, the data are retained until all the appeal procedures have been exhausted, until the release of the offender, or for six years, whichever is the longer. Information relating to unsolved investigations or closed cases of national importance is retained indefinitely.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the capacity of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to deal with outstanding appeals. [57401]
  503
  Mr. Boateng
  The Board's programme, which we have approved, aims to clear appeals and other hearings cases at an annual rate of 10,000 so that the remaining work is completed by March 2000. The membership of the Board is currently 49 senior lawyers operating on a part-time basis. They are supported by legal and administrative staff. Given the increased complexity of the remaining cases, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow QC, the Board's Chairman, knows that we are open to recommendations as to the complement and composition of the Board and he has put forward two additional appointments for consideration. One additional Scottish member has recently been appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board originating in each year since 1990(a) were completed at first instance, (b) were agreed at first instance, (c) were refused at first instance and (d) subsequently went to appeal. [57397]

  Mr. Boateng
  Comprehensive data are not available by year of receipt of the claim. The table gives data on cases resolved at first instance in 1990–91 to 1997–98.

  Year

  Single member decisions accepted

  Awards made

  Claims refused

  1990–91

  44,179

  32,135

  12,044

  1991–92

  49,009

  35,268

  13,741

  1992–93

  47,462

  32,893

  14,569

  1993–94

  53,680

  33,982

  19,698

  1994–951

  44,528

  27,924

  16,604

  1995–96

  65,990

  42,124

  23,866

  1996–972

  53,824

  32,906

  20,918

  1997–98

  12,012

  8,014

  3,998

  1The first Tariff Scheme was introduced on1 April1994 and withdrawn on 5 April 1995. During that period there were thus no new claims for assessment by the CICB, but all that year's intake reverted to such assessment from April 1995.

  2The Tariff-based Scheme made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 became effective for all claims received on or after 1 April 1996.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are yet to be resolved for each year since 1990. [57399]

  Mr. Boateng
  The position at 30 September 1998 was:

  Year of receipt of original claim

  Appeal/hearings cases to be resolved

  Pre-1990

  240

  1990

  162

  1991

  365

  1992

  525

  1993

  862

  1994

  2,656

  1995

  6,887

  19961

  3,395

  Total

  215,092

  131 March 1996 was the final date on which a claim under the 1990 scheme was received.

  2The total includes a number of cases resolved in previous years but re-opened on medical grounds.

  504
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the period of time that applicants to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board wait for their cases to be processed. [57403]

  Mr. Boateng
  The 1990 common law based damages scheme administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was replaced for claims received on or after 1 April 1996 by the Tariff-based scheme, administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The new scheme is designed to be simpler and faster in processing cases. At 1 April 1996, the Board had some 110,000 unresolved claims. By 30 September 1998 that figure had been reduced to 17,490, which reflects good progress in the planned, orderly clearance of the Board's remaining work by March 2000. The 92,510 1990 scheme claims thus resolved, compares with 107,650 resolved under the 1996 scheme in the same period from its standing start on 1 April 1996.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board were successful in each year since 1990. [57398]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table gives the number of cases resolved at an oral hearing and the outcome in awards 1 to 1997–98.

  Year

  Number of cases heard

  Number of full or reduced awards made

  Percentage

  1990–91

  5,852

  3,055

  52.2

  1991–92

  8,909

  3,981

  49.2

  1992–93

  7,896

  3,745

  47.4

  1993–94

  7,340

  4,094

  55.7

  1994–95

  8,905

  4,567

  51.3

  1995–96

  7,350

  3,976

  54.1

  1996–97

  8,338

  4,072

  48.8

  1997–98

  7,410

  3,518

  47.5

  Total

  62,000

  31,008

  50.0

  In addition to the total of 62,000 heard, a further 15,352 appeals cases were resolved without a hearing. Data on the number of these resulting in an award are not available without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been refused by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the grounds that the applicant did not co-operate with the Police. [57402]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the period 1990–91 to 1997–98, 155,833 claims were refused by the Board. Of these, 37,945 (24 per cent.) concerned failure by the applicant in reporting to, or otherwise co-operating with, the police.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow applicants to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to see(a) police evidence and (b) other relevant evidence in advance of any appeal hearing. [57400]

  Mr. Boateng
  The arrangements whereby the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board obtains information from the police are governed by an agreement between the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Home Office and the Board. These arrangements, which I have no plans to seek to change, include an undertaking by the Board not
  505
  to disclose police documentary material to applicants, with the exception of witness statements, which are made available to applicants at an appeal hearing and recovered at the end of the proceedings. If other police information is at issue, the applicant is notified and the police officer will be called to give oral evidence which is open to examination and cross-examination by the applicant. All other material is sent to the applicant well in advance of the hearing. The Board members hearing the case have precisely the same documents before them as the applicant. They, too, rely solely on the oral evidence brought out at the hearing in relation to police information.

  Superstores
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires were attended by rescue services in single storey uncompartmentalised warehouse style superstores of(a) over 2,000 square metres and (b) over 4,000 square metres in (i) 1990 to 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1998 to date. [57675]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the Probation Service; and if he will make a statement. [57392]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Our proposals for modernising the probation services of England and Wales are set out in the consultation document "Joining Forces to Protect the Public", which was published on 6 August this year. The consultation will conclude on 27 November. Also relevant are our proposals set out in the consultation paper "Support Services in Family Proceedings—Future Organisation of Court Welfare Services", which was published on 30 July. This consultation will conclude on 13 November. Copies of both consultation documents are available in the Library. In both cases, there will be no decisions taken until all the responses have been carefully considered.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was first informed that an international warrant for the arrest of Senator Pinochet had been issued; and who informed him. [57413]

  Mr. Straw
  I was told by my office during the evening of Friday 16 October.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those people who consulted him or his officials about the diplomatic status of Senator Pinochet prior to the senator's arrest. [57427]

  Mr. Straw
  Neither I nor my officials were consulted about Senator Pinochet's diplomatic status.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his officials were informed that 506
  Senator Pinochet had entered the United Kingdom on his current visit. [57396]

  Mr. Straw
  An immigration officer granted Senator Pinochet leave to enter the United Kingdom on 22 September 1998. Officials elsewhere in the Home Office were only alerted to Senator Pinochet's presence on 14 October.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Spanish authorities about the extradition of Senator Pinochet; and when. [57411]

  Mr. Straw
  I received no such representations.

  Surveillance (Complaints)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made about the Security Service through the Security Service tribunal relating to telephone taps, letter intercepts and close surveillance in each of the last five years; and how many of the complaints made in each of those years has been upheld. [57913]

  Mr. Straw
  The available information regarding complaints about the Security Service made to the Security Service Tribunal is published in the Annual Reports of the Security Service Commissioner. The numbers are as follows:

  Year

  Number of complaints received

  1993

  36

  1994

  42

  1995

  21

  1996

  34

  1997

  45

  The table details the number of complaints relating to property received by the Security Service Tribunal and referred to the Commissioner in accordance with paragraph 4(1) of Schedule i to the Security Service Act 1989:

  Year

  Number of complaints received

  1993

  11

  1994

  19

  1995

  12

  1996

  10

  1997

  14

  The available information regarding complaints to the Interception of Communications Tribunal is published in the Annual Reports of the Interception Commissioner. The numbers are as follows:

  Year

  Number of complaints received

  1993

  41

  1994

  37

  1995

  64

  507

  Year

  Number of complaints received

  1996

  52

  1997

  79

  No determination in favour of a complainant has been made by either Tribunal.

  Channel Islands
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the result of the review of the financial legislation in Crown dependencies announced on 20 January, with particular reference to the Channel Islands. [57754]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 4.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to estimate future numbers of refugees and asylum seekers; what plans he is making for their reception; and if he will make a statement. [57684]

  Kate Hoey
  It is impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy what the future numbers of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom will be. The flow depends on a number of factors, reflecting conflicts, political instability and migratory pressures around the world. We are however looking at recent trends and also looking to make judgments on how the measures announced in the White Paper will affect the number of asylum applications. The results of our analysis will be available shortly.

  The Government's plans to introduce a new support system for asylum seekers are set out in chapter 8 of the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—a modern approach to immigration and asylum" (CM 4018).

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further(a) policy and (b) financial responses are being considered to deal with problems on the South Coast, arising from the influx of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [58207]

  Kate Hoey
  Asylum seekers who register their application when they arrive in this country may be eligible for income support. In-country applicants may be eligible for support under the National Assistance Act 1948 or (in the case of children) under the terms of the Children Act 1989. In the latter case, the obligation to provide support falls on the local authority.

  I am aware of the pressures being faced by a small number of local authorities in coping with the recent influx of asylum seekers. I have, therefore, encouraged the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Association of London Government (ALG) to develop a
  508
  clearing house arrangement which will enable asylum seekers to be dispersed on a fair and equitable basis around the country. I am aware of the financial disincentives in the current grant arrangements by which local authorities recover part of their costs in providing a support to asylum seekers. Provided the LGA and the ALG can introduce a workable system for the support of asylum seekers, the Government propose to change the grant arrangements for this year to enable local authorities to be paid on the basis of unit costs which are realistic but challenging.

  For the longer term, the Government plan to introduce a new support system for asylum seekers as set out in chapter 8 of the White Paper, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer— A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" (Cm 4018).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the steps taken by the nuclear industry to ensure that it is fully millennium-compliant. [57762]

  Mr. Battle
  All UK nuclear operators have initiated major programmes of work to address potential problems associated with the century date change issue. Those aspects of these programmes that address potential safety concerns are being monitored closely by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE is satisfied with the actions being taken. If the HSE were not satisfied it could make use of its extensive powers to require nuclear site licensees to undertake any safety-related actions it considered necessary. Operators anticipate that all essential work will be completed by mid-1999. Systems will be re-tested thoroughly to provide confirmation that remedial action taken to rectify any safety problems that are identified has been effective. Contingency plans will also be in place for the critical dates as a precaution against unforeseen threats to safety.

  Marine Sector
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the contribution to the United Kingdom economy of the marine sector in terms of(a) its share of national value added and (b) employment. [57088]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no standard definition of the marine sector. Furthermore, some of the industries which might reasonably be included, such as marine equipment, are not available from official statistics, usually because they are not separately identified within the Standard Industrial Classification. However, the following information is available
  509

  Standard Industrial Classification 1992

  Description

  Percentage of GDP 1996

  Percentage of employee Jobs11996

  35.1

  Building and repairing of ships and boats

  0.2

  0.2

  61

  Sea and inland water transport

  0.3

  0.1

  1Excludes self employment

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics: input/output tables, Annual Employment Survey

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings he had to discuss the aerospace industry during his recent visit to the United States. [56477]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry takes a close interest in the aerospace industry. His recent visit to the United States however focused on computing, information technology and new media, emerging technologies, and biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. He also discussed inward investment issues. Aerospace issues were not discussed on this occasion.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the strategic and industrial implications of a merger between British Aerospace and DASA of Germany; and if he will make a statement. [56474]

  Mr. Battle
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear since his statement with the German and French Heads of Government on 9 December last year, there is an urgent need to restructure the aerospace and defence industries in Europe.

  It would be for companies themselves to come forward with any specific merger proposals, which would be subject to consideration by the appropriate competition authorities in the usual way.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the scale of US Government support for the research and technology efforts of US aerospace companies; if he will take measures to match this proportionately; and if he will make a statement. [56467]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The most recent information available from NASA indicated that its office of aeronautics had a budget of over $940 million for civil aeronautical research and technology. In addition, other US Government bodies provide significant support to the research and technology efforts of US aerospace companies. My Department examines these figures and, with our European partners, has regular discussions with the US Government about levels of such support.

  No decisions have yet been made about detailed DTI budget allocations in future years.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department has taken to ensure that trade unions are fully consulted in 510
  compensation negotiations for Scottish miners for (a) occupational respiratory diseases and (b) vibration white finger. [57577]

  Mr. Battle
  We have been keen at every stage to consult with all appropriate bodies and their agents, including the relevant trade unions, in negotiations relating to claims for compensation by miners throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland, in respect of occupational respiratory diseases and vibration white finger. The solicitors acting on behalf of the National Union of Mineworkers (Scotland Area) have had regular communications from our claims handling agents, IRISC. This is in addition to the information which we understand those solicitors have received from plaintiffs organisations and Steering Groups in England and Wales who are meeting direct with my officials and IRISC on a regular basis.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department has taken to(a) supervise, (b) monitor and (c) facilitate negotiations relating to compensation for Scottish miners for (i) occupational respiratory disease and (ii) vibration white finger. [57576]

  Mr. Battle
  We have, following the recent test case litigation, in England and Wales, in relation to both occupational respiratory disease and vibration white finger, been closely and continuously involved with our claims handling agents, IRISC, in respect of a broad range of complex medical and legal issues arising out of the respective judgments, in relation to claims submitted on behalf of not just English and Welsh claimants but also Scottish claimants. We have instructed our Scottish solicitors to represent our interests in relation to Scottish claims. They and IRISC have been instructed to keep the National Union of Mineworkers (Scotland Area) fully informed of the progress of the negotiations in England and Wales. The intention is to secure as quickly as possible efficient handling arrangements for the prompt, consistent and fair resolution of claims submitted on behalf of all miners in Scotland, England and Wales.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in the car industry in the West Midlands. [57131]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: According to the 1996 Census of Production, some 80,000 people in the West Midlands are directly employed in the automotive industry. This figure includes those directly employed by vehicle manufactures and those in the supply chains.
  511
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for the motor industry(a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands. [57132]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: Overall prospects for the industry remain buoyant. New car sales in 1998 are expected to total 2.2 million, the highest figure this decade. New investments announced so far this year total £1,550 million with 4,000 new jobs created in the last 6 months alone.

  The recent launch of the new S-type Jaguar involves a £400 million investment in the West Midlands with 1,300 new jobs. Two other new models also launched at the Motor Show last week, and manufactured in the West Midlands, are Peugeot's new 206 model and the R75 from Rover. These new models will be key to the future of the motor industry in the region; all have been well-received.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new measures he proposes to assist the motor car industry(a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands. [57133]

  Mr. Battle
  With £1.55 billion of new investment and over 4,000 new jobs created so far this year, the car industry in the UK remains strong. It is not this Government's intention to single out any specific sector for special measures. Instead we are putting in place policies to build a stable economy capable of sustaining steady growth with particular emphasis on raising productivity and controlling inflation. This will benefit all sectors.

  However, maintaining and enhancing productivity are a constant challenge for the industry. Companies have been working to put in place competitive practices and to deliver models which customers want to buy. Rover in particular is looking at these issues again in an effort which involves close and ongoing discussions between the management and workforce in the West Midlands. We will maintain a close interest in their progress.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans his Department has to change the current bidding system for gaining a non fossil fuel obligation contract; and if he will make a statement; [57977]

  (2) if his Department will introduce measures to allow the payment of green electricity subsidy payments to small wind power producers outside the non fossil fuel obligation scheme; and if he will make a statement; [57978]

  Mr. Battle
  This Government propose to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with their manifesto commitment. To this end, I have commissioned a review of policy including considerations of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments.
  512
  That review is considering both support mechanisms for renewable energy, such as NFFO—and including the current bidding system—and the development of the green electricity market in the UK as well as the links between Government support and market development.

  My Department has also recently issued a public consultation paper on the future of gas and electricity regulation, entitled "A Fair Deal for Consumers— Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation", which is considering a number of wider issues affecting the electricity industry, including proposals on the separate licensing of supply and distribution. My Department will be consulting on how the NFFO might be adapted to such new circumstances.

  A number of companies operating in the green electricity market now developing outside the NFFO arrangements already offer a green premium to small renewable power producers generating from a number of renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures his Department has taken since 1 May 1997 to encourage the generation of power using(a) onshore and (b) offshore wind turbines; and if he will make a statement; [57975]

  (2) what plans his Department has to provide financial assistance to individuals and communities for the erecting and running of wind turbines; and if he will make a statement. [57976]

  Mr. Battle
  As a first step in the Government's new and strong drive for renewables, I announced the fifth and largest Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO-5) Order on 24 September 1998 of 1177 MW. This includes 36 projects, comprising 28 MW of contracted capacity from the special band for small wind turbines which is of particular interest to individuals or communities.

  My current review of renewable energy is considering the contribution each renewable energy source could make, including onshore and offshore wind energy, the barriers to deployment and the measures which may be necessary to overcome them, and the need for research, development, demonstration and dissemination. I expect to make an announcement about the Review later this year.

  In the meantime, my Department's New and Renewable Energy Programme continues to support a wide range of research projects related to wind energy and geared mainly towards onshore deployment, stimulated by successive Orders under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation. The Programme has also funded a series of studies related to community involvement in and development of renewable energy schemes and has produced a useful guide entitled "Community involvement in renewable energy projects—A guide for community groups". My Department has also worked with Triodos Bank towards the successful launch of the Wind Fund.

  Also in September this year, I took a major step towards generating electricity from offshore wind by launching a consultation document on arrangements for incorporating the development of offshore wind energy into the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Order (NFFO) process. Current work on offshore wind, includes monitoring the development of the first offshore wind

  513
  NFFO project, at Blythe, and assessing the commercial opportunities for UK manufacturing industry within the offshore wind arena.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantities of irradiated spent magnox fuel imported from Italy are currently in store at Sellafield; and what safeguards are applied to this spent fuel. [57097]

  Mr. Battle
  Individual quantities of spent fuel stored or reprocessed at Sellafield for specific customers are a commercial matter for BNFL and their customers. All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom is subject to Euratom and IAEA safeguards.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on policy in the United Kingdom of the decision by the German Government on 20 October to change their policy in respect of support for nuclear fuel reprocessing. [57091]

  Mr. Battle
  The new German Government have so far given only the outline of their policy on nuclear issues, including reprocessing of spent fuel. The details, including the implications for British Nuclear Fuels' reprocessing contracts with the German power utilities, remain to be clarified.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements have been made with the Italian authorities for the return of reprocessing wastes from Sellafield. [57094]
  514
  Mr. Battle
  Since 1976 all new contracts for reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for return of wastes. The Government intend that such options should be exercised and that wastes arising from reprocessing be returned to the country of origin. It has been the practice of successive Governments to obtain, before a contract for the reprocessing of foreign spent fuel is signed, assurances from the relevant government that it will take no legislative or regulatory steps to prevent the return of wastes arising under the contract. The adequacy of the facilities for managing those wastes is a matter for their owners and the regulatory authorities of the country concerned in accordance with the relevant legislation of that country.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantities of(a) low level, (b) intermediate level and (c) high level radioactive waste arising from the reprocessing of irradiated spent magnox fuel from Italy are currently stored at Sellafield; and if these wastes are covered by return-to-sender contractual obligations in the reprocessing contracts with Italy. [57096]

  Mr. Battle
  Each tonne of spent nuclear fuel reprocessed gives rise to approximately four cubic metres of low level waste containing 0.001 per cent. of the radioactivity, one cubic metre of intermediate level waste containing 1 per cent. of the radioactivity, and one tenth of one cubic metre of high level waste containing 1 per cent. of the radioactivity, and one tenth of one cubic metre of high level waste containing 99 per cent. of the radioactivity. Individual quantities of spent fuel stored or reprocessed at Sellafield for specific customers are a commercial matter for BNFL and its customers. Since 1976 all new contracts for reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for return of wastes. The Government intend that such options should be exercised and that wastes arising from reprocessing be returned to the country of origin.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Fair Funding
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the total numbers of responses to the consultation on "Fair Funding: improving delegation to schools"; and how many were(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to the proposals. [57081]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  2,967 responses were received. Most of them contained a range of views on the different measures, although broadly speaking secondary schools favoured more delegation whilst primary schools preferred to keep LEA services. GM schools favoured the increased delegation while LEAs expressed concern. I am sending my hon. Friend a summary analysis of the responses and placing copies in the Library.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed, and whether they receive remuneration. [56744]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested is given in the table. My hon. Friend will wish to note that this information will be in the Department's Annual Report when it is published next year, and is also accessible through the Public Appointment Unit's Internet Website.

  Name

  Position

  Remuneration

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching

  Derek Winslow1

  Governor

  None

  Andrew Yeomans

  Governor

  None

  Richard Bunker

  Governor

  None

  Jeremy Arliss

  Governor

  None

  Anthony Lunch

  Governor

  None

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Michael Fitchett

  Board member

  None

  Herbert Baggaley

  Board member

  None

  Stewart Tilley

  Board member

  None

  Oliver Robbins

  Board member

  None

  David Barrass

  Board member

  None

  George Brumwell1

  Board member

  None

  Malcolm Harris

  Board member

  None

  George Henderson1

  Board member

  None

  John Milne

  Board member

  None

  Brian Lee

  Board member

  None

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Norman Dunlop1

  Chairman

  None

  Mike Hockey

  Board member

  None

  Derek Mowforth

  Board member

  None

  Hugh Rees

  Board member

  None

  Barbara Rider

  Board member

  None

  Peter Miller

  Board member

  None

  Rae Angus1

  Board member

  None

  Steven Probert1

  Board member

  None

  Ian Bell1

  Board member

  None

  Ken Turnbull1

  Board member

  None

  David Odling1

  Board member

  None

  John Lee1

  Board member

  None

  David Hewitt1

  Board member

  None

  Ron McCaffer1

  Board member

  None

  516

  Name

  Position

  Remuneration

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Ms Anne Gibson1

  Commissioner

  £123 per day

  Richard Grayson1

  Commissioner

  £123 per day

  Joan Stringer1

  Commissioner

  £123 per day

  Mary Berg1

  Commissioner

  £123 per day

  Peter Smith1

  Commissioner

  £123 per day

  Teresa Rees?

  Commissioner

  £123 per day

  Funding Agency for Schools

  Sir Anthony Tippet

  Chairman

  £30,000 per annum

  Robert Lloyd

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  Professor David Johns

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  Miss Louise Anne Kidd

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  Roy Jobson

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  The Rev. Dr. Alan Billings

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  Robin Wendt

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  David Mallen

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  Linda Wedgbury1

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  Stella Earnshaw

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  John Chastney

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  George Phipson

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  Rodney East1

  Board member

  £155 per meeting

  Further Education Funding Council

  Lord Davies of Oldham

  Chairman

  £37,000 per annum

  Imtiaz Farookhi

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  John Merry

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Lord Newton of Braintree

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  George Sweeney

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Christina Cassidy

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  David Eade1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  FEFC—Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  David Wille

  Board member

  None

  Yvonne Rose

  Board member

  None

  Professor Robert Fryer

  Board member

  None

  Deanne Drake

  Board member

  None

  Robert Fryer

  Board member

  None

  David Gilchrist

  Board member

  None

  Yvonne Roase

  Board member

  None

  Robert Sowman

  Board member

  None

  David Wilce

  Board member

  None

  FEFC—East Midlands Region

  Jim Shearer

  Chair

  None

  Jane Daw

  Board member

  None

  Iain MacDonald

  Board member

  None

  Sian MacDonald

  Board member

  None

  Norman Riches

  Board member

  None

  Michael Scott

  Board member

  None

  FEFC—Eastern Region

  Lord Newton of Braintree

  Chair

  None

  David Ellerby

  Board member

  None

  Kim Parish

  Board member

  None

  Jim Thakoordin

  Board member

  None

  FEFC—Northern Region

  David Midgeley

  Chair

  None

  Geoffrey Crispin

  Board member

  None

  Keith Mitchell

  Board member

  None

  Ian Todd

  Board member

  None

  FEFC—North West Region

  James Lusty

  Board member

  None

  Anne Weinstock1

  Board member

  None

  FEFC—Greater London Region

  Stephen Grix

  Board member

  None

  FEFC—South East Region

  David Main

  Board member

  None

  Fred McCrindle

  Board member

  None

  Kenneth Saxby

  Board member

  None

  517

  Name

  Position

  Remuneration

  Karen Evans

  Board member

  None

  FEFC—South West Region

  David Fryer1

  Chair

  None

  John Bull

  Board member

  None

  Richard Ely

  Board member

  None

  Leighton Greenham

  Board member

  None

  Mike Kelsey

  Board member

  None

  Fiona McMillan

  Board member

  None

  Geoffrey Rees

  Board member

  None

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Dorma Urwin

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Professor Ron Cooke

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Dr. Keith Taylor

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Mrs. Joan Bingley1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Caroline Neville

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Professor Sir Gareth Roberts

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Dr. David Potter, CBE

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Professor Marilyn Butler

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Dr. John Strickson1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Miss Janet Trotter1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Professor Sir Colin Campbell1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Dr. Robert Telfer1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Professor Kay-Tee Khaw1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Mrs. Joan Bingley1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Sir Michael Checkland

  Chairman

  £37,822 per annum

  Barbara Stephens1

  Board member

  £4,000 per annum

  Investors In People UK

  Dr. Louise Wallace

  Board member

  None

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Sir William Stubbs

  Chairman

  £47,000 per annum

  Sir Dominic Cadbury

  Deputy Chairman

  None

  Professor Robin Alexander

  Board member

  None

  Geoffrey Ashton

  Board member

  None

  Mrs. Anne Duke

  Board member

  None

  Dr. Philip Evans

  Board member

  None

  Dr. Philip Hunter

  Board member

  None

  Mrs. Patricia Lee

  Board member

  None

  Ian McAllister

  Board member

  None

  Mrs. Patricia Morgan-Webb

  Board member

  None

  Sir George Quigley

  Board member

  None

  Heather Rabbatts

  Board member

  None

  Professor Ted Wragg

  Board member

  None

  Remploy

  Mrs. Sarah Brown

  Non-Exec Director

  None

  Peter Cooke

  Non-Exec Director

  None

  David Winterbottom1

  Non-Exec Director

  None

  National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities

  Alan Smith1

  Chairman

  None

  Paul Newman1

  council member

  None

  Guinette Davies1

  council member

  None

  Rita Donaghy1

  council member

  None

  Richard Exell1

  council member

  None

  Professor Ian Bruce1

  council member

  None

  Stephen Duckworth, OBE1

  council member

  None

  Dr. Ann Fingret1

  council member

  None

  Sir Peter Large, CBE1

  council member

  None

  Bert Massie, MBE1

  council member

  None

  Timothy Pape, OBE1

  council member

  None

  Susan Scott-Parker1

  council member

  None

  Richard Sermon1

  council member

  None

  Ian Sneddon1

  council member

  None

  John Spencer1

  council member

  None

  Dianah Worman1

  council member

  None

  National Disability Council

  Alan Smith

  council member

  £119 per day

  D. Alker1

  council member

  £119 per day

  518

  Name

  Position

  Remuneration

  C. Low1

  council member

  £119 per day

  D. Mills1

  council member

  £119 per day

  H. McConnell1

  council member

  £119 per day

  M. Wallace

  council member

  £119 per day

  P. Highes

  council member

  £119 per day

  S. Scott-Parker

  council member

  £119 per day

  G. Morbey

  council member

  £119 per day

  P. Friend

  council member

  £119 per day

  J. Downer

  council member

  £119 per day

  Teacher Training Agency

  Professor Clive Booth

  Chairman

  £15,759 per annum

  Dr. Peter Knight, OBE1

  Board member

  None

  Miss J. Trotter1

  Board member

  None

  Lady Marie Stubbs

  Board member

  None

  John Steele

  Board member

  None

  Professor John Gray

  Board member

  None

  Waheed Alli

  Board member

  None

  Paul Ennals

  Board member

  None

  Keith Anderson

  Board member

  None

  Mrs. Patricia Pritchard

  Board member

  None

  Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training

  Kenneth Stevens

  Board member

  None

  Diana Holland

  Board member

  None

  David Bradford

  Board member

  None

  Roger Little

  Board member

  None

  Timothy Pape, OBE

  Board member

  None

  Susan Scott-Parker

  Board member

  None

  Sue Maynard-Campbell

  Board member

  None

  Ian Sneddon

  Board member

  None

  Sharon Collins

  Board member

  None

  John Cornwall

  Board member

  None

  Rosemary Hallam

  Board member

  None

  Raymond Fletcher

  Board member

  None

  1These are reappointments

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many(a) secondary, (b) junior and (c) infant schools under local education authority control in England and Wales were contracted out for inspection on behalf of Ofsted in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1998 to date; [57489]

  (2) how many contractors are nominated by Ofsted to carry out inspections in schools in England and Wales; [57490]

  (3) how many (a) secondary, (b) junior and (c) infant schools under local education authority control in England and Wales were inspected by Ofsted in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1998 to date. [57491]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  School Standards (Consultation Papers)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the consultation papers which have been circulated to(a) schools and (b) local education authorities arising from the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, indicating in each case the consultation period provided. [57706]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table sets out the information requested.
  519

  Consultations arising from the School Standards and Framework Act 1998

  Consultation

  Weeksgiven for reply

  Sent to LEA

  Sent to schools

  1998

  February

  LEA Education Development Plans: Draft Guidance

  10

  Y

  Y

  March

  LEA-School Relations: Draft Code of Practice

  10

  Y

  Y(GM schools)

  Early Education and Day Care: Draft Regulations

  10

  Y

  Y

  April

  Parent Governor Representatives on Education Committees: A Consultation Paper

  14

  Y

  N

  Reducing Infant Class Sizes: Draft Guidance and Outline Regulations

  7

  Y

  N

  May

  Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools: Consultation Paper

  9

  Y

  1Y

  The Education (Allocation of Grant-Maintained and Grant-Maintained Special Schools to New Categories): Draft Regulations

  8

  Y

  N

  June

  School Admissions: Draft Interim Guidance

  5

  Y

  Y

  Education (Grammar School Designation) Draft Order, together with the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Draft Regulations

  8

  Y

  Y (grammar schools)

  The Religious Character of Schools (Designation Procedure) Draft Regulations and the Designation of Schools Having a Religious Character Draft Order

  10

  Y

  Y (50 schools)

  July

  Home School Agreements: Draft Guidance

  10

  Y

  Y(500 schools)

  Target Setting for Reducing Exclusions and Unauthorised Absence: Consultation Paper

  10

  Y

  Y(secondary schools)

  Education (National Curriculum)(Exceptions at Key Stage 4): Draft Regulations

  5

  Y

  Y (500 secondary schools)

  Locally Agreed Syllabuses for Religious Education: Draft Order

  15

  Y

  N

  August

  The Education (School Government)(Transition to New Framework) Draft Regulations

  7

  Y

  N

  The Foundation Body Draft Regulations

  9

  Y

  N

  October

  Ingredients for Success: a Consultation Paper on Nutritional Standards for School Lunches

  12

  Y

  Y (200 secondary schools)

  The Protection of School Playing Fields and the Education (School Premises) Draft Regulations

  9

  Y

  N

  Standards for School Premises and the protection of School Playing Fields: Draft Guidance and Draft Regulations

  8

  Y

  N

  Local Schools Budget and Individual Schools Budget: Draft Regulations under Section 46 of the School Standards and Framework Act

  4

  Y

  N

  Determination of Budget Shares: Draft Regulations under Section 47 of the School Standards and Framework Act

  4

  Y

  N

  Schemes for Financing Schools: Draft Regulations and Outline Scheme under Section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act

  4

  Y

  N

  The Education (Amount to Follow Permanently Excluded Pupil) Regulations 1999

  4

  Y

  N

  Admissions: Draft Code of Practice

  6

  Y

  Y (VA, GM schools)

  1The paper "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" was circulated to schools on 15 June.

  Study or Training Leave
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated cost to his Department of granting a right to time off for study or training for 16 and 17 year olds. [57678]

  Mr. Mudie
  Full details of the estimated costs to the Government of introducing a right to time off for study or training for certain 16 and 17-year-old employees were 520
  included in the Regulatory Appraisal which was published alongside the Teaching and Higher Education Bill in November 1997. A copy of the Regulatory Appraisal was placed in the Library.

  Student Guidance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve guidance to students for transition at 18 plus. [56208]
  521
  Mr. Mudie
  Careers services are required, in partnership with schools and colleges, to provide students at 18 with access to the information, advice and guidance to enable them to make informed decisions to progress into further learning or employment. We are asking careers services to focus particular attention on those young people who are most in need of help.

  School Funding
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the difference is between the local authority with(a) the highest and (b) the lowest standard spending assessment for (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools. [57670]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table sets out the education standard spending assessment per primary pupil and per secondary pupil for all local education authorities in England for 1998–99. The difference between the local authority with the highest and the lowest standard spending assessment is £1,880 per primary pupil and £2,432 per secondary pupil.

  Education SSA per pupil 1998–99

  £

  LEA

  Primary per pupil

  Secondary per pupil

  Isles of Scilly

  3,884

  5,051

  Tower Hamlets

  3,377

  4,434

  Hackney

  3,327

  4,558

  Lambeth

  3,307

  4,661

  Southwark

  3,197

  4,191

  Islington

  3,168

  4,218

  Camden

  3,131

  3,947

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,128

  4,081

  Lewisham

  3,111

  4,088

  City of London

  3,094

  9,236

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,047

  3,946

  Westminster

  2,987

  3,741

  Greenwich

  2,967

  3,854

  Newham

  2,917

  3,809

  Wandsworth

  2,900

  3,797

  Haringey

  2,892

  3,849

  Brent

  2,804

  3,710

  Waltham Forest

  2,703

  3,530

  Ealing

  2,622

  3,503

  Slough

  2,613

  3,485

  Hounslow

  2,570

  3,301

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,561

  3,377

  Enfield

  2,528

  3,260

  Manchester

  2,510

  3,321

  Croydon

  2,496

  3,288

  Knowsley

  2,489

  3,336

  Redbridge

  2,456

  3,181

  Merton

  2,451

  3,186

  Liverpool

  2,436

  3,165

  Barnet

  2,429

  3,112

  Hillingdon

  2,399

  3,115

  Harrow

  2,388

  3,148

  Nottingham City

  2,382

  3,135

  Luton

  2,380

  3,111

  Thurrock

  2,373

  3,096

  Birmingham

  2,370

  3,113

  Sutton

  2,345

  2,995

  Leicester

  2,332

  3,035

  Bexley

  2,331

  3,031

  Middlesbrough

  2,318

  3,066

  Southampton

  2,310

  3,036

  Blackburn

  2,304

  2,995

  Brighton and Hove

  2,303

  3,001

  Bromley

  2,298

  2,965

  522

  Education SSA per pupil 1998–99

  £

  LEA

  Primary per pupil

  Secondary per pupil

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,296

  2,998

  Portsmouth

  2,295

  2,988

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,293

  2,954

  Havering

  2,293

  2,993

  Isle of Wight Council

  2,288

  2,981

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,279

  2,968

  Reading

  2,279

  3,037

  Bradford

  2,272

  2,985

  Wolverhampton

  2,270

  2,987

  Southend

  2,264

  2,955

  Sandwell

  2,261

  2,954

  Salford

  2,259

  2,970

  Hertfordshire

  2,257

  2,927

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,253

  2,878

  Milton Keynes

  2,252

  2,956

  Coventry

  2,243

  2,922

  Rochdale

  2,235

  2,934

  Halton

  2,235

  2,946

  South Tyneside

  2,232

  2,900

  Doncaster

  2,232

  2,918

  Bracknell Forest

  2,231

  2,909

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,228

  2,859

  Essex

  2,228

  2,907

  Surrey

  2,228

  2,897

  Kent

  2,227

  2,902

  East Sussex

  2,226

  2,910

  Peterborough

  2,222

  2,886

  Oldham

  2,218

  2,868

  Wirral

  2,218

  2,905

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,218

  2,866

  Hartlepool

  2,208

  2,875

  City of Bristol

  2,207

  2,911

  Medway Towns

  2,205

  2,876

  Sunderland

  2,203

  2,871

  Derby

  2,197

  2,865

  Gateshead

  2,188

  2,854

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,187

  2,849

  Kirklees

  2,185

  2,848

  Sheffield

  2,184

  2,854

  Buckinghamshire

  2,180

  2,851

  Bedfordshire

  2,179

  2,835

  Oxfordshire

  2,178

  2,815

  Walsall

  2,176

  2,819

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,174

  2,837

  Blackpool

  2,168

  2,872

  The Wrekin

  2,166

  2,820

  Torbay

  2,163

  2,811

  Cornwall

  2,162

  2,820

  Calderdale

  2,161

  2,820

  Durham

  2,159

  2,824

  West Sussex

  2,159

  2,810

  Bolton

  2,159

  2,802

  St. Helens

  2,158

  2,824

  Leeds

  2,156

  2,806

  Stoke on Trent

  2,155

  2,818

  North Lincolnshire

  2,155

  2,806

  Barnsley

  2,154

  2,823

  Norfolk

  2,153

  2,802

  Sefton

  2,153

  2,789

  Rotherham

  2,152

  2,779

  Lincolnshire

  2,149

  2,802

  Herefordshire

  2,149

  2,818

  Plymouth

  2,149

  2,773

  Bournemouth

  2,148

  2,774

  Darlington

  2,145

  2,810

  Lancashire

  2,138

  2,783

  Devon

  2,137

  2,794

  Tameside

  2,135

  2,768

  Cumbria

  2,133

  2,774

  North Tyneside

  2,125

  2,793

  523

  Education SSA per pupil 1998–99

  £

  LEA

  Primary per pupil

  Secondaryper pupil

  Hampshire

  2,124

  2,776

  Northumberland

  2,120

  2,765

  Newbury

  2,118

  2,733

  North Yorkshire

  2,117

  2,732

  Somerset

  2,105

  2,747

  Cambridgeshire

  2,104

  2,734

  Northamptonshire

  2,104

  2,739

  Trafford

  2,103

  2,726

  Suffolk

  2,100

  2,724

  Shropshire

  2,100

  2,727

  Wakefield

  2,097

  2,728

  Wiltshire

  2,092

  2,731

  Swindon

  2,082

  2,720

  Bury

  2,081

  2,686

  Gloucestershire

  2,081

  2,703

  Nottinghamshire

  2,077

  2,709

  Wigan

  2,076

  2,689

  Dorset

  2,073

  2,691

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,071

  2,688

  Rutland

  2,065

  2,594

  Warwickshire

  2,063

  2,685

  Dudley

  2,059

  2,673

  Cheshire

  2,058

  2,663

  Derbyshire

  2,057

  2,682

  York

  2,056

  2,700

  North Somerset

  2,054

  2,681

  Solihull

  2,053

  2,648

  Worcestershire

  2,051

  2,664

  Poole

  2,044

  2,655

  Stockport

  2,042

  2,665

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,041

  2,606

  Staffordshire

  2,037

  2,653

  Warrington

  2,036

  2,659

  Wokingham

  2,028

  2,657

  Leicestershire

  2,006

  2,620

  South Gloucestershire

  2,004

  2,619

  England

  2,248

  2,918

  Mr.Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment What are the current levels of funding per pupil in each local education authority. [55592]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the current levels of funding per primary and secondary pupil through the education standard spending assessment system for each English local education authority The education SSAs have increased across England between 1997–98 and 1998–99 by £119 per primary pupil and by £135per secondary pupil.

  1998–99 SSA per pupil

  £

  LEA

  Primary per pupil

  Secondary per pupil

  Increase 5 to 10

  Increase 11 to 15

  Isles of Scilly

  3,884

  5,051

  307

  349

  Tower Hamlets

  3,377

  4,434

  160

  172

  Hackney

  3,327

  4,558

  148

  226

  Lambeth

  3,307

  4,661

  201

  257

  Southwark

  3,197

  4,191

  167

  161

  Islington

  3,168

  4,218

  169

  192

  Camden

  3,131

  3,947

  156

  206

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,128

  4,081

  172

  254

  Lewisham

  3,111

  4,088

  175

  199

  City of London

  3,094

  9,236

  76

  1,989

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,047

  3,946

  336

  315

  Westminster

  2,987

  3,741

  197

  162

  524

  1998–99 SSA per pupil

  £

  LEA

  Primary per pupil

  Secondaryper pupil

  Increase 5 to 10

  Increase 11 to 15

  Greenwich

  2,967

  3,854

  157

  174

  Newham

  2,917

  3,809

  165

  190

  Wandsworth

  2,900

  3,797

  121

  127

  Haringey

  2,892

  3,849

  130

  127

  Brent

  2,804

  3,710

  156

  131

  Waltham Forest

  2,703

  3,530

  140

  130

  Ealing

  2,622

  3,503

  143

  172

  Slough

  2,613

  3,485

  165

  207

  Hounslow

  2,570

  3,301

  130

  146

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,561

  3,377

  133

  162

  Enfield

  2,528

  3,260

  130

  128

  Manchester

  2,510

  3,321

  150

  183

  Croydon

  2,496

  3,288

  135

  163

  Knowsley

  2,489

  3,336

  108

  158

  Redbridge

  2,456

  3,181

  133

  144

  Merton

  2,451

  3,186

  137

  156

  Liverpool

  2,436

  3,165

  141

  142

  Barnet

  2,429

  3,112

  128

  135

  Hillingdon

  2,399

  3,115

  137

  146

  Harrow

  2,388

  3,148

  121

  148

  Nottingham City

  2,382

  3,135

  119

  138

  Luton

  2,380

  3,111

  136

  152

  Thurrock

  2,373

  3,096

  133

  157

  Birmingham

  2,370

  3,113

  130

  152

  Sutton

  2,345

  2,995

  126

  129

  Leicester

  2,332

  3,035

  124

  136

  Bexley

  2,331

  3,031

  125

  143

  Middlesbrough

  2,318

  3,066

  118

  130

  Southampton

  2,310

  3,036

  131

  147

  Blackburn

  2,304

  2,995

  125

  147

  Brighton and Hove

  2,303

  3,001

  130

  154

  Bromley

  2,298

  2,965

  119

  125

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,296

  2,998

  125

  151

  Portsmouth

  2,295

  2,988

  132

  156

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,293

  2,954

  125

  129

  Havering

  2,293

  2,993

  117

  140

  Isle of Wight Council

  2,288

  2,981

  122

  140

  City ofKingston-upon-Hull

  2,279

  2,968

  120

  134

  Reading

  2,279

  3,037

  126

  140

  Bradford

  2,272

  2,985

  120

  140

  Wolverhampton

  2,270

  2,987

  119

  138

  Southend

  2,264

  2,955

  129

  145

  Sandwell

  2,261

  2,954

  121

  146

  Salford

  2,259

  2,970

  120

  155

  Hertfordshire

  2,257

  2,927

  123

  139

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,253

  2,878

  127

  150

  Milton Keynes

  2,252

  2,956

  120

  142

  Coventry

  2,243

  2,922

  120

  136

  Rochdale

  2,235

  2,934

  121

  128

  Halton

  2,235

  2,946

  107

  135

  South Tyneside

  2,232

  2,900

  111

  120

  Doncaster

  2,232

  2,918

  116

  135

  Bracknell Forest

  2,231

  2,909

  127

  157

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,228

  2,859

  130

  154

  Essex

  2,228

  2,907

  124

  145

  Surrey

  2,228

  2,897

  119

  133

  Kent

  2,227

  2,902

  123

  143

  East Sussex

  2,226

  2,910

  132

  156

  Peterborough

  2,222

  2,886

  123

  130

  Oldham

  2,218

  2,868

  117

  135

  Wirral

  2,218

  2,905

  118

  141

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,218

  2,866

  112

  127

  Hartlepool

  2,208

  2,875

  110

  120

  City of Bristol

  2,207

  2,911

  114

  127

  Medway Towns

  2,205

  2,876

  113

  127

  Sunderland

  2,203

  2,871

  114

  127

  Derby

  2,197

  2,865

  112

  118

  Gateshead

  2,188

  2,854

  114

  117

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,187

  2,849

  111

  121

  Kirklees

  2,185

  2,848

  119

  129

  Sheffield

  2,184

  2,854

  115

  129

  Buckinghamshire

  2,180

  2,851

  116

  138

  Bedfordshire

  2,179

  2,835

  124

  138

  525

  1998–99 SSA per pupil

  £

  LEA

  Primary per pupil

  Secondary per pupil

  Increase 5 to 10

  Increase 11 to 15

  Oxfordshire

  2,178

  2,815

  131

  145

  Walsall

  2,176

  2,819

  105

  118

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,174

  2,837

  108

  130

  Blackpool

  2,168

  2,872

  120

  133

  The Wrekin

  2,166

  2,820

  106

  119

  Torbay

  2,163

  2,811

  108

  123

  Cornwall

  2,162

  2,820

  105

  122

  Calderdale

  2,161

  2,820

  110

  130

  Durham

  2,159

  2,824

  116

  138

  West Sussex

  2,159

  2,810

  117

  135

  Bolton

  2,159

  2,802

  117

  128

  St. Helens

  2,158

  2,824

  113

  128

  Leeds

  2,156

  2,806

  115

  125

  Stoke on Trent

  2,155

  2,818

  112

  125

  North Lincolnshire

  2,155

  2,806

  116

  133

  Barnsley

  2,154

  2,823

  116

  136

  Norfolk

  2,153

  2,802

  111

  127

  Sefton

  2,153

  2,789

  116

  127

  Rotherham

  2,152

  2,779

  115

  123

  Lincolnshire

  2,149

  2,802

  108

  126

  Herefordshire

  2,149

  2,818

  102

  111

  Plymouth

  2,149

  2,773

  115

  128

  Bournemouth

  2,148

  2,774

  115

  124

  Darlington

  2,145

  2,810

  107

  127

  Lancashire

  2,138

  2,783

  112

  126

  Devon

  2,137

  2,794

  112

  125

  Tameside

  2,135

  2,768

  111

  119

  Cumbria

  2,133

  2,774

  111

  129

  North Tyneside

  2,125

  2,793

  109

  128

  Hampshire

  2,124

  2,776

  117

  145

  Northumberland

  2,120

  2,765

  105

  126

  Newbury

  2,118

  2,733

  124

  143

  North Yorkshire

  2,117

  2,732

  111

  129

  Somerset

  2,105

  2,747

  110

  125

  Cambridgeshire

  2,104

  2,734

  115

  122

  Northamptonshire

  2,104

  2,739

  105

  118

  Trafford

  2,103

  2,726

  110

  123

  Suffolk

  2,100

  2,724

  118

  124

  Shropshire

  2,100

  2,727

  100

  115

  Wakefield

  2,097

  2,728

  109

  124

  Wiltshire

  2,092

  2,731

  105

  128

  Swindon

  2,082

  2,720

  103

  119

  Bury

  2,081

  2,686

  109

  127

  Gloucestershire

  2,081

  2,703

  104

  118

  Nottinghamshire

  2,077

  2,709

  108

  128

  Wigan

  2,076

  2,689

  107

  116

  Dorset

  2,073

  2,691

  110

  126

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,071

  2,688

  110

  126

  Rutland

  2,065

  2,594

  123

  128

  Warwickshire

  2,063

  2,685

  102

  112

  Dudley

  2,059

  2,673

  105

  113

  Cheshire

  2,058

  2,663

  106

  121

  Derbyshire

  2,057

  2,682

  105

  117

  York

  2,056

  2,700

  111

  134

  North Somerset

  2,054

  2,681

  112

  128

  Solihull

  2,053

  2,648

  93

  108

  Worcestershire

  2,051

  2,664

  94

  105

  Poole

  2,044

  2,655

  101

  115

  Stockport

  2,042

  2,665

  102

  117

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,041

  2,606

  108

  122

  Staffordshire

  2,037

  2,653

  102

  119

  Warrington

  2,036

  2,659

  97

  115

  Wokingham

  2,028

  2,657

  115

  139

  Leicestershire

  2,006

  2,620

  101

  116

  South Gloucestershire

  2,004

  2.619

  102

  122

  Total

  2,248

  2,918

  119

  135

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to 526
  encourage co-operation and joint planning between further education colleges and neighbouring schools in respect of (a) 14 to 16 year old students and (b) 16 to 19 year old students. [57667]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are keen to see greater collaboration between schools and colleges. For 14 to 16 year olds we are encouraging innovative arrangements for work related learning through school-college links. We have also invited Local Education Authorities to bid under the new £500 million Social Inclusion: Pupil Support Grant for projects involving colleges to tackle truancy and exclusion from school.

  For 16 to 19 year olds we are working closely with the Local Government Association, the Further Education Funding Council and other partners to promote co-operation between schools and colleges with the aim of increasing participation and achievement. We hope to make a further announcement in this area shortly.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the comparative costs of equivalent courses delivered by(a) further education colleges and (b) training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement. [57668]

  Mr. Mudie
  Estimates of the funding costs of achieving various qualifications in school sixth forms, FE colleges and work-based training will appear in 'The Public Funding Costs of Education and Training for 16–19 Year Olds in England 1996–97'. This report is currently being finalised in collaboration with representatives of the FE sector, training and enterprise councils and other partner organisations, and will be published shortly.

  Sixth Form Numbers
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) names and (b) classifications of 11 to 18 schools with 50 or fewer sixth form students, together with the local authorities in which they are located. [57574]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The 1997 Secondary School Performance Tables contain the names and classifications together with the number of pupils aged 16 and over (which gives an indication of the size of a school's sixth form) of each 11 to 18 school in each LEA area in England. Copies of the tables are available in the Library.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many UK students had not been assessed for liability to pay tuition fees by 21 October. [58026]

  Mr. Mudie
  This information is not collected centrally. However, the Department has written to all LEAs impressing on them the need to complete these assessments quickly.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much the Government had spent on assessing the liabilities of non-UK EU university students to pay tuition fees by 21 October. [58025]

  Mr. Mudie
  An amount of £327,000 had been spent by 21 October.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 1003–04, on the performance of maintained schools, if he will rank each local education authority in order of the cost for each (a) A level and (b) GCSE obtained. [57930]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information on the costs of each qualification in maintained schools is not collected.

  Teacher Posts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new teacher posts have been created in each of the last five years in the primary phase. [55815]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The numbers of new teacher posts are not held centrally. The total full-time equivalent number of teachers in service in the maintained nursery and primary sector in England for each of the last 5 years is given in the table.

  January

  Full-time equivalent

  1994

  197,600

  1995

  198,400

  1996

  199,600

  1997

  200,000

  1998

  198,400

  LEAs that received grants to reduce infant classes have reported that an additional 1,500 teachers were recruited for infant classes in September 1998 to help deliver the class size pledge.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Social Affairs Council meeting on 27 October. [58318]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I attended the Council of Employment and Social Affairs Ministers in Luxembourg on 27 October.

  The Commission presented its draft Employment Guidelines for 1999, its draft Joint Report on member states' implementation of their National Employment Actions Plans, and the Employment Rates Report. The Council broadly welcomed the proposed Guidelines. Detailed discussion of these documents will take place at Council meetings on 20 November and 1 December. The Guidelines and Joint Report will be put to the European Council for agreement in Vienna on 11–12 December. The Council also heard a report from the Chair of the Employment and Labour Market Committee on the timetable for producing employment reports in 1999.

  The Council discussed a Presidency paper setting out the remaining areas for agreement on employee involvement within the proposed European Company Statute. The Presidency hopes to secure political agreement at the meeting of the Council on 2 December.
  528
  The Council had an open debate on the Commission's Social Action Programme 1998–2000. Many delegations supported the Action Programme's emphasis on promoting employment and tackling unemployment. No conclusions were drawn.

  The Council noted progress reports on the reform of the Standing Committee on Employment, the proposed Council Directive on protecting the health and safety of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres, the proposed extension to students of Regulation 1408/71 (social security for migrant workers), and the negotiations for the second phase of the LEONARDO DA VINCI vocational training programme.

  The Council also noted the Commission's intention to proceed with a draft Council Directive on information and consultation of workers at national level, and noted Presidency reports on the informal meeting of Women's and Social Affairs Ministers in Innsbruck in July and the recent symposium in Vienna on "A Society for All Ages".

  Physical Education
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many physical education teachers were employed by local education authorities and grant-maintained schools in each year since 1979. [55783]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England who were both teaching and had a post A-level qualification in physical education were as follows:

  England

  Year

  Number of teachers

  1983–84

  22,000

  1987–88

  18,000

  1991–92

  17,000

  1996–97

  15,000

  Source:

  Secondary schools staffing surveys since 1979

  Similar information for primary teachers is not available. However, primary teachers are trained to deliver the whole primary curriculum including physical education.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow OFSTED to accredit initial teaching training courses either in whole or in part. [56213]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no plans to change the current statutory requirements which give the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) alone the power to accredit or de-accredit providers of initial teacher training. OFSTED will continue to be responsible for inspection of all initial training and TTA will continue to use information from inspections in making decisions about continued accreditation.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many post-graduate certificate in education courses in individual institutions of higher education failed to recruit sufficient numbers and therefore did not proceed in each of the last six years. [56199]
  529
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on individual post-graduate certificate in education courses which did not proceed because of lack of recruits is not held centrally.

  Teaching Standards
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation he has made of the standards of teaching achieved by those who have completed(a) a three year undergraduate degree, followed by a one year PGCE course and (b) a four year B.Ed or BA with qualified teacher status. [56150]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To gain Qualified Teacher Status candidates on any form of initial training must achieve the same standards and have demonstrated a secure knowledge of the appropriate curricula. The Department has not undertaken any evaluation of the teaching of teachers trained through different routes. We expect the same high standard of all new teachers.

  College Staff
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if it is his policy to allow college staff to remain as clerks to governing bodies. [56700]

  Mr. Mudie
  We shall consider the position of clerks in the forthcoming revision of college instrument and articles of government.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to announce a decision on the Government's proposals for education maintenance allowances for 16 to 19-year-olds. [56699]

  Mr. Mudie
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his July Public Expenditure White Paper, we will be setting up pilots to test the effect of an Education Maintenance Allowance payable to young people from low-income households. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to make further announcements on this matter before the end of the year.

  Citizenship Curriculum
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the new citizenship curriculum requirements for schools will incorporate specific reference to the United Nations. [57087]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The recommendations of the Citizenship Advisory Group include a set of learning outcomes which refer to the work of the United Nations organisations and major non-governmental bodies. These recommendations are currently being considered by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority as part of their review of the National Curriculum. Following this review, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will offer advice to the Secretary of State on the place of education for citizenship in the curriculum.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the advantages of extending the National Grid for Learning Scheme to youth and community services for use in youth clubs. [57456]
  530
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government's consultation paper 'Connecting the Learning Society' set out a target date of 2002 for the connection of all schools, colleges, universities and libraries and as many community centres as possible to be connected to the National Grid for Learning via the Internet.

  The Government will be seeking to ensure that the National Grid for Learning, the University for Industry and other lifelong learning initiatives will be accessible via a range of technologies including the Internet, and at a range of locations which fit in with people's lifestyles. We will consider a range of ways in which to maximise access to the Grid, including community projects such as youth clubs.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he intends to extend free telephone calls to after 6 p.m. under the National Grid for Learning. [57457]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government intend to review current arrangements brokered by Oftel with the telecommunications industry, to build on the progress already made in making medium speed connections more affordable to schools. Further announcements will be made shortly.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in the Chorley constituency have taken advantage of the National Grid for Learning to date. [57455]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  16 schools in the Chorley constituency have so far benefited under the first year of the Standards Fund National Grid for Learning Grant. These grants are intended to progressively enable all schools to secure access to high quality networked educational services on the National Grid for Learning through the replacement of obsolete equipment, the provision of suitable internal and external networking facilities, quality software and on-line services, and associated training in basic ICT use.

  All schools which currently have access to the Internet will be able to take advantage of resources and services through the National Grid for Learning.

  Attention Deficit Disorder
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to issue guidance to local education authorities on education provision for children suffering from attention deficit disorder. [57605]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Education Act 1996 and the Department's Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs advise local education authorities and schools on how to identify and provide for all children with special education needs. We have no plans to issue further guidance specifically about children suffering from attention deficit disorder.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) and Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals for special educational needs; [57681]
  531
  (2) when his special educational needs action plan will be published; and if he will make a statement. [57682]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Consultation on the Green Paper Excellence for all children: meeting special educational needs generated many thoughtful ideas and comments. In the light of these, and advice from the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs, we will be publishing an Action Programme shortly.

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to instruct local education authorities to provide him with information on the provision made by that authority of special educational facilities for children who suffer from autism or other forms of early childhood psychosis; and if he will make a statement. [57048]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Provisions in the Education Act 1981, now consolidated into the Education Act 1996, require schools to submit information on numbers of pupils with special educational needs. In accordance with the recommendation of the Warnock Committee there is no requirement for them to record the nature of the disability or learning difficulty and we have no current intention to require them to do so.

  Youth Employment
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much had been spent from public funds on the new deal for 18 to 24 year-olds by 30 September. [56045]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: Expenditure brought to account on the new deal programme for 18–24 year olds by 30 September was £100.9m. Of this £43.6 million has been spent on preparation, implementation and marketing, the remaining £57.3 million is operational programme costs.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that every Careers Service contractor is required and resourced to provide guidance to all holders of individual learning accounts and to adults in every local community as part of a locally determined local learning access network to nationally defined quality standards. [56207]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are considering our future strategy relating to local information, advice and guidance services for adults in the light of the many helpful comments on the issue we have received in response to "The Learning Age" (Cmnd 3790).

HEALTH

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of health visitors in each of the next four years. [56176]

  Mr. Milburn
  Estimates of numbers of health visitors to be employed are not drawn up centrally. Workforce planning and the commissioning of training places for health visitors is employer led; local workforce plans are drawn up by education consortia which comprise trusts, health authorities and other healthcare providers.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what meetings his Department has had with(a) members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, (b) members of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, (c) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (d) the Environment Agency and (e) the Health and Safety Executive, following the finding of abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient in Torbay; and if he will make a statement; [57151]

  (2) what recommendations have been made to his Department by (a) the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and (b) the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens following the finding of abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient in Torbay; what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations in each case; and if he will make a statement; [57152]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) SEAC, (b) ACDP, (c) HSE, (d) MAFF and (e) the Environment Agency on the destruction of surgical instruments in the context of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in the context of any further findings over new variant CJD; [56994]

  (4) what checks have been made of patients subsequently operated upon in hospitals where individuals infected with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease have undergone operations; [56996]

  (5) what research his Department has commissioned following the finding of abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient in Torbay; [57021]

  (6) what assessment his Department has made of the risk to patients of contracting new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease from surgical instruments; and if he will make a statement; [56947]

  (7) what contingency plans his Department has made should he be advised that there is a risk that patients could be infected with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by surgical instruments; [57005]

  (8) what action has been taken following the finding of abnormal prion protein in the appendix of a patient in Torbay; what meetings it has held with other bodies on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [57004]

  Ms Jowell
  In early July we learnt that abnormal prion protein had been found in the appendix removed from a patient in Torbay who, although he did not show any symptoms of disease at the time, some 2½ years later died of nvCJD.
  533
  The matter was immediately referred to the joint Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens/Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee Working Group (ACDP/SEAC WG) on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies which considered it at a meeting on 8 July. The advice of this group, as stated by the then Chief Medical Officer in his Press Release of 27 August 1998, is that the overall risk of transmission of nvCJD to other patients is minimal.

  On 21 September SEAC considered the implications of this incident for the risks from surgical instruments and a summary of their discussion was made available to a sub-group of the ACDP/SEAC WG specially convened to look at decontamination advice on 24 September. Following the sub-group meeting on 24 September discussions are underway with the HSE, the Medical Devices Agency, and a number of independent experts about changes to instrument design and decontamination procedures aimed at reducing any remaining risk still further. Proposals for further work are also being finalised and these groups will consider their final advice once these discussions are completed.

  The existing guidance from ACDP/SEAC "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Agents: safe working and the prevention of infection" (published in March 1998) aims to minimise the risk to patients and staff from nvCJD and already specified that all instruments used on known or suspect cases of CJD must be destroyed as must those used on procedures involving the brain, spinal cord or eyes of patients thought to be at risk of CJD, for instance recipients of human growth hormone. This guidance also specifies that disposable instruments should be used whenever reasonably practicable for other procedures on at risk patients.

  We are considering with the CJD Surveillance Unit in the light of expert advice what follow up studies should be undertaken in respect of patients who had operations in hospitals where nvCJD patients had undergone surgery before they showed any sign of this disease.

  The Department, MAFF, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive have jointly issued a call for further research into the inactivation of TSEs. The call closed on 23 October. The thirteen outline proposals received are now being considered and an announcement will be made as soon as possible about those that will be pursued further.

  The aim of all this work is to ensure that any risk of transmission of nvCJD through surgical procedures is reduced as far as it is possible to do so. We shall review the procedures currently in force as more information becomes available about the characteristics of the disease, and about the effects of changes in decontamination procedures or in instrument design, and will take further action if that seems necessary.

  As announced on 27 August by the previous Chief Medical Officer the Department, in conjunction with the Medical Research Council, was already considering anonymised pilot surveys to assess whether the abnormal prion protein associated with the disease might be in appendixes and tonsils removed during routine surgery. The proposals received are now the subject of expert scientific review and we expect to make a decision on funding shortly.
  534
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department records the(a) hospital admissions, (b) operations and (c) dates of any operations undergone by individuals who have been diagnosed with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease; and if he will take steps to make public such information; [56995]

  (2) if his Department records the names of those individuals who have been diagnosed with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. [57002]

  Ms Jowell
  No. The Department does not hold clinical information on individual patients with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD). Personal information of this nature is confidential to the patient, their family, and the clinicians responsible for their care and is not made public. Clinical information is held by the CJD Surveillance Unit (CJDSU) which advises clinicians on the care and treatment of patients. The CJDSU is bound by the same requirements for confidentiality as other clinicians and passes information to the Department only in an anonymous and aggregated form.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease have been recorded in the UK. [56992]

  Ms Jowell
  Since new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) appeared in late 1995 there have been 30 definite and probable cases. All of these patients have died.

  Statistical information about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is published by the Department on a monthly basis. The latest table was published on 2 November.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the evidence his Department has evaluated on the effectiveness of routine autoclave sterilisation in the destruction of prion proteins; [56993]

  (2) at what temperature his Department has been advised that prion proteins are destroyed. [56946]

  Ms Jowell
  The unconventional agents that cause Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) are extraordinarily resistant to physical and chemical treatments that destroy even the most resistant bacteria, spores, fungi and viruses. The current advice on inactivation and decontamination is contained in the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens/ Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committees' guidance on"Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Agents: Safe working and the prevention of infection" which was published in March 1998. Copies have been placed in the Library. Additionally, since publication, the guidance has been available on the Stationery Office website (www.official-documents.co.uk/documents/doh/ spongifm.contents.htm). It contains information on the effectiveness of routine autoclaving in the destruction of the agents of TSEs. The guidance is based upon the best available scientific data on inactivation. It does not itself provide evidence of the temperature required to ensure complete inactivation of prion proteins. The two Committees are keeping this subject under review as part of their continuing work in this field and on 12 September 1998 the Department, jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, issued a call for further research into the inactivation of TSEs. The call

  535
  closed on 23 October 1998. The thirteen outline proposals that were received are now being considered and a further announcement will be made as soon as possible about those that will be pursued further.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the full findings of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's research. [57022]

  Ms Jowell
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) does not fund or carry out research. If it considers that new or further research is needed it makes recommendations to that effect. Any recommendations on research would be included in the public summary published after each SEAC meeting.

  Recommendations for research are considered by the relevant department and other funders such as the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and by the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) Funders Co-ordination Group and the TSE Research Advisory Group.

  A "Strategy for Research and Development Relating to the Human health Aspects of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies" was published in November 1996 and has been available in the Library since December 1996. In July 1998 a comparable "Strategy for Research and Development Relating to the Animal Aspects of TSEs" was published and placed in the Library.

  These strategies are kept under review and calls for research proposals issued as necessary by the appropriate funding bodies. The findings of individual research projects are published in peer-review scientific journals as they become available.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to inform those patients found to be infected with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease as a result of screening; and if he will make a statement; [56997]

  (2) what plans his Department has to screen tissue specimens for signs of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease; and if he will make a statement; [56998]

  (3) what plans his Department has to screen individuals for signs of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease; and if he will make a statement. [56999]

  Ms Jowell
  The report of the detection of the agent associated with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) in the appendix of a patient who was not showing any clinical symptoms of the disease when the tissue was removed but who died of nvCJD two and a half years later, was published on 27 August. On the same day the former Chief Medical Officer announced that the Department, in conjunction with the Medical Research Council, was discussing with the relevant scientists proposals for anonymised pilot surveys to assess whether the abnormal prion protein associated with the disease might be in appendices and tonsils removed during routine surgery. The proposals received following these discussions are now the subject of expert scientific peer review, and we expect to make a final decision on funding shortly.
  536
  These studies are designed to improve understanding of the epidemiology of nvCJD. It must be emphasised that they are research studies on pathological specimens and are not diagnostic screening tests. The research proposals will be governed by ethical committee approval, as is normal, to safeguard patient interests.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the full findings of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens research. [57023]

  Ms Jowell
  The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens is an independent committee which advises Government, but which does not undertake or commission research in its own right. However, if the Committee considers that research is needed it can make recommendations to Government to that effect. These recommendations would be considered in the context of the Department's overall research strategy.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's current estimate of the number of cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease likely to be diagnosed in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [56945]

  Ms Jowell
  No reliable estimates can yet be made about the future numbers of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases. To make reliable estimates of the future number of cases we need to have more information about the incubation period, the level of exposure to the agent that can cause the Disease, the route of infection and the role of genetic susceptibility. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee sub-group which advises the Chief Medical Officer on the epidemiology of the disease considers that it is likely to be at least three to four years before we are in a position to make a reliable estimate.

  Social Services White Paper
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the proposed White Paper for Social Services. [57395]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government intend to publish their Social Services White Paper in the near future.

  Ante-natal Appointments
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each health authority in England and Wales, the number of ante-natal appointments routinely offered to first-time mothers. [57468]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected in the form requested. Information about the number of antenatal outpatient attendances by trust has recently been published in "Outpatient and Ward Attenders England 1997–98", copies of which have been placed in the Library; trust figures for community contacts will be published shortly in "Community Maternity Services: Summary information for 1997–98, England".

  Disabled Access
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to NHS trusts on providing suitable facilities for disabled patients and visitors; and if he will make a statement. [57119]
  537
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The National Health Service Executive issued Health Service Circular (HSC1998/156) on 17 September 1998 entitled Implementing Section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act. This circular informs the NHS about the implementation of the Act and sets out the action the NHS Executive plans to take to support implementation of Section 21 of the Act in the NHS.

  Work is currently in progress to produce a good practice guide. This will cover both employment and service provision issues relating to disabled people for the whole of the NHS and will therefore cover general practitioner practices and other primary care providers.

  Organisational Stress
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of NHS trusts which undertake organisational stress audits; and what plans he has to issue guidance to trusts on the introduction of such audits. [57120]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: Information is not collected centrally on the percentage of trusts which undertake organisational stress audits. The National Health Service Executive has issued guidance to all NHS trusts and health authorities on managing organisational stress through its health at work in the NHS project and is piloting work based on this guidance at four trusts.

  Attention Deficit Disorder
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage the establishment of a national representative group for parents of children suffering from attention deficit disorder. [57604]

  Mr. Hutton
  The proposal has been discussed with the Department and we are currently considering a bid for central grant aid to help develop a national alliance of local support groups in this field. We expect to announce decisions on voluntary sector grant applications for 1999–2000 under the Section 64 general scheme around mid-February 1999.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase payments to local authorities in London which have to meet the cost of accommodating asylum seekers and their children. [57897]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have set out our plans to change the cumbersome immigration and asylum process we inherited from the previous Government in the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum". We are considering how to improve the support grants for local authorities in the transitional period, and will announce the terms of the grants later this year.

  Primary Care Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the reasons for his decision not to allow local authorities to nominate an elected member to the primary care groups in their administrative area. [57780]
  538
  Mr. Milburn
  Local Authority officials may serve on a Primary Care Group Board as lay representatives of that community.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, when carrying out duties as a member of the primary care group, nominees of the Social Services Department will be required to act in the best interests of the PCG or their employer. [57778]

  Mr. Milburn
  Members of the Primary Care Group board will act in the best interest of the population they serve.

  Care Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the non-back dating of local authority payments for care move placements once they have completed the assessment if the resident's assets have fallen below the capital threshold. [57784]

  Mr. Hutton
  There have been representations from the hon. Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and, for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the voluntary organisation Help the Aged concerning backdating of local authority payments for home care placements once the assessment has been completed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those care services and establishments that are not covered by a regulation and inspection regime(a) currently and (b) under proposals made by his Department. [57779]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are several gaps and anomalies in the current regulatory system for care services. In particular, residential care homes and nursing homes run by organisations established by Royal Charter or Act of Parliament, domiciliary and day care services, small children's homes, and other arrangements involving children living away from home are not covered by statutory regulation. In addition, local authority care homes, whilst required to be inspected by social services departments, are not subject to registration arrangements.

  The Government are committed to reforming regulatory arrangements in this sector. Our proposals will be set out in a White Paper on Social Services which we intend to publish shortly.

  Joint Procedures (NHS and Personal Social Services)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what flexibility he will allow to social services committees which can demonstrate that there are more appropriate targets for their locality to achieve the standards and objectives set out in Joint Guidance, Quality Projects and Social Services Inspectorate reports than the targets provided in those documents. [57786]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to the reform and modernisation of the public services. We have set out new objectives for children's social services as part of the "Quality Protects" initiative. The forthcoming Social Services White Paper will set out the wider agenda for social services including new objectives for adult social services. "Modernising Health and Social Care" the
  539
  National Priorities Guidance for 1999/2000–2001/2002 sets objectives and targets in support of this new agenda. Achieving these objectives will be a first step towards the modernisation of social services and we expect all local social services authorities to play their part. Progress on the achievement of these objectives will be kept under review by the Regional Offices of the Social Services Inspectorate.

  Local social services authorities will be free to develop additional targets to supplement those in the National Priorities Guidance and demonstrate their success in taking forward the new agenda.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation to put into effect the recommendations contained in Lord Justice Otton's report on medical negligence. [57717]

  Mr. Milburn
  None. Officials are still in the process of identifying ways in which suggestions received as the result of the Secretary of State's call for ideas on reducing litigation in the NHS can best be taken forward. Lord Justice Otton's proposals will be considered as part of this exercise.

  Drugs Bill
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans has he to reduce the NHS bill for drugs(a) prescribed by general practitioners and (b) used in hospitals. [56916]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government have no plans to reduce the National Health Service bill for drugs prescribed by general practitioners or hospitals. Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and health authorities (HAs) will commission and fund local health services from their unified budget allocations in line with the agreed local Health Improvement Plan, local priorities and national guidelines. HAs and their PCGs will be expected to ensure the cost-effective and efficient use of all NHS resources, including any funding for drugs.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letters dated 9 July, 13 August and 25 September about the Private Finance Initiative from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. [58121]

  Mr. Dobson
  I replied to my right hon. Friend today.

  Asthma
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the advantages of use in the NHS of the Buteyko breathing method for the treatment of asthma; and if he will make a statement. [58265]

  Mr. Hutton
  The prevention and treatment of asthma are high priority topics within the Department's research programmes. We do not currently have any plans to carry out a trial of the Buteyko method. If a research proposal on it of sufficiently high scientific quality were submitted, in response to any future open calls for research in this 540
  area from the Departmental or National Health Service research and development programmes, such a proposal would be considered alongside all other competing bids.

  A key agency through which the Government support bio-medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. The Council is not funding any research on the Buteyko method at present but it is always willing to consider for support soundly based new scientific proposals, in competition with other applications.

  Waiting Lists
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of guidance on the compilation of NHS waiting lists issued by(a) his Department and (b) NHS regional executives since 1 May 1997. [58023]

  Mr. Milburn
  No new guidance on the compilation of National Health Service waiting lists has been issued by the Department, including the regional offices of the National Health Service Executive since 1 May 1997. Health authorities and trusts were notified of the Department's plan to collect waiting list statistics on a monthly basis through HSC1998/152, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Guidance is set out in the NHS Executive's Data Manual (published in January 1997), the "National Health Service Waiting Times Good Practice Guide" and "Guidelines for Good Administrative Practice" (both published in January 1996), copies of which are available in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Nolle Prosequi
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions he has intervened in a prosecution under the nolle prosequi rule in the last 12 months. [56340]

  The Attorney-General
  In the last 12 months I have acceded to requests for the entry of anolle prosequi on 4 occasions.

  Glidewell Report
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the Glidewell report; and if he will make a statement. [57887]

  The Attorney-General
  The Glidewell Report recommended the appointment of a Chief Executive for the Crown Prosecution Service. That recommendation was accepted on publication of the Report (1 June 1998) when I announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Addison to the post. His top priority has been to take forward the work necessary to facilitate expeditious decisions on recommendations internal to the CPS. Those recommendations which also affect other criminal justice agencies are the subject of consideration within existing or specially established inter-Departmental groups as appropriate. The work is being carried forward under the auspices of the Strategic Planning Group which the Home
  541
  Secretary, I and the Lord Chancellor established earlier this year to co-ordinate planning within the criminal justice system. A very great deal of work has been undertaken since the Report was published. I anticipate making an announcement shortly detailing the progress that has been made and how the Report will be taken forward.

  Former Secretary of State for Wales
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General if HM Treasury Solicitor acted on behalf of the former Secretary of State for Wales at any time after his resignation. [57957]

  The Attorney-General
  No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by European Commission officials in their technical talks with Israel on the problems identified in the communication on EC/Israel trade and regional cumulation of origin whose recommendations were adopted at the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 29 June. [57080]

  Ms Quin
  Following the conclusions of the 29 June General Affairs Council, European Commission officials have been pursuing the issues identified in the Communication in technical talks with Israel. A team of Commission officials visited Israel and the Occupied Territories on 14–20 September for a fact-finding mission. The Commission and Member States are now reflecting on follow-up to this mission.

  Mrs. Lozidou
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision made by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg regarding the case of Mrs. Lozidou v. Turkey. [57475]

  Ms Quin
  We are mindful of the obligation of all parties to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by European Court of Human Rights judgments. In the case of Mrs. Lozidou v. Turkey, and in line with Council of Europe procedure, the UK, along with other members of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, has invited Turkey to inform the Committee of the measures it proposes to take in consequence of the judgment.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the number of(a) Greek and (b) Turkish fighter planes based in Cyprus; [57591]

  (2) what representations he has made concerning the stationing of foreign fighter planes in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [57593]
  542
  Ms Quin
  We are not aware that any Greek or Turkish fighter planes are permanently based in Cyprus. But recent deployments of fighter planes in Cyprus by both Greece and Turkey have shown how easily tension can be raised. In line with UNSCR 1178 of 29 June we continue to urge all parties to refrain from any action which would exacerbate tensions on the island.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's role as a guarantor power for the Republic of Cyprus. [57592]

  Ms Quin
  The UK's role as a party to the 1960 Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee is, along with Greece and Turkey, to recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus.

  We are committed to using the UK's position as a Guarantor Power to assist the people of Cyprus to achieve a political settlement in Cyprus.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs over what period the EU has made funds of 12 mecu available to support progress towards a political settlement in Cyprus; how many applications have been made by organisations representing both main communities and for what purposes; and how the results of such grants are monitored and assessed. [57960]

  Ms Quin
  The fourth Financial Protocol on financial and technical assistance between the European Community and the Republic of Cyprus originally covered the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1998. This period has now been extended to 31 December 1999. Under this Protocol the EU set aside 12 mecu in grants for potential initiatives agreed jointly in Cyprus to promote a general settlement of the Cyprus question. So far 111,370 ecu has been committed to activities of the Cyprus All Island Trade Union Forum, although no money has actually been spent. Responsibility for monitoring funds spent under the fourth Financial Protocol lies with the Commission office in Nicosia. The Community and Cyprus will at least once during the period of implementation of the Protocol make an assessment of the implementation of the programme as a whole.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the projects which can apply for grants from the five mecu allocated by the EU for bi-communal projects in Cyprus; over what period such funds are available; how many applications have so far been made; and by what process aided projects are monitored and assessed. [57961]

  Ms Quin
  The fourth Protocol on financial and technical assistance between the European Community and the Republic of Cyprus states that 5 mecu shall be for projects to promote the development of the whole island. These funds were initially made available from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1998. That period has now been extended for a period of one year to 31 December 1999. Three applications for funds have been approved (although to date no funds have been disbursed). These are:

  0.9 mecu for cleaning a river which crosses south-north in Nicosia;

  1.3mecu to restore Hala Sultan Teke, an Islamic shrine near Larnaca;

  543

  1.5 mecu support for the Institute for Neurology and Genetics, a clinic and research centre.

  Responsibility for monitoring expenditure under the Protocol lies with the Commission office in Cyprus. The Protocol specifies that the Community and Cyprus will at least once during the period make an assessment of the implementation of the programme of funding as a whole.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current proposals tabled by Spain for the future sovereignty of Gibraltar and his response to them. [57857]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), 26 October 1998,Official Report, columns 85–87.

  Departmental Properties
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the properties(a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Niger, (ii) the Independent State of Samoa, (iii) the USA, (iv) the Holy See, (v) Indonesia, (vi) Tunisia, (vii) Portugal, (viii) Egypt, (ix) Germany and (x) Honduras, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57654]

  (2) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Fiji, (ii) Botswana, (iii) Laos, (iv) Lesotho, (v) Trinidad and Tobago, (vi) Canada, (vii) Greece, (viii) Norway, (ix) Mozambique and (x) Guatemala, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57657]

  (3) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Croatia, (ii) Hungary, (iii) Macedonia, (iv) Russia, (v) Uzbekistan, (vi) Romania, (vii) Finland, (viii) Bangladesh and (ix) Turkmenistan, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57655]

  (4) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Mauritania, (ii) Kazakhstan, (iii) Myanmar, (iv) Sierra Leone, (v) Estonia, (vi) Yugoslavia, (vii) the Solomon Islands, (viii) the Commonwealth of Dominica, (ix) Namibia and (x) Lithuania, indicating the purposes for which they are designated. [57656]

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the properties(a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Somalia, (ii) Vanuatu, (iii) Paraguay and (iv) the Seychelles, indicating the purposes for which they are designated. [57642]

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the properties(a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Mexico, (ii) New Zealand, (iii) Sweden, (iv) Mongolia, (v) Cote d'lvoire, (vi) Belgium, (vii) China, (viii) Burundi, (ix) Congo and (x) Gambia, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57643]
  544
  (2) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) the Maldives, (ii) Armenia, (iii) Guinea, (iv) Nigeria, (v) the Democratic Republic of Congo, (vi) Bosnia and Herzegovina, (vii) Pakistan, (viii) the Dominican Republic, (ix) Slovakia and (x) Nepal, indicating the purposes for which they are designated. [57644]

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the properties(a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Malaysia, (ii) Spain, (iii) Qatar, (iv) Luxembourg, (v) Uruguay, (vi) the Philippines, (vii) Kuwait, (viii) Zimbabwe, (ix) Mali and (x) Guyana, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57646]

  (2) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Panama and (ii) Bulgaria, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57653]

  (3) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Jordan, (ii) the United Arab Emirates, (iii) the Lebanon, (iv) Uganda, (v) India, (vi) Morocco, (vii) Ethiopia, (viii) Saudi Arabia, (ix) Ukraine and (x) the Bahamas, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57645]

  (4) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Belize, (ii) Israel, (iii) Senegal, (iv) Brazil, (v) Ecuador, (vi) Azerbaijan, (vii) Chad, (viii) Jamaica, (ix) the Eastern Caribbean States and (x) Swaziland, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57647]

  (5) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Zambia, (ii) Equatorial Guinea, (iii) Albania, (iv) Kiribati, (v) Guinea-Bissau, (vi) Cape Verde, (vii) Iran, (viii) Sao Tome and Principe, (ix) Afghanistan and (x) Liberia, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57652]

  (6) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Singapore, (ii) Eritrea, (iii) Venezuela, (iv) Kenya, (v) Angola, (vi) France, (vii) Iraq and (viii) Tuvalu, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57641]

  (7) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Cuba, (ii) Ireland, (iii) Cyprus, (iv) Tanzania, (v) Peru, (vi) Oman, (vii) Colombia, (viii) Antigua and Barbuda, (ix) Moldova and (x) Papua New Guinea, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57650]

  (8) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Australia, (ii) Vietnam, (iii) Poland, (iv) Thailand, (v) Surinam, (vi) Costa Rica, (vii) Switzerland, (viii) Barbados, (ix) the Netherlands and (x) South Africa, indicating the purposes for which they are designated; [57648]

  (9) if he will list the properties (a) owned and (b) rented or leased by his Department in (i) Iceland, (ii) Argentina, (iii) Italy, (iv) Sri Lanka, (v) Yemen, (vi) Bolivia, (vii) Belarus, (viii) Cameroon, (ix) Burkina and (x) Sudan, indicating the purposes for which they are designated. [57649]
  545
  Mr. Fatchett
  I shall write to the hon. Members with full information as soon as possible. 1 shall place copies of the letters in the Library of the House.

  Ngawang Choephel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to secure the release from prison in Shigatse of Ngawang Choephel. [57709]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Ngawang Choephel appears on a list of individual cases of concern which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have raised with Chinese leaders. Through our bilateral human rights dialogue with China we have sought information about Choephel's case and his health. We will continue to raise his case.

  Abductions
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of alleged abduction of British citizens abroad have been dealt with by the special unit at the FCO since 1996; and if he will list the cases by(a) country and (b) the gender of the British citizens involved. [57933]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Since the beginning of 1996, the FCO-led Coordination Group has dealt with 13 kidnap cases, involving 23 British citizens.

  Country

  Gender

  India (Kashmir)

  2 male

  Indonesia

  2 male, 2 female

  Cambodia

  1 male

  Russia (Chechnya)

  1 male

  Tajikistan

  1 male

  Peru

  2 male

  Tajikistan

  1 female

  Russia (Chechnya)

  1 male, 1 female

  Yemen

  1 male

  Yemen

  2 male, 1 female

  Sudan

  1 male

  D. R. Congo

  1 male

  Russia (Chechnya)

  3 male

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances the Government have received from President Menem that he will if necessary use his veto in respect of fisheries legislation affecting the Falkland Islands currently before the Argentine parliament. [58249]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Argentina has no competence to authorise fishing in Falklands waters. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made our position clear to President Menem during his recent visit. Separately my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reinforced this message with the Argentine Foreign Minister.

  Uganda
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to halt the killing of civilians in Northern Uganda. [58257]
  546
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are appalled at the reports of atrocities committed by the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) in northern Uganda. With our partners at the UN we have strongly condemned LRA tactics; most recently at this year's session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in May. We believe there cannot be a purely military solution to the problems of northern Uganda. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have urged President Museveni to pursue all opportunities for dialogue as a means of resolving the conflict. We welcome recent reports for a possible Government Amnesty for rebels who give up the armed struggle as a first step towards a negotiated settlement.

  Immigration Application
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the total receipts generated by application fees for visas, applications for permanent settlement and other immigration applications and (b) the total cost of entry clearance operations for each year for which the figures are known since 1993; and if he will set out the basis on which the costs are calculated identifying the individual elements. [57758]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The total receipts generated by application fees for visas and total cost of entry clearance operations from 1993–97 are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Visitor receipts

  Settlement receipts

  Total receipts

  Total costs

  1993–94

  28.0

  2.5

  30.5

  45.0

  1994–95

  28.9

  3.4

  32.3

  45.5

  1995–96

  37.1

  5.0

  42.2

  46.6

  1996–97

  50.3

  6.7

  57.0

  60.2

  1997–98

  53.8

  9.7

  63.5

  64.5

  Receipts are based on Full Cost recovery, broken down into the following categories:

  a) Staffing Costs: (UK staff salaries and allowances, local staff salaries, benefits and other payments, local travel and other travel)

  b) Accommodation Costs: (rents, including notional rents, furniture, maintenance, utilities and capital charges)

  c) Office Expenditure: (stationery, telephones and postage, transport costs and overheads)

  d) Overheads: (cots allocated from support functions at post, e.g. Management Sections and cost of MVD and support functions in London, e.g. Personnel Command and Resources Command).

  Blood Products (Canadian Ban)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Canadian Government following the banning of British blood products; and if he will make a statement. [56991]

  Ms Jo well
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Canadian Government have not banned British blood products.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 on which a Minister in his Department has used(a) an aircraft belonging to the RAF and (b) a privately chartered aircraft together with (i) details of the take-off and destination points, (ii) ground waiting time, (iii) dates of departure and return, (iv) purpose of the trip, (v) cost of the trip to his Department and (vi) details of people accompanying the Minister, indicating the total costs of all such travel borne by his Department (1) since 1 May 1997 and (2) between 1 May 1996 and 1 May 1997. [55558]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: There are no occasions on which a Minister in this Department has used an aircraft belonging to the RAF or a privately chartered aircraft.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect of an age addition to the basic state pension of(a) £5 for those aged 80 or over, (b) £3 for those aged 75 to 79 years and (c) both of the above on (i) expenditure on non means-tested benefits, (ii) expenditure on means-tested benefits and (iii) revenues from income tax, if such measures were to be introduced once the increases in pensioner benefits planned for April 1999 have been implemented. [55641]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: The information requested is in the table.

  Full year expenditure and revenue effects of age additions in 1999–2000

  £million

  (a)£5 age addition forover 80s

  (b)£3 age addition for 75–79s

  (c)£5 age addition plus £3 age addition

  Expenditure on Retirement Pension

  590

  320

  920

  Means-tested benefit offsets

  -220

  -90

  -310

  Income tax offsets

  -40

  -20

  -60

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for Retirement Pension have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Estimates for income tax revenues have been provided by Inland Revenue.

  3. Means-tested benefit offsets have been estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey uprated to 1999–2000 prices and benefits levels.

  4. Estimates are in 1999–2000 prices and benefit rates, and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 741, if he will provide a breakdown of how many of the pensioners who are disqualified because of excess capital from receiving the proposed minimum income guarantee but who have incomes below income support levels, have weekly incomes in the bands of (a) up to £9.99, (b) £10 to £19.99, (c) £20 to £29.99, (d) £30 to £39.99, (e) £40 to £49.99, (f) £50 to £59.99, (g) £60 to £69.99, (h) £70 to 79.99 and (i) £80 or above. [55658]
  548
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Income

  Pensioner benefit units with income less than IncomeSupport applicable amount

  Up to and including £69.99

  130,000

  £70 and over

  100,000

  Total

  230,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and are almost certainly subject to a degree of error; the true figures could be higher or lower than those given. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 cases.

  2. The requested breakdown of incomes was not possible due to small sample sizes.

  3. Income is defined as income assessable in an Income Support claim plus income from investments.

  4. A pensioner, for income support purposes, is a single person aged 60 or over, or a couple (married or living as married) where at least one of them is aged 60 of over.

  Source:

  1995–96 Family Resources Survey; Benefit rates as they will be in April 1999

  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the mechanism by which income support is increased to offset increases in mortgage interest rates. [56572]

  Angela Eagle
  The standard rate used to calculate payments of Income Support mortgage interest is based on the weighted average of the main Building Societies' variable rates of interest. This has been the case since its introduction by the previous administration in October 1995. The average is calculated and published monthly by the Office for National Statistics in Financial Statistics table 7.1L. Changes in the standard rate, whether up or down, are triggered by a 0.25 per cent. or more move in the published figure.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about mortgage interest rate capping for those receiving social security payments for interest on mortgages; and for what reasons the Government propose to pay arrears that may have arisen. [56573]

  Angela Eagle
  A standard rate of interest is used in the calculation of mortgage interest included in Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. This was introduced by the previous Administration in October 1995. Help is available towards interest on loans taken out to purchase the home or for certain essential repairs and improvements to it. We have no plans to change this arrangement.

  Lone Parent New Deal
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a compulsory element of attendance within the Lone Parent New Deal; what exemptions there will be; and if he will list the criteria for those exemptions. [57404]
  549
  Angela Eagle
  Participation in the New Deal for Lone Parents is voluntary. There is no requirement for lone parents either to attend a New Deal for Lone Parents interview or to look for work. From 26 October 1998, the New Deal for Lone Parents has been extended to all lone parents on Income Support, including those whose claim was established before April 1998.

  The Government are committed to providing viable choices for lone parents who, in the past, were written off to a life on benefit and the New Deal for Lone Parents is a major step in achieving this objective. This approach is in tune with what lone parents want: the opportunity to work, and a better quality of life for their children.

  From 2000, the Government plan to implement new legislation to make it a condition of receiving benefit that, when asked to do so, people take part in an interview to talk about their prospects of finding work. This requirement will initially be implemented in 12 pilot areas and will be introduced in ways that take account of individual circumstances.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those who have entered into the New Deal for lone parents are currently receiving housing benefit. [57405]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those who have entered the New Deal for lone parents are still receiving income support. [57406]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to helping lone parents overcome the barriers to work through the New Deal for Lone Parents programme, which is available to all lone parents on Income Support with school age children. The programme provides a tailor-made service with support and advice on training needs, jobsearch, better-off calculations and local childcare services.

  Information on the number of lone parents who have participated in the programme and moved into employment but, because of the number of hours they work, are still in receipt of Income Support is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the timetable will be for replacing the Benefit Integrity Project as proposed in Cm 4103; [57934]

  (2) when the Benefit Integrity Project will cease its operations under his proposals contained in Cm 4103; [57936]

  (3) if he will issue instructions that all BIP interviews, scheduled but not yet undertaken, are cancelled from the date of his statement in Cm 4103. [57935]

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give the date when he expects the new test to replace the Benefit Integrity Project; [58211]
  550
  (2) if he will estimate the savings which will result from the new test which will replace the Benefit Integrity Project. [58213]

  Mr. Timms
  In his statement of 28 October 1998,Official Report, columns 339–42, and the exchanges which followed discussing the next phase of the Government's plans to reform the welfare state, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that we will introduce a modern, active approach to Disability Living Allowance which puts greater emphasis on getting claims right first time and which allows for regular reviews of claims in payment. He also emphasised that there would be no return to the situation that existed before April 1997, when nothing was being done to check that people were getting the right benefit.

  The Benefit Integrity Project will continue until it is replaced by a new system which we will ensure is fair as well as sensitive. The characteristics of the new system and when and how it will be introduced will be the subject of future discussions with the Disability Benefits Forum. Once the way forward is determined estimates will be made of the likely costs and savings that may arise from the new system. We are keen to introduce this change as soon as possible but it is most important that we get it right.

  All-work Test
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the replacement for the all-work test to come into operation. [58212]

  Mr. Timms
  We aim to introduce reforms to the test alongside national roll-out of the New Deal for Disabled People personal adviser service, which is being considered for April 2000. Different approaches are likely to be trailled before then as part of the development of the enhanced test.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultation documents he proposes to publish on the test he intends to use to replace the all-work test. [58129]

  Mr. Timms
  In our consultation document "A new contract for welfare: Support for Disabled People", we set out our plans to reform the All-Work Test so that it provides positive information about what people can do, as well as assessing what they cannot do. We have no plans to change the way in which the test determines entitlement to benefit. "Support for Disabled People" makes clear our intention to work with disability organisations and to consult them as we take forward work on the enhancements to be made to the test. We do not envisage a further formal consultation document on these changes.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people currently drawing benefit who will move into work as a result of the new test which will replace the all-work test for each of the first five years after the introduction of the new test. [58125]

  Mr. Timms
  The All-Work Test will continue as now to assess the level of an individual's incapacity, to determine entitlement to incapacity benefits. The intention in reforming the test is to ensure that it also produces
  551
  positive information about the person's functional capacities. This information will feed into a wider assessment of employability by a personal adviser, who will help people with long term illness and disability to plan a return to work. No assumptions have been made about the numbers who will leave incapacity benefits as a result of these initiatives.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the numbers of individuals currently living in households claiming one or more means-tested benefit and the estimated figures for(a) five and (b) 10 years hence. [58135]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of beneficiaries of one or more means-tested benefit totalled 14,490,000, as at May 1997.

  Notes:

  1. Means tested benefits are Income Support, Income Based Jobseeker's Allowance, Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Beneficiaries are defined as the claimant, their partner and any dependants.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  4. Overlap between benefits have been taken into account.

  5. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit figures exclude cases where there is no entitlement because of non-dependant deductions.

  6. Council Tax Benefit cases do not include second adult rebate cases.

  7. Sample sizes:

  Income Support: 5 per cent

  Family Credit: 5 per cent

  Disability Working Allowance: 100 per cent

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit: 1 per cent.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1997.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1997.

  3. Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry.

  4. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  5. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries without Income Support taken at the end of May 1997.

  "Support for Disabled People"
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the increase in the take-up of the disability working allowance as a result of the changes announced in "Support for Disabled People". [58123]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available.

  Disability Working Allowance will be replaced by the Disabled Person's Tax Credit before the introduction of the changes announced in "Support for Disabled People".

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his estimate of the increase in the numbers claiming means-tested benefits, as a result of the changes by benefit set out in "Support for Disabled People" for each of the first five years after implementation. [58127]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  552
  We do not expect any significant increase in the total numbers making a new claim for means-tested benefits as a result of the changes set out in the consultation document "Support for Disabled People".

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost arising from an increased take-up of those services referred to in paragraph 17 of "Support for Disabled People". [58131]

  Mr. Timms
  Additional resources will be made available to meet the cost of possible increased take-up of training and other services in the single gateway pilots. Detailed work on costs is still being undertaken. An important reason for piloting the single gateway is to measure any additional take-up of services and the associated costs in order to inform decisions about national implementation.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people under 20 claiming the severe disablement allowance will also be(a) eligible and (b) claiming income support after he has introduced the changes set out in Support for Disabled People. [58126]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  It is estimated that, after the introduction of the proposed changes set out in the Consultation Paper "Support for Disabled People", there will be approximately 8,000 new claims for Incapacity Benefit a year from people under the age of 20 who are disabled from birth or early in life or long term sick and who cannot work. In the first year of their claim, Income Support will provide a higher rate of benefit and at any one time about 6,000 are likely to receive it. After a year, they will receive a higher rate of Incapacity Benefit of (£78.30 at April 1998 rates) which, in most cases, will remove the need for Income Support.

  Those young people aged 16 to 19 who are on Severe Disablement Allowance at the point of change will also be transferred to the new higher rate of benefit after one year. It is estimated that approximately 14,000 of that group will receive Income Support prior to transfer.

  Gateway to Work
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the penalties for those who do not turn up for interviews as proposed in the Gateway to Work. [58124]

  Angela Eagle
  It will be a condition of benefit that individuals of working age not in full-time work attend an interview in order to discuss the help that is available to them. It is not unreasonable to expect clients who seek state support to attend an interview with a personal adviser to discuss their options, and to make it a condition of benefit that they should do so.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional costs in staff time which will be required to initiate the personal adviser scheme detailed in the Gateway to Work. [58130]

  Angela Eagle
  Additional resources will be made available to fund the provision of personal advisers for all benefit claimants of working age in the single gateway
  553
  pilot areas. Detailed work on costs is still being undertaken. An important reason for piloting the single gateway is to measure costs in order to inform decisions about national implementation.

  Disabled People (Income Support)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the incapacity benefit recipients who will cease claiming as a result of the changes set out in support for disabled people will(a) begin and (b) continue to draw income support. [58128]

  Mr. Timms
  No existing recipient will cease to receive Incapacity Benefit or Incapacity Benefit paid with Income Support as a result of the changes to the contribution conditions and treatment of occupational and personal pension income proposed in our Consultation Paper "A New Contract for Welfare: Support for Disabled People".

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to begin monitoring the most cost-effective ways of keeping in contact with people on incapacity benefit; and when he expects to be able to report on these experiments. [58132]

  Mr. Timms
  Currently, contact with people receiving Incapacity Benefit is limited to occasional checks on their level of incapacity. We believe the current system too often consigns people to a life on benefit and we want to maintain closer contact with them throughout their claim. In this way, we can ensure we are up to date about their circumstances, and provide them with advice; for example about the help available with return to work and about the benefits to which they may be entitled. We will try out different methods of contacting people and consider how best to develop the methods which seem most helpful and successful. We consider this to be no more than good practice and do not plan a formal report on it.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if those individuals drawing private health insurance which has been individually arranged may continue to draw incapacity benefit under the current rules. [58134]

  Mr. Timms
  As our Consultation Paper "A New Contract for Welfare: Support for Disabled People" made clear we propose, on future claims to Incapacity Benefit, to take some account of payments from permanent health insurance arranged by employers, as well as occupational and personal pensions. We have no plans to take account of permanent health insurance or other forms of health insurance where this is arranged by the individual.

  Widows (SERPS)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount of SERPS paid to widows at present; and what is the expected average payment to a widow whose husband dies(a) on 5 April 2000 and (b) on 6 April 2000. [58262]

  Angela Eagle
  The average amount of SERPS paid to widows under pension age at 31 March 1998 was £15.30.
  554
  The estimated average payment to a widow whose husband dies on 5 April 2000 is £33. For a widow whose husband dies on 6 April 2000, the average is £12. This is because of changes in the calculation of SERPS introduced by the Social Security Act 1986, including the 50 per cent. reduction in entitlement for widows.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for March 1998 are based on net additional pension for all widows' benefit recipients and are for Great Britain and overseas.

  2. Estimates for April 2000 averages are over the total number of widows in the population and are rounded to the nearest pound.

  Sources:

  1. A 5 per cent. sample of the Pensions Strategy Computer System.

  2. April 2000 estimates: Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures have been taken to publicise the halving of SERPS for widowers and widows whose spouse dies on or after 6 April 2000; and when his Department's(a) leaflets and (b) other literature first referred to this change. [58263]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department arranged publicity about the Pensions Act 1995 with an advertising and direct mailing campaign in the Autumn of that year.

  Information on the halving of the Additional Pension from the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) featured in leaflet PEC3, "The 1995 Pensions Act", which was part of this campaign and available to the public until August 1997.

  The Benefits Agency supported this campaign in Spring 1996 by issuing leaflet EQP 201, "Changes To Your Future", to answer simple inquiries about changes arising from the Pensions Act 1995. More detailed information featured in leaflets NP46, "A Guide To Retirement", and NP45, "A Guide To Widows' Benefit", from Spring 1996 and remains there to date. Where appropriate, other more general publicity and information on pensions and widows' benefit also refers customers to these more detailed leaflets.

  The Benefits Agency leaflets always advise customers to check with their local Social Security office if they require more detail or up-to-date information about individual cases.

  Budget Savings
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the categories of current recipients from whom benefits will be withdrawn or reduced in order to make the savings in the social security budget specified in his oral statement of 28 October 1998,Official Report, columns 339–42, indicating the aggregate and average amounts of reduction that will apply in each category. [58024]

  Mr. Timms
  At the point of change, no current recipient will lose benefit as a result of changes to entitlement rules from the reforms we are making.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the typical period between a person becoming a lone parent and that person first contacting the Child Support Agency. [57077]
  555
  Angela Eagle
  It is difficult to make generalisations in this area. There is evidence to suggest that many lone parents who claim Income Support do so soon after separation or the birth of a child. However, applications for child maintenance are received from parents with care who may or may not be claiming benefits and who may or may not have recently become lone parents. Under arrangements introduced from April this year lone parents claiming Income Support are helped to complete a maintenance application form when visited by Benefits Agency staff at the start of the claim. Similarly awards of Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance will prompt the issue of child support forms. Lone parents not on benefit are free to contact the Child Support Agency at any time.

WALES

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money will be allocated to(a) Wales and (b) Denbighshire in the Government's distribution of funds released from money raised from the sale of council houses in the last year and each of the next four years. [56408]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  £33.38m is available to Wales under the Capital Receipts Initiative in the current financial year (including the revenue consequences of the higher borrowing). Of this £708,000 has been allocated to Denbighshire.

  My right hon. Friend is currently consulting on spending plans for Welsh Office programmes for the next three financial years and on changes to the local authority housing capital distribution arrangements. He will announce his decisions later in the year.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for the steel industry in Wales, with particular reference to steel dumping into the UK from Asian producers and to energy costs. [57451]

  Mr. Hain
  The steel industry, like other parts of the manufacturing sector in Wales, is being affected by the international economic situation, but is continuing to take steps to reduce its cost base to ensure it remains profitable. Allegations of dumping and energy costs are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve mental health provision. [57442]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My plans will be influenced by two complementary Welsh Office projects whose findings will shortly be available to me. The first address the future direction of adult mental health services in Wales. And the second assesses the effectiveness of the present Mental Health Strategy. These reports will help inform the development of services in Wales.
  556
  Departmental officials also remain in close touch with the Department of Health on work being carried out on the National Strategic Framework on Mental Health in England.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy concerning community pharmacists in North East Wales. [57445]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Government recognise the contribution made by community pharmacists to the health of the people of Wales. We will seek to maintain an appropriate level of service. The Welsh Office has funded 18 projects under "Delivering Care, Meeting Need"—6 in North Wales—for developing the range of services that can be provided by pharmacists in the community.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the impact of the opening of pharmacies in supermarkets upon community pharmacies; and if he will make a statement. [57446]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The number of community pharmacies in Wales rose slightly from 702 in 1989 to 712 at 31 March 1998. Although the numbers do fluctuate, changes of ownership over this period appear to have had very little effect on the overall numbers of establishments.

  Aerospace and Steel Industries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the benefits of the current assisted area status for the aerospace and steel industries in Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [57448]

  Mr. Hain
  Since the new Assisted Areas came into force in 1993 aerospace firms in Alyn and Deeside have accepted offers of RSA grants totalling £1,055,000 which are expected to create 122 new jobs and to safeguard 63 jobs. Steel production is subject to special state aid restrictions, and is not eligible for aid under Assisted Areas.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what involvement he has in the restructuring of the aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement. [57449]

  Mr. Hain
  The restructuring of the aerospace industry is a matter for the industry itself. I take a keen interest in its future and have met a number of aerospace companies in Wales. The Department also has regular meetings with the South Wales aerospace companies to discuss issues that affect the industry.

  Welsh-medium Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (i) nursery, (ii) infant, (iii) primary and (iv) secondary Welsh-medium schools there are; and if he will make a statement. [57439]

  Mr. Hain
  No information is available centrally about the medium of instruction at maintained nursery schools. At January 1998, there were 445 primary schools where
  557
  most pupils were in classes where Welsh was the sole or main medium of instruction. Of these schools, 8 were infant schools and 3 juniors. 50 secondary schools were Welsh speaking schools as defined in Section 354(8) of the Education Act 1996.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he is making in tackling waiting lists for cataract operations for elderly persons in the Wrexham Maelor Hospital Trust area; and if he will make a statement. [57444]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The number of people waiting for ophthalmic surgery at Wrexham Maelor NHS Trust, which is largely cataract operations, has fallen from 1,496 in June 1998 to 1,307 in September 1998, a drop of 13 per cent.

  North Wales Health Authority has agreed with the Trust that, by the year 2000, all patients requiring cataract surgery will be treated within 3 months.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure the retention of assisted area status for Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [57447]

  Mr. Hain
  The review of the Assisted Areas will be carried out for Great Britain as a whole. All parts of Great Britain will be assessed for inclusion against common criteria.

  Welsh Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of the (i) CB1 and (ii) TUC to discuss the competitiveness of Welsh industry; and if he will make a statement. [57450]

  Mr. Hain
  I regularly meet representatives of the CBI to discuss all aspects of Welsh industry and I attended their recent conference in Birmingham. The last time I met the TUC was when I addressed their annual conference earlier this year.

  Eco-village, Pembrokeshire National Park
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the eco-village in the Pembrokeshire National Park on the environment; and if he will make a statement on the implications for sustainable development of this project. [57393]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In the first instance this is a local planning authority issue. Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority has resolved to take enforcement action in relation to this matter. In view of the Secretary of State's planning responsibilities I can make no further comment.

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the current 558
  financial situation at Gwent Tertiary College; and how many members of staff are to be made compulsorily redundant. [57901]

  Mr. Hain
  Gwent Tertiary College's provisional financial statements for the year ended 31 July 1998 record an operating cost deficit of £946,000 and an historic cost surplus of £157,000 with a turnover of £34 million. The forecast for the current year is an operating cost deficit of £961,000 and an historic cost surplus of £243,000 with a turnover of £31.1 million. The College has no plans to make members of staff compulsorily redundant.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact which the current situation at Gwent Tertiary College has had on the quality of education provided for full-time and part-time students. [57902]

  Mr. Hain
  The Further Education Funding Council for Wales is responsible for assessing the quality of education provided by Gwent Tertiary College. During the Council's first assessment cycle (1993–1997) provision in 14 programme areas was at or above the quality threshold. Areas assessed as below the quality threshold—Catering, Construction, General Education, Hairdressing and Beauty Therapy, and Independent Living Skills—are scheduled for reassessment in the current cycle. All the areas assessed in the current cycle thus far—Business and Management, Computing, Secretarial Studies and Office Technology, Art and Design, and Performing Arts—have been awarded grades at or above the quality threshold.

CABINET OFFICE

  Anti-drugs Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of the recently announced moneys to tackle illegal drug mis-use will be used for anti-drugs education. [56856]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I announced on 1 September a total of £217 million additional funding to tackle illegal drug misuse. Of this total, £3 million is specifically for drugs education and prevention activities. From 1999–2000, a total of £19 million per annum will support the development of effective drug education and prevention programmes across the country.

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will introduce a charter for persons with autism in line with the charter adopted at the fourth Autism Europe Congress in May 1992; and if he will make a statement. [57056]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We have no plans to introduce a specific charter for people with autism or any other disability. I am, however, determined that public services should be accessible to all, and that all users should be treated fairly, paying particular attention to those with special needs. That is why we have launched Service First—the new Charter programme. The new programme is underpinned
  559
  by nine guiding principles that all public services should be striving to achieve. These include principles covering the accessibility of public services and fairness.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to exercise his power under section 16(2)(j) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (as amended by the Pesticides Act 1998) to make regulations for the provision of information relating to pesticides to be made available to the public. [57711]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am anxious to ensure that the public gains the greatest possible access to information on pesticides, taking advantage of the broader powers provided by the Pesticides Act 1998. My officials have just completed a public consultation exercise to explore how this objective might best be pursued. Full details of the consultation are available in the Library of the House. Following consideration of the responses received, Regulations will be drafted and further public consultation will take place. The draft Regulations will also be notified to the EC under the Technical Standards Directive. Subject to the outcome of these consultations, the Regulations will be put in place as rapidly as possible but at this stage it is not possible to give a precise date.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the present state of British agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [57664]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: We have received a large number of representations from a range of sectors currently experiencing difficulties. We are listening to the concerns made in numerous meetings and in correspondence.

  Farm Borrowing
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is(a) the total level of borrowing of British farmers and (b) the average level of borrowing per farm in the United Kingdom. [57504]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Information on the liabilities of UK agriculture is published in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom". The estimate of total liabilities at December 1996 was £9 billion. This represents about £69,000 per full time holding compared to average assets per holding of £570,000. Lending by banks to agriculture and fishing has, according to the Bank of England, increased by about 12 per cent. between the fourth quarter of 1996 and the second quarter of 1998.

  Agricultural Land Sales
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the acreage and value of 560
  land sold by farmers for non-agricultural purposes for each of the last 10 years expressed (a) in current prices and (b) as a percentage of total land sales by farmers. [57502]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: I regret that the information requested is not available. Information on sales of agricultural land does not distinguish between land used for agriculture and for other purposes. The official statistics on agricultural land sales include an analysis by type of purchaser (e.g. to individuals or various categories of corporate purchaser) but specifically exclude sales of agricultural land for development and non-agricultural purposes. The area of agricultural land on agricultural holdings is recorded in the annual June agricultural census. This area is shown to have declined by 429 thousand hectares (2.4%) in the UK since 1988 but there is no reliable information on the new use of this land.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of overall farm income in 1998 and 1999. [57661]

  Mr. Rooker
  (holding answer 2 November 1998]: The 1998 forecast of Total Income from Farming will be published on 1 December. I will ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy of the Statistical News Release on that day.

  Forecasts for the 1999 calendar year will not be published until December 1999.

  Policy Proposals (Quality of Life)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods of measurements, and from what base lines, his Department employs in assessing the quality of life implications of policy proposals; and how these were selected. [55766]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: My Department uses a range of measures to assess policy proposals consistent with relevant guidance from HM Treasury and other Government departments. Assessments of risks, costs and benefits to businesses, the citizen and the environment are made, as appropriate, for each regulatory proposal. Policies such as that for the agri-environment schemes assess applications for environmental benefits. My Department is also developing a set of indicators to measure sustainable agriculture which include measuring its role in the rural economy.

  Fatal Accidents (Farms)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fatal accidents there were on farms in England and Wales during 1997. [57433]

  Mr. Morley
  Between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998, the Health and Safety Executive recorded 45 fatal accidents in farming, forestry and horticulture in England and Wales.

  Cattle Welfare
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the 1994 Welfare of
  561
  Livestock Regulations with a view to the provision of a continuous supply of fresh drinking water being made available to cattle. [57192]

  Mr. Morley
  Schedule 4 to the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 requires livestock, including cattle, to be provided with an adequate supply of fresh drinking water each day. These Regulations will shortly be reviewed, in their entirety, as part of the process of implementing Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what approvals for what herbicides will be necessary for the planting of those herbicide-tolerant genetically modified seeds which will be planted, pursuant to the agreement between the Government and industry; when he expects such approvals to be in place; and what proposals for public participation in decisions relating to such approvals he intends to make. [57713]

  Mr. Rooker
  No herbicide may be used unless Ministers have given approval for that use. The use of a herbicide on a crop genetically engineered to be resistant to that herbicide would be considered a new use requiring a new approval.

  The timing of the issue of any approval will depend upon the date of application and the complexity of the evaluation required. Evaluations are carried out by the Pesticides Safety Directorate in line with its published targets.

  The results of such scientific evaluations will be considered by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which now contains two lay members, and will be passed to Ministers for decision. These decisions will be informed by a review of the environmental implications of herbicide use on genetically modified crops which I have commissioned from the Pesticides Safety Directorate. Arrangements are being made for monitoring the use of herbicides on genetically modified crops and for an ecological study of the first farm-scale plantings of such crops. All pesticide approvals will be announced publicly.

  Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the payments made under the Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme to farmers where the farmer is not the landowner. [57303]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry has a contractual obligation to review payments under the ESA scheme every two years. Reviews are based on an assessment of the costs incurred by agreement holders in complying with the terms of the agreements, and any necessary incentive, in accordance with relevant EU legislation.
  562
  The total costs of complying with an agreement should be independent of the tenure status of the agreement holder or holders. The Ministry considers at each review whether the payment rates are adequate to attract sufficient applicants to the scheme to meet the targets set.

  New Forest
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement about the number of broadleaf trees currently being felled in the New Forest; [56501]

  (2) what measures he will take to restore the Iron Age village near Fritham damaged by Forestry Commission contractors; and what measures he will put in place to prevent a recurrence. [56503]

  Mr. Morley
  The subjects of these questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Desmond Swayne, dated November 1998:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of broadleaf trees being felled in the New Forest and the measures being taken to restore the Iron Age village near Fritham.
  I am pleased to be able to advise you that there is no clear felling of broadleaved trees in the New Forest. The only felling which is conducted involves silvicultural thinning, and the Forestry Commission proposes to remove some 500 cubic metres of hardwood logs during the coming winter, together with 200 cubic metres of cordwood and 4,000 cubic metres of pulpwood.
  With regard to the restoration of the Iron Age village, staff from the Forestry Commission met the contractor who caused the damage, together with officials from English Heritage and English Nature in August, to agree restoration measures. These measures chiefly consisted of minor levelling works, but these cannot take place until conditions on the ground are drier, as the site is currently waterlogged.
  I would like to re-assure you that new procedures have been put in place to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. These include:
  revised operational planning procedures
  increased staff levels on planning
  a tightening of contract controls
  a continuing review of unscheduled sites by the Hampshire Field
  Club, at two yearly intervals
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Ponies (Transport)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to prevent the Minimum Values Order being circumvented by exporters transporting ponies to Scotland and then to Ireland and from there shipping them to France and Belgium. [55588]

  Mr. Morley
  A licence is not required to export ponies from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. However, horse and pony sales, in particular sales of native breeds, are monitored to ensure rigorous enforcement of the rules governing animal welfare in transit. Checks are also carried out at ports. This activity should act as a deterrent to the development of any trade of the kind described and is a proportionate response to the suspicions that have been voiced.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Lord Brookman
David Keith Brookman, Esquire, having been created Baron Brookman, of Ebbw Vale in the County of Gwent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Paul and the Lord Davies of Coity.

Walking in Cities: Policy
2.42 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures to encourage walking in towns and cities, in accordance with the policies set out in the recently published Transport White Paper, can be implemented immediately.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, since the Government came to power they have encouraged local authorities to place provision for walking high on their list of transport priorities. Action to encourage walking forms the core of the forthcoming walking strategy that will be published shortly. Forthcoming guidance to local authorities on the production of the new local transport plans announced in the integrated transport White Paper will notify them that they should use the strategy to inform their transport planning and provision.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting and lucid Answer. Does he agree that people are put off walking in towns and cities by the length of time they have to wait for traffic lights to turn green for pedestrians? Outside your Lordships' House one has to wait only 15 seconds, but outside the office of my noble friend the Minister one has to wait a minute to get across the road. Most people do not wait; they just jump the lights. Will the Minister include in the guidance to local authorities instructions to reduce the time that pedestrians have to wait so that they are less inclined to jump the red lights and risk being killed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the department does issue guidance to local authorities on timings at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. Research is currently being undertaken into the adequacy of that guidance. The general conclusion is likely to be that in most circumstances the current guidance is correct if it is followed by the local authorities.
In addition, there have been developments such as the introduction of the PUFFIN crossing. As your Lordships will know, a PUFFIN is an intelligent pelican.
134
A PUFFIN crossing is one which is capable of altering the length of time allowed for pedestrians to cross the road, particularly in difficult circumstances. Some 300 such crossings are in operation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, leaving aside the issue that a government encouraging a walking policy might smack slightly of the nanny state, will the noble Lord accept my congratulations on the decision to increase the fares on London Underground by up to three times the rate of inflation and on London buses by up to four times the rate of inflation? That is a sure fire way to get more people walking, at any rate in London. Is not that a clear-cut case of the Government putting the public's money where the Government's mouth is?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord asks several questions. The noble Lord's knowledge of nannies may be better than mine: my understanding is that nannies push you about rather than allow you to walk. We are now encouraging the liberating process of walking in our cities, which sometimes has not been easy.
On London Transport, the fares announced the other day have met certain criteria. We regret any increase in fares, but that is required to meet the operating costs of London Transport, the investment side of which was so sadly neglected by the party opposite when in government.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the walking strategy apply to escalators on the London Underground? Is the Minister aware that the escalator at Pimlico station has been out of order for months? There are 83 steps to negotiate to get out of the station. Is not that disgraceful?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as it happens, I am well aware that the escalator at Pimlico station is out of operation. We hope that the resources that London Transport has available for improving its stations will ensure that the situation is remedied as soon as possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is much more important to provide for those who cannot walk because they have been disabled in war or peace?
Lord Whitty:My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. It is also very important to improve access along pavements and into buildings for those who cannot walk and are disabled. The Government intend to ensure that that takes place and will seek to persuade local authorities to make such provision.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, following the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, does the Minister know whether, when the traffic lights at Talgarth Road and North End Road are working again, it will be possible to make sure that pedestrians can cross the road? I use the station there; I live on the other side of the road. It is virtually impossible to cross the road. One minute is certainly an underestimate of the time that one normally has to wait.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the concerns of the noble Lord. I have no doubt that the traffic control systems unit for London will look at those particular problems. I cannot say in detail that I have experienced the same problems, but no doubt we can look into the matter.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that owing to the increased volume of traffic in our major cities—I refer not only to London but also to the provinces—there is need for more zebra crossings? Will the noble Lord bring that need to the attention of the relevant authorities?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that the increased volume of traffic in our cities causes many problems, one of which is that faced by pedestrians trying to get from one side of the road to the other. Whether all such circumstances are best met by zebra crossings is primarily a matter for the local authorities concerned. We shall be addressing such concerns in our new process for local transport planning.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Lord Quirk: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: They had their turn a moment ago. Is my noble friend aware that one of the greatest deterrents to people walking is the illegal use by cyclists of footways? It is extremely dangerous. A number of people are injured, and even killed, by that illegal practice. Is my noble friend further aware that pedestrians have little redress against cyclists as they are not compelled to be insured? Will my noble friend pay some attention to what is an urgent problem?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought it would not be long before we got on to the subject of cycling. It is certainly the case that there are problems with cyclists using pavements and colliding with pedestrians in some of our towns, and, indeed, in some rural areas. However, I must emphasise again to the House, as I did only last week, that the vast majority of accidents to pedestrians are not caused by cyclists. They are caused by motorised transport, the proper control of which is a priority for this Government.

The Millennium Bug
2.50 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are confident that the private sector has the structures in place to be millennium compliant by 1st January 2000.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, awareness of the year 2000 problem is now pretty universal among companies but latest research for Action 2000 shows
136
that action, particularly among firms employing between 10 and 250 people, is lagging behind. We will continue to encourage the private sector to make this a top priority.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, can he, first, confirm recent newspaper reports which state that the bug-busting campaign launched by the Prime Minister in March 1997 aimed at medium-sized enterprises has attracted very few of them? Secondly, can he also confirm that the concern of Action 2000 leads to a demand for significantly greater funding from the Government? Will he confirm that concern and tell us whether that extra funding will be available?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the bug-busting campaign which was indeed announced by the Prime Minister is at a very early stage. As the noble Lord knows, £30 million has been allocated to it by the Department for Education and Employment. However, it really only started in July of this year and much of the early effort had to be spent in establishing satisfactory quality standards. Indeed, it would not have been any good introducing it en masse until we had done so.
As far as concerns the noble Lord's second question, I can confirm that I had seen newspaper reports about additional money for Action 2000. Money has, of course, already been increased for the latter, and if any further applications for money come to us we will consider them sympathetically.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware of what I can only describe as a scam being carried out by a very well-known company, Pitney Bowes, which provides franking machines to industry and commerce? The company is persuading customers to change their franking machines, ostensibly under existing contracts, in order to safeguard them from the year 2000 bug and involving them in a five-year contract for £16,000 when a new machine can be bought for £1,300. Can the Minister tell the House what the Department of Trade and Industry is doing to prevent such scams and what redress customers have in such circumstances?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Countess has made a very serious allegation about which I had not heard. The word "scam" sounds to me as indicating something illegal as well as something commercially undesirable. I hope that the noble Countess will perhaps discuss the matter with me. We can certainly talk to the appropriate authorities.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the Council of Europe has called on the OECD to organise an international test day for millennium compliance? Would my noble friend support such a test day being organised on an international scale?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I had heard suggestions about a test day. However, I do not

137
think that it would be appropriate, nor does Action 2000 believe that it would be appropriate. Indeed, there are too many different kinds of problems, and businesses and individuals are at far too many different stages of development of their responses to the millennium bug problem for any particular day to be appropriate.
In a sense, there will be a compulsory test day on 9th September next year because many computers are programmed to cause trouble on the 9th day of the 9th month of 1999. Therefore, on that day we will have some forecast of what might happen at the end of that year.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a particularly difficult aspect of the problem is embedded chips? Will the Government give special advice and guidance to smaller firms to deal with the problem, which can be most costly to resolve?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. Problems with the real-time clocks are relatively easy to deal with, and problems with bios-clocks are slightly more difficult to deal with. However, problems with embedded chips—let us say, to take an extreme example, in underwater survey equipment—are extraordinarily difficult to deal with because in many cases, particularly with smaller items of equipment, the cost of finding and replacing the faulty embedded chip would be greater than the cost of the material itself. That is the kind of advice which Action 2000 is giving to small and medium-sized enterprises. Indeed, its hotline is receiving 10,000 requests a week.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, do the Government have any plans about helping ordinary consumers in their homes as regards this millennium bug? It is not only large organisations, government departments and small and medium-sized firms which will be affected; indeed, there is an awful lot of household equipment involved. One is aware of the fact that this will happen in the middle of winter and one wonders about central heating systems for the elderly, refrigeration plant, and so on. Is there any advice available in that respect? Those of us who normally take out home insurance policies are now beginning to notice information about this in the small print which states that such companies will not be responsible. Therefore, do the Government have any plans for guidance in that regard?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is much wild talk about equipment in the home—not, I hasten to say, from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. Indeed, people are talking as if it would be a tragedy if a toaster did not work on 1st January 2000. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness is quite right to mention more complicated equipment, such as central heating systems. Advice is indeed available for individuals in that respect. While responding to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may commend the very lengthy and informative article in the Sunday Times this week which included such advice for individual households as well as for businesses.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on reading the latest government report on the problems that they face with the millennium bug, does the Minister recognise that it is clear that local authorities will fail to meet the target; that the MoD is having to abandon important systems because it cannot meet the target; and, indeed, that there will be immense disruption in the private sector? Do not the Government consider that it is part of their duty to the public as a whole to put systems in place to ensure that, whenever such disruption occurs, the public are protected from it as far as possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords; we have always done so. Within three weeks of coming into office the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set in place a monitoring system in the public sector exactly because, as the noble Lord said, we recognise that there is an interface between the public and the private sector. Throughout the past 18 months we have given priority in the public sector to business-critical systems—in other words, those systems which will also affect the private sector. Classic examples of that would be if there were power failures, for example, which would affect everyone, both in the private and the public sector. Another example would be a breakdown in the supply chain where people who have nothing wrong with their own systems find themselves in trouble because their suppliers or their customers are not compliant. I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's question, but I do not agree that the Government have been negligent in tackling the problem.

Dover House: Proposals
2.58 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their most recent proposals for the future of Dover House in Whitehall.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, my right honourable friend is considering the likely demand for London accommodation following devolution next May. The Government will announce their conclusions in due course.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, will the Minister accept that Dover House has become the flagship of Scotland's interests within the United Kingdom and that it gives Scotland the opportunity and facilities for a strong voice within central government? Further, can the noble Lord dispel any rumours that the Prime Minister has other plans for it?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the Government are so reluctant to tell us whether or not Scotland will be allowed to continue to have an interest in Dover House? Many of the elements that will most affect the future

139
prosperity and well-being of Scotland will remain reserved to the Westminster Parliament and there will have to be a great deal of activity between Scotland and London on economic and other matters. Therefore, it is important that this flagship building continues to exist. Will the Government give us some assurance on the matter now?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, one of the main determinants of accommodation needs following devolution will be the view that the Scottish executive takes about its requirements in London in liaising with UK Ministers. That can clearly be decided only after we have a Scottish parliament and a Scottish executive in place. To a large extent it will be up to them to determine their accommodation needs.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister mean that the Scottish parliament's views will be taken into account to a greater extent than those of other people, for example, the Prime Minister?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, in coming to a view on meeting satisfactorily and adequately the accommodation needs in London of those who will represent Scottish interests, two basic matters will need to be taken into account: the requirements of the Secretary of State for Scotland; and the requirements of the Scottish executive.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the noble Lord is well aware that Dover House is a modest size compared with other government offices in London, yet this prestigious building is situated in exactly the right place to represent Scottish interests in London. It is inconceivable that the Government should hand over this building to another ministry. Will the noble Lord go a little further than he has already in confirming that that will not happen?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that in this case small is beautiful and size does not matter. The precise accommodation needs of the Secretary of State and, I imagine, the Scottish Law Officer in London, and of the executive will be assessed. Those needs can be appreciated properly only once devolution is in place. Until devolution is in place, Dover House will remain as the Scottish Office.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it the Minister's assumption that after devolution Scottish interests will require more or less office accommodation in London?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I do not make any assumption about the accommodation requirements of the Scottish Office and of those who will represent Scottish interests after devolution. That is a matter for the Scottish executive.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is it not well known that during her time as Prime Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, cast covetous eyes on Dover
140
House in foreseeing a longer tenure in office than was the case? Why is the Minister so coy in his reference to the Prime Minister and his wife casting equally covetous glances at Dover House? It seems to me an admirable place in which to put a Prime Minister and possibly, in due course, a president.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as regards the reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that may have been the scourge of Dover House. I am not aware of the present Prime Minister casting any covetous eyes on Dover House. As I said, Dover House is the London base for the Scottish Office. That will remain the position certainly until devolution. It is appropriate that the accommodation requirements of the then Secretary of State and the Scottish executive are then reviewed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have no knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, cast covetous eyes on Dover House? Does the noble Lord recall George Robertson's phrase with regard to devolution; namely, that it would kill the nationalists stone dead? But the fact is they are alive and kicking. Will he therefore ensure that Dover House continues to be used by the Scottish Office, just in case at some time in the future Mr. Robertson has to eat his words in a big way and it is required by Scotland as the home of the Scottish ambassador to the Court of St. James?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, never fails to entertain us but that is one of his wilder flights of fancy.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the strong defence of the Union by the Secretary of State for Scotland made yesterday will be enhanced if Dover House is retained to represent Scotland's interests within the United Kingdom?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, much as I value and appreciate the opportunity of working in Dover House, I think that the robust defence of the Union does not depend upon a building.

Railway Land: Redevelopment
3.5 p.m.
Lord Cadman Lord Cadman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that, following the moratorium on the sale of former railway land recently announced, adequate consultation is taking place between Rail Properties Ltd and local authorities and others concerning the redevelopment of suitable sites for future railway use.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government announced in July in the White Paper on the future of transport that the British Railways Board was suspending land sales while it conducted an audit of the remaining sites. As part of this review, the British Railways Board has consulted a wide range of transport operators, local

141
authorities and other organisations on the criteria to be applied for establishing sites which have a realistic prospect of use for transport purposes in the foreseeable future.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that several potential sites belonging to British Rail which have been earmarked for possible future railway use are still being actively promoted by Rail Properties Ltd for other non-railway schemes? Bearing in mind that the railway industry and interested local authorities might have a better idea of their future needs than those charged with site disposal, does the Minister agree that Rail Properties should be encouraged to co-operate more fully with interested parties with a view to returning suitable sites to rail use?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, part of the review that I have just mentioned requires the British Railways Board to identify those sites which might be of use for railway or other transport purposes. It would appear that probably the bulk of the sites would not fall within that category, but as regards those that do, consultation would be required with local authorities and transport operators if there were any proposition to dispose of them. However, the British Railways Board has a responsibility to dispose of that land which is not useful for those purposes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in order that these sites are put to the best future use for local people, will the Government give consideration to allowing local authorities to have the first option, provided the price is right?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at present if the British Railways Board sells sites it is supposed to sell them at market value. Local authorities which can see some benefit in acquiring the land are considered as serious purchasers. However, the bulk of the remaining British Railways Board property is of a relatively small size and is unlikely to be a major factor in local authorities' development plans.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that all this information which he has helpfully given to the House this afternoon is contained in a report which has recently been submitted to his department by the British Railways Board? Will he consider publishing that as I believe it contains a list of every property which is still in British Rail's hands and that would enable colleagues in the industry and local authorities to identify for themselves what is available and what they may wish to purchase?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the chairman of the British Railways Board has recently submitted a report to the Deputy Prime Minister which sets out the general approach. It does not contain the full list of British Railways Board properties, although that will become available. Clearly my colleagues will give consideration to the question of whether it should be published at some point. However, we are not at that point yet.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, does the Minister agree it is important that aggregates are transported to London and other cities by train rather than by road and that it is important to keep the storage facilities for aggregates near railway depots rather than losing that land to building sites, which would result in lorries transporting aggregates? It is important to keep aggregate sources next to railway depots.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the general point made by the noble Viscount. Indeed, it is very much part of our policy that some of the freight which is currently transported by road should be returned to rail freight. The recent history of the rail freight industry is encouraging in that respect. As regards the sites, noble Lords will recognise that the bulk of the sites referred to are not British Rail Board sites; they are Railtrack sites. Railtrack has certain constraints on the disposal of those sites, if usable for such purposes.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place; namely, the Pre-Budget Statement. Following that, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the situation in Iraq.

Scotland Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Reserved matters]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) moved Amendment No. 206X:
Page 67, line 43, at end insert (", or
(c) any office in the Scottish Administration.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment designed to make it clear that the reservation of the Crown in Part I of Schedule 5 does not have the effect of reserving the offices in the Scottish administration. It has always been intended that the Scottish parliament should have the ability to be able to amend the functions of office holders who comprise part of the Scottish administration and confer new functions upon them. This amendment ensures that Part I of the schedule should not have the effect of preventing the parliament from doing that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 206Y:
Page 68, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments would reserve legislative competence over the interception of communications while devolving executive competence to the Scottish administration. They also make clear that the scope of the reservation of "interception of communications" does not include intrusive surveillance techniques.
The Bill at present provides for the devolution of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, to the extent that it relates to the prevention or detection of serious crime. This will have two main consequences. First, the Scottish executive will assume the Secretary of State's current power to authorise interception of telephone calls or mail for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. That squares with the fact that policing and crime prevention are devolved and it would be anomalous if the Scottish police had to go to a UK government Minister for interception warrants against criminals operating in Scotland.
The second consequence is that the Scottish parliament will be able to legislate to amend the Interception of Communications Act, but only where that interception is necessary to prevent or detect serious crime in Scotland. On reflection, we believe that there would be practical problems in legislating separately on that sub-set of interception issues.
The Interception of Communications Act 1985 is in need of updating and work to replace it is under way. That work has underlined the importance of having a coherent interception policy throughout the UK. If different arrangements were to apply in different parts of the country in relation to serious crime interceptions it could undermine the interception policy and police operations in the remainder of the UK, especially by revealing some of the detailed techniques which are used.
The basis of the existing policy is sound. Devolution must ensure that it is the Scottish First Minister, rather than a Minister of the UK Government, who has responsibility for authorising interception for serious criminals in Scotland and is answerable to the Scottish parliament for that work. But an approach which might fragment the UK-wide legislation on this sensitive subject would be very difficult to operate in practice without prejudicing police operations and the fight against serious crime.
The amendments therefore reserve interception legislation. But we shall use the power in Clause 59 of the Bill to transfer to Scottish Ministers the important executive responsibility for authorising interception in serious criminal cases in Scotland. They alone will have the power to give such authority in such cases, and they will be answerable to the Scottish parliament.
In this way the Scottish parliament will retain a proper measure of control over interception policy in Scotland. There is considerable scope for Scottish
144
Ministers to establish different policies on interception related to serious crime without devolving legislative powers. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I may say how appropriate it is that the noble Baroness has the opportunity to explain these sensitive matters to the House. She has done so clearly.
I well understand the reason why the Government have brought forward these amendments, and I should not wish to be associated with any suggestion that devolution should in any way complicate or frustrate the attempts that must be constantly made to fight cross-Border crime. The noble Baroness has provided a full justification for these changes.
On a point of interest relating to Amendment No. 206Y, which part of paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 reserves the various functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters? It is not entirely clear to me.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am pleased that it was not clear to the noble and learned Lord, because it was not clear to me either. I inquired about the matter and have been advised that it is the very first part, namely the Crown, which covers the three agencies named.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 68, line 21, at end insert—
(" . Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the Parliament from passing a Bill authorising the Scottish Executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether or not Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208 standing in my name.
The purpose of the amendments may initially be perplexing to some noble Lords. Their terms are clearly inconsistent. They address from different perspectives the issue of whether or not it would be competent for the Scottish executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom. Clearly, I shall not invite the House to accept both amendments. My choice as to which one will depend on the Minister's reply.
This matter was debated in Committee on 21st July. On that occasion a number of amendments dealt with the issue of referendums or polls. The discussion addressed the basic question of whether it would be competent for the parliament to hold referendums before turning to the secondary, albeit important, issue of whether it would be competent to hold a poll dealing with the issue of independence. The initial amendment sought to explore whether it was necessary for the parliament to be given express power as part of its legislative competence to enable it to pass Acts of the

145
Scottish parliament authorising such referendums and polls. Section 7 of the Government of Wales Act gives the assembly power to hold polls.
As regards the competence of a referendum on independence, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, dealt with the matter in his reply. He said:
"I wish the Committee to be in no doubt that as the Bill stands the Scottish parliament will not be able to legislate to hold a referendum on independence as the union of the kingdoms is already a reserved matter under Schedule 5".—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 854.]
He suggested that explicit reference along the lines of an amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rowallan was not needed. The noble Lord went on to say:
"In determining what relates to a reserved matter, the Government amendments tabled to Clause 28 are of help here, because they indicate that we must look at the purpose of what is being done. If the parliament passed an Act to hold a referendum about whether the Union should continue, it would thus clearly be legislating in relation to the reserved matter of the Union. Any such Act would be about the continuation of the Union and it would therefore be beyond the parliament's competence and would not be law".— [Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 854.]
He went on to give certain reasons for the view which he had expressed.
I read with care what the noble Lord said on that occasion, particularly in view of the fact that since then the Scottish National Party, I think in an interim policy document issued since July, and certainly in speeches made by leading members, has reiterated its intention to hold such a referendum in the event that the party forms the Scottish executive, or part of it. Even if it were not in such a position, there would be nothing to prevent it bringing forward a Bill and seeking to have it enacted by the Scottish parliament.
When the matter was debated in July, I expressed concern that, notwithstanding the views clearly and fairly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, it might still be possible to construct an argument in a court of law that it would be competent for the Scottish executive to hold a referendum touching upon or involving the issue of independence. I concede that such a referendum would be held not to obtain a vote that would bind the parliament or the Scottish executive but for the purpose of informing both those bodies of the thinking of the Scottish people on this issue. I believe that it could be successfully argued—and certainly that it could be argued in a rational way in a court of law—that it would be of assistance to the Scottish parliament and the executive to be aware of what Scottish people think on the issue to assist them in the discharge of other statutory duties which lie well within their executive and legislative competence.
In developing that argument on that occasion I made reference to the fact that, without any statutory authority, the Strathclyde Regional Council had on its own initiative held a referendum as to whether the water supply industry in Scotland should be privatised. I also referred to the fact that the Grampian Regional Council had made a financial contribution to the Scottish constitutional convention, albeit that the work of the convention touched on issues which were not within the direct statutory responsibilities of the local authority.
Since the matter was last debated in this House, the Supreme Court in Canada has issued a judgment in a very important and interesting case involving the consequences of a referendum in Quebec. The decision was dated 20th August this year and followed a reference by the governor, acting in council, posing certain questions for the Canadian Supreme Court. Against the background that it was held that the referendum held by the Quebec authorities in no sense bound the other members of the federation and had no binding effect, there is an interesting discussion as to how the expression of opinion which the referendum threw up placed upon the other parties to the federation a duty to negotiate in a responsible manner as to whether it would be appropriate for Quebec to receive its independence.
I can foresee that if, many years down the line, such a referendum were to be held in Scotland, reference might be made to that authority. As we have discussed on numerous occasions during the passage of the Bill, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council comes to deliberate on how devolution issues should be resolved, it is anticipated that they will look to the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth for assistance on these matters.
As far as the practicalities of having a referendum are concerned, I believe that I am at one with the Government. I understand that the Government are opposed to a referendum being held. Their view is that it would be incompetent for that to happen under the present terms of the Bill. I agree. If the majority of the Scottish people wish to seek independence—and I believe that they certainly do not—they could make that clear by voting in a general election for sufficient numbers of members of the SNP. There is little doubt that, were that to happen, negotiations of the type referred to in the Canadian case might well begin.
Where I and the Government Benches differ is as to whether the matter should be clarified further on the face of the Bill. Time and again in our debates on the Bill there have been discussions as to whether some of the clauses are unnecessary and whether some of the amendments proposed are unnecessary and would serve to increase the length of an already complicated and detailed Bill.
If the second of my amendments were to be accepted by the Government, I believe that it would unequivocally prevent any attempt by either the Scottish executive or the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum unless it had been sanctioned by this Parliament. That is, therefore, the amendment which I favour, and I hope that it would be accepted. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 207.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I believe that these two paradoxical amendments raise an important issue and that one of them should be on the face of the Bill. It is always important to reaffirm that Scotland has placed its sovereignty voluntarily in the United Kingdom and in this Parliament. The Bill is entirely in keeping with that constitutional theory. The Bill is being enacted because the people of Scotland have requested—or perhaps demanded—the return of

147
some de facto sovereignty in the form of a parliament with powers devolved from this United Kingdom Parliament.
The issue of power to hold a plebiscite concerning secession from the United Kingdom is also central to that constitutional theory. The power must be lodged overtly somewhere. For the Bill to be silent on the issue, as if it would just go away, could be seen as confirmation that Scotland has been annexed on a de facto basis and that Scotland is not a voluntary member of the United Kingdom.
The scheme of devolution before us lays down that such constitutional issues are reserved matters and that it would be for the United Kingdom Parliament to deal with any demand for secession from the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland should be allowed to know—and should be under no illusion about the matter—that this is an issue which they ought to take up with their Westminster MPs in the future. I support Amendment No. 208, which clarifies the position as I have described it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the Liberal Party we do think for ourselves occasionally. I regard these contradictory amendments as an extraordinary device in keeping with the attitude that the Conservative Front Bench has adopted throughout the debate of discussing everything ad nauseam. This is a Bill to devolve power to a Scottish parliament to look after its own affairs within the context, and with the advantages, of belonging to the United Kingdom. Why on earth we prolong this discussion, with extra contradictory amendments brought forward, I do not know. The Government have stated quite clearly that a referendum put forward by the Scottish parliament would not be legal and proper.
The situation in Quebec was quite clear. The referendum put forward by the Québécois Party achieved 49 per cent. support. The referendum more or less said, "Do you believe in an independent Quebec which will be rich beyond belief?" Its terms were such that any non-thinking person would vote immediately for it. There is no point in saying that a party such as the SNP would be able to bring forward a referendum. That is made clear in the Bill. I support the Government's attitude. The amendment will do nothing but stir up trouble.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon has been candid about these two amendments. I shall try to be as loyal and as tactful as possible in my comments on this situation.
The most important provision in this Bill is to be found in paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5:
"The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England".
148
Clearly, Amendment No. 207 is in conflict with that concept. Amendment No. 208 can be said to be consistent with it but, I believe, is unnecessary bearing in mind the clear, emphatic wording of paragraph 1(b).
I therefore assume, in favour of my noble friends on the Front Bench, that these two amendments have been tabled in order that noble Lords in every part of your Lordships' House can express their views on the matter but come to the conclusion that the union of the United Kingdom must be upheld.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend, who is very wise on these matters, has expressed his view. My noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has expressed a similar view in different terms. With great respect to the noble Lords, they are forgetting how it will be determined whether something is or is not competent in this parliament. They are assuming that it will be like Westminster. It will not be.
The Scottish National Party is intending, we understand, to use the Holyrood parliament, not the Westminster Parliament, as the locus for continuing to attempt to persuade the people of Scotland that they will do best if they leave the United Kingdom. The locus for this discussion will be the Holyrood parliament. We are not even sure whether the Scottish National Party will be putting up any candidates for Westminster at the next general election. I do not think it has decided that as yet.
It is absolutely essential that the Bill should be crystal clear on this matter. If it is not crystal clear, it will be possible for the Scottish National Party majority—even a majority made up with other members of the Scottish parliament—to decide to legislate for a referendum. Whether or not that is within its competence under the terms of the Bill as it stands, it becomes a devolution issue. In the process there will be a long argument—it may last several months or perhaps a year—as to whether it will be competent to do that. During that time the Scottish National Party will have a marvellous opportunity to stir up discontent: to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that the Holyrood parliament is not able to put forward their interests in deciding the future of Scotland.
This is the time when the Government should make it clear, in the kind of words in Amendment No. 208, that that is not within the parliament's competence. Then the matter cannot proceed. It is really important. To say amiably that because the constitution is reserved to Westminster this will not occur, is simply not realistic. We are not facing up to the facts. People will not change the way in which they behave because of the new parliament. They will continue to behave in a political way. I can foresee that that could happen.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I believe that the Bill is entirely clear. There is no ambiguity about where power lies. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said clearly that, while there are no limitations on the powers of the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish parliament is limited by this Bill which will become an Act. Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5 makes absolutely clear where the powers lie, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out.

149
Whatever is written down, the Scottish National Party will behave politically whether or not we pass the amendment. If it wants to behave politically, then passing or not passing the amendment is entirely beside the point. There is no ambiguity. The Scotland Act will be clear as to where the power lies and any Bill to hold such a referendum will be ultra vires.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I had hoped that we had succeeded in Committee in clarifying that, under the Bill as drafted, the Scottish parliament will not be able to legislate to hold a referendum on independence because the union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter. It is not only the constitution that is reserved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, observed; it is absolutely explicit in paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5 that,
"the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England",
is reserved, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton reminded us.
So that is it. I shall try once more to explain the position and apologise to the House that what I am about to say will unavoidably be somewhat repetitious. An explicit reference on the lines proposed by Amendment No. 208 is simply not needed. In determining what relates to a reserved matter, Clause 28, as amended in Committee, indicates that one must look at the purpose of what is being done—and that has been accepted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
If the parliament passed an Act to hold a referendum about whether the Union should continue, it would clearly be legislating in relation to the reserved matter of the union. It is as crystal clear as that. Any such Act would be about the continuation of the union; it would therefore be beyond the competence of the parliament and would not be law. The position is quite clear on this point. Amendment No. 208 is absolutely unnecessary.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would it be competent for the parliament to discuss the question of the independence of Scotland from the Union?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it would be possible to discuss that. That is not dealt with in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The amendment refers to passing a Bill and therefore limits itself to legislative competence. The legislative competence is already taken up in the terms of Schedule 5 and Clause 28. We are on the narrow point of legislative competence and not whether the parliament can or should discuss the matter of independence. That is a totally different matter and beyond the scope of the amendment.
While I appreciate the helpful way in which the noble and learned Lord has explained why he has tabled what are, as he recognised, two contradictory amendments, I do not think there is any means by which we can get away from the fact that we are dealing with an issue that is clear in the Bill. There is absolutely no need for this
150
further attempt allegedly to make it clear. I should have thought that the great strength of the Bill is the very simple phrase in Schedule 5 dealing with the reserved matters:
"the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England".
There can be nothing more explicit or clearer than that.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the powers of the executive. But the powers of the executive are linked to the legislative competence of the parliament. It would not be within the competence of the executive to incur expenditure on a referendum on independence; nor would it be within the legislative competence of the parliament to confer such a power on it. So I am still at a loss to understand the point on Report as I was at a loss to understand the point in Committee. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am sorry if the Minister is at a loss because the fault is entirely mine. I shall endeavour to explain a little more fully why I have this concern, and in doing so, I shall, like my noble friend Lord Renton, be as loyal and tactful as I can. However, I regret to say that on this occasion I part company from him as to whether the Bill is quite as clear as he suggests that it is. It is of course no surprise to have differing views on these matters from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure that the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was made in jest, and I take it in that spirit.
The crux of the matter is the new provision of Clause 28(3), which was introduced in Committee. It states:
"For the purposes of this section, the question whether a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament relates to a reserved matter is to be determined, subject to subsection (4)"—
that does not concern us—
"by reference to the purpose of the provision".
If it is competent, as the Minister has accepted, for the Scottish parliament to debate the question of independence, one then assumes that it would be competent for it to discuss the question in a committee to which people came to give evidence, as covered by the provision in Clause 23.
If it is competent for the parliament to discuss the matter, would it not be possible to pass an Act of the Scottish parliament along the lines, "Because we are going to discuss the question of independence, we wish to know whether the people of Scotland know about it in order to inform our discussions. We fully accept that we do not have the competence to pass an Act which would bring about independence. We fully accept that that is a reserved matter under sub-paragraph (1)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill. But in so far as we are entitled to discuss the matter, we wish to be seized with knowledge of what the Scottish people think about the matter".
That seems to be the reasoning which lay behind Strathclyde Regional Council's decision to hold its referendum because there can be no doubt that the

151
power to regulate the water supply industry and to decide whether or not to privatise it lay with the United Kingdom Government and indeed with this Parliament.
Both today and on a previous occasion the Minister has not responded to my two well-known examples. He may be correct when he says that he does not fully understand the concern I have raised but clearly that concern is shared by other Members of the House. Therefore, while I do not intend to press Amendment No. 207 to a vote, I shall seek to take the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 208. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 68, line 21, at end insert—
(" . It shall not be competent for the Scottish Parliament to pass a Bill authorising the Scottish Executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether or not Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 208) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 167.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Addison, V.

Gainford, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Aldington, L.

Gormanston, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Barber, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Higgins, L.

Berners, B.

Holderness, L.

Brentford, V.

Hothfield, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Kenyon, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cadman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Knollys, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dartmouth, E.

McConnell, L.

Davidson, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Downshire, M.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Montrose, D.

Erne, E.

Mountevans, L.

152

Mountgarret, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Munster, E.

Sandys, L.

Nelson, E.

Savile, L.

Newall, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Northesk, E.

Sempill, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Sharples, B.

Palumbo, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Stair, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Pender, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Swinfen, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Quinton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Waddington, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Warnock, B.

Rees, L.

Westbury, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L

Gainsborough, E.

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ahmed, L.

Geraint, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gilbert, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Alli, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amos, B.

Goodhart, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Annan, L.

Goudie, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bach, L.

Grenfell, L.

Barnett, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hardie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bethell, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Haskel, L.

Blease, L.

Hayman, B.

Borrie, L.

Headfort, M.

Brightman, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brookman, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Calverley, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ilchester, E.

Carrick, E.

Islwyn, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Christopher, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kintore, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Laming, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Crawley, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McCarthy, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dixon, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Ezra, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fitt, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

153

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shannon, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mishcon, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Molloy, L.

Simon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Slim, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Newby, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Orme, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Paul, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Peston, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thornton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Thurso, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tope, L.

Tordoff, L.

Puttnam, L.

Uddin, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Varley, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Redesdale, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Whitty, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Russell, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Serota, B.

Winston, L.

Sewel, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before we move to the pre-Budget Statement, I should like to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Pre-Budget Statement
3.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Pre-Budget Report. The Statement is as follows:
"In this year's Pre-Budget Report we seek to steer a course of stability amid a world economic downturn. We set in place measures to increase productivity and provide support for enterprise. We introduce new measures to make work pay for all our people and we show how we will invest in health, education and our infrastructure to provide the modern services on which people rely, in each case long-term decisions that will equip our country for the future.
"The background to this report is the global downturn, which started in Asia and which has reverberated throughout every continent. It has not only shifted the balance of risks in the world economy from fears about inflation to fears about growth but has forced every country, every continent, every
154
international financial institution to cut their estimates for growth. World trade growth is set to fall by two thirds. Forecasts for world growth as a whole have now been virtually halved. One quarter of the world is in recession. And my objective, the objective for Britain, is that in this uncertain world Britain not only steers a stable course but that, by building up our long-term strength, is more than equal to any and every challenge the global economy presents.
"Because in the last 18 months British inflation has been brought down to its target of 2.5 per cent. and because Britain has set in place a new long-term monetary framework, with the independence of the Bank of England, Britain is better placed than in the past to face these global difficulties, and because, too, Britain has tackled its structural deficit in the public finances we are more able to steer that stable course.
"But, as all forecasts round the world have made clear, there is acute uncertainty about the eventual outcome of the global financial instability. So we are conscious of the balance of risks—the risk on the one hand of a sharper slowdown in the world economy as a result of instability and its effect on confidence, the risk on the other that inflationary pressures might persist.
"The Pre-Budget Report is set with this firmly in mind, no denial of short-term difficulties, no diversion from policies for long-term strength, and our challenge in the year ahead is to strengthen the three essential foundations for that long-term strength and success.
"First, Britain now has, for the first time, a consistent long-term framework for both monetary and fiscal policy—one that has an inbuilt capacity to respond credibly to short-term pressures and one from which we will not be deflected.
"Secondly, with business, we are putting in place a strategy to tackle a fundamental long-term economic weakness, the 40 per cent. productivity gap with our most successful competitors—and these measures include investment in education and innovation and new encouragement for enterprise and competition and, thirdly, with our Welfare-to-Work programme and by ensuring that work pays we are extending opportunity to all, creating a Britain where no one is excluded and everyone has a contribution to make, a Britain that is both enterprising and fair.
"First, the foundation of long-term economic stability. Official figures now show that by spring 1997, with consumer spending growing at an unsustainable pace, inflation was heading way above the country's 2.5 per cent. target to twice that of our competitors, 4 per cent. and above, and that Britain was set to repeat the boom-bust cycle that has led to 15 per cent. interest rates for a whole year in 1990.
"Because immediate action was taken—making the Bank of England independent and tackling the inflationary pressures—inflation is today at our target of 2.5 per cent., and I can announce that for future years our forecast is that it will stay on target. As a result, Britain's long-term interest rates have come

155
down from over 7 per cent. to 5 per cent.; the differential between Britain and Germany has narrowed by nearly 2 per cent.; and long-term interest rates are now the lowest for 35 years, the lowest since Britain's boom-bust cycle became entrenched. And because Britain has brought inflation under control it has been possible, as the world has turned downwards, for interest rates to be able to respond more quickly and in a more forward-looking way than in past British economic cycles.
"In the previous economic cycle, interest rates remained in double figures for over four years. In contrast, the Bank of England has already been able to reduce interest rates to respond to a changed international environment.
"Long-term monetary stability is a pre-condition of economic success and I reaffirm my support for the Bank of England's independence—its remit and membership—and I do not believe that any political party, putting the long term interests of Britain first, will, on reflection, bring party politics and short-termism back into interest rate decisions.
"It is also because Britain now has a new long-term fiscal framework—with clear disciplines set out in the Code for Fiscal Stability that we are laying before Parliament today—that, as world growth slows, fiscal policy is able to make its contribution to stability and future growth in Britain. The official figures published today confirm that in our first year we cut the budget deficit from £28 billion to £8 billion. This tightening has continued throughout our second year, a total fiscal tightening in two years of 3¾ per cent. of national income. So fiscal policy has played its part with interest rate policy in tackling inflationary pressures.
"I can tell the House that, because we have concentrated on our priorities and cut waste, spending will be a total of £2 billion below the ceilings we inherited.
"As a result, our current budget this year is expected to be £5.5 billion in surplus, and what was prudently projected to be net borrowing of £1 billion is now expected to be a debt repayment of £1.5 billion.
"The golden rule is that, over the cycle, we balance the current budget, in other words on current spending that we eliminate the structural deficit. I can report to the House that because of the tough action we have taken since we came to government this is exactly what we are now achieving.
"Having broken with short-termism and created, for the long term, a stable monetary and fiscal framework, with an inbuilt capacity to be more responsive to the economic cycle, fiscal and monetary policy can both together contribute to stability and growth in the coming years.
"My forecast for 1999—of 1 to 1½ per cent. growth for 1999—will see Britain steering a stable course even when one quarter of the world is in recession. And as the economy returns to its sustainable
156
growth path, we expect growth in 2000 to be between 2¼ per cent. and 2¾ per cent. And in 2001 between 2¾ per cent. and 3¼ per cent.
"It is because we are cautious about the balance of risks in the economy that we have based public finance forecasts on deliberately more prudent assumptions than before. First, our public finances are planned on an estimate of 2¼ per cent. trend rate of growth, one quarter per cent. lower than the assumption that we inherited. Secondly, our forecasts have revised downwards the ratio of VAT receipts to projected consumer spending, reducing estimated revenues by nearly £4 billion over the next five years. Thirdly, revenues from tackling fraud have been set at a more cautious level than in the last Parliament. Fourthly, we have discontinued the imprudent practice of assuming revenues from privatisations that have not even been agreed.
"In each case our assumptions have been independently audited by the National Audit Office. And, because of the experience of the early 1990s, we have adopted a more prudent approach to forecasting income tax and corporation tax revenues, including a cautious estimate of revenue from self-assessment. So, even after making most prudent assumptions and then taking into account the world downturn, we meet our first rule; to balance our current budget over the cycle.
"We expect the current surplus to be £1 billion next near, £3 billion in 2000–2001, £8 billion the year after that, £10 billion and £11 billion in the two years to follow. For the same years, net borrowing is expected to be £4 billion and successively £5 billion, £2 billion, £2 billion and £1 billion figures better in every year of this Parliament than in any year of the last Parliament—an estimated current surplus for the coming five years of £33 billion, a margin that shows that we are equipped to cope with further uncertainties. This £33 billion contrasts with, under the last government, a deficit of £149 billion over the economic cycle, as national debt doubled.
"Our second rule, the sustainable investment rule, requires that, as we borrow for investment, debt is set at a prudent and stable level. In the last year of the last government, that debt ratio was 45 per cent. In the next three years, to meet the needs of a modern infrastructure, public investment will double. As a result of our overall prudence, debt as a proportion of GDP is set to fall below 40 per cent. to 39 per cent. next year, to 38 per cent. and then to 36½ per cent. And Members who take a special interest in the Maastricht criteria will want to know that in each year of the next five years Britain is comfortably within the Maastricht guidelines.
"Long-term economic stability, from which we will not be diverted, is the foundation for future success. But we will only achieve our long-term goals for growth and employment through an even more radical modernisation of our economic policy in favour of opportunity, enterprise and work.

157
"We need to push ahead with modernisation in every area—improving productivity, expanding opportunity and investing in our future. And in every one of these areas our economic policy is based on getting the best out of all our people and all their potential; in other words, on maximising economic opportunity for all. What makes for a good economy also makes for a good society; one that is fair and cohesive.
"So I now turn to the first conclusions from the review we have conducted with British business into removing the barriers to productivity. As our seminars with business have revealed, the only way for Britain to be at the forefront of the new knowledge-based economies of the future is by modern policies for education, employee participation, small business development and science and innovation.
"Our first recommendations concern the quality of education. With our £19 billion investment in educational reform, we have set out demanding targets for literacy, numeracy, teaching standards and qualifications. And with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment's announcement today of a £250 million investment in a new traineeship programme for teenagers, we have now made it possible for every young person, after 16, to stay on in part-time or full-time education, to get qualifications and to have the opportunity of a job. But to meet the productivity challenge we must do far more to encourage the ambitions of all our children, not least by bringing the world of education and the world of work into closer contact.
"Over the next year we plan to enlist business leaders to take the world of work and business into our classrooms. And to encourage businesses to offer expertise and management to help our schools and colleges, I can announce that the Budget will allow businesses to claim tax relief when they second staff to schools and colleges. But as our productivity discussions with business have also revealed, Britain can do more to remove the barriers to opportunity and to ambition.
"The opportunity not just to acquire the best skills but the ambition to work your way up and use your creative talents, the ambition to start and build a successful business, the ambition to see the firm in which you work succeed and you succeed with it.
"Today, only a fraction of British employees and an even smaller minority of those outside senior management own shares in the companies that they work in and yet the evidence is that employee commitment is a vital strength for companies competing and succeeding in the global economy. And I want, through targeted tax reform, to reward long-term commitment by employees and I want to remove, once and for all, the old 'them and us' culture in British industry. I want to encourage the new enterprise culture of teamwork in which everyone contributes and everyone benefits from success. So, in the Budget we will make it easier for all
158
employees—and not just a few—to become stakeholders in their company. I want to double the number of firms in which all employees have the opportunity to own shares.
"Many employees already hold shares through their pension funds. So I will propose to pensions funds and other institutions that they should provide better and more direct public information to their members and investors.
"In future, more of our wealth and jobs will come from small and growing businesses. In just 18 months we have announced cuts in the rate of corporation tax on large companies twice to 30 pence, and for small companies twice to 20 pence—its lowest level ever.
"In the Budget we will consider a further tax reduction for small businesses. In particular we will consider converting the temporary investment allowance we introduced last year into a permanent tax cut. But I have in mind a bigger reform to cut the burden of tax and red tape. Small businesses getting started and growing lack not only the resources to pay tax but the back-up to administer national insurance, income tax, their VAT payments and their payroll systems.
"From April 1999, the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency will be merged. And we propose to roll out, on a nationwide basis, a new comprehensive service for new businesses, helping replace time consuming bookkeeping by offering a one stop advice service administered by a national helpline, backed up by local offices. So from now on every department of government will have an obligation to encourage enterprise and entrepreneurs.
"And I can confirm to businesses also that we will re-examine planning regulations and building control to identify barriers to productivity and job creation and how the planning system can be speeded up in Britain to help us emulate the success of hi-tech clusters and corridors like America's Silicon Valley.
"Access to bank finance is critical to the success of every single small business. I have therefore asked the banks to work with Mr. Don Cruickshank to assess what steps can be taken more effectively to serve the needs of businesses in the economy.
"And to open up and enhance competition we will ensure, with a 20 per cent. increase in new funding, that the Office of Fair Trading has the necessary resources to break down barriers which prevent new firms entering markets and keep prices high for consumers. Further announcements on how the new arrangements will proceed will come from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he publishes his competitiveness White Paper.
"Our policy is pro-small business, pro-share ownership, pro-tax simplification and pro-competition.
"Our policy is also pro-skills and pro-science.
"To turn scientific inventions in Britain into jobs for Britain we need to do more to honour the spirit of invention, facilitate the exploitation of invention and encourage the commercialisation of invention.

159
"More than ever innovation is the key to higher productivity. So we must see that inventions which are created in Britain are developed and manufactured in Britain.
"The first step is a higher quality and quantity of research and development. So the Government will consult small business on supplementing the current tax relief for R&D with a more effective tax credit for small business based on the volume of R&D investment.
"Three months ago we announced a partnership with the Wellcome Trust to invest over £1 billion to re-equip university science in Britain, the largest ever investment in Britain's science base.
"Having received an overwhelming response from universities to our new University Challenge Fund—the private public partnership for commercialising scientific inventions—we are now inviting further private sector involvement.
"I now want to complete the path that takes inventions from the science lab through to high tech venture capital and then to the national and global marketplace.
"So I am announcing today that to develop business expertise in science and to transfer technology from the science lab to the marketplace, we will endow up to eight new institutes of enterprise in British universities. A further signal of our determination that the genius of British invention will once again become an engine for British growth and jobs.
"A strong venture capital industry supporting high-tech, high-risk investments is critical to the future of Britain.
"Today we have only 6 per cent. of the early stage high-tech venture capital of the United States. So we will consult on and consider new incentives, including how to encourage our most successful companies to invest in start-ups, and how we can provide new sources of venture capital and management expertise for entrepreneurs.
"The productivity challenge is one that must be met by the public sector and not just the private sector.
"Next month, for the first time, the Government will publish public service agreements which set, for all departments, clear targets for improved performance. And to help them meet these targets and to monitor performance we are establishing an advisory panel from business and management.
"Absenteeism costs the public sector up to £6 billion a year. Specific targets are being set for each department to reduce absence rates by 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003.
"We are working with business, not just to promote higher productivity, but to secure policies for a sustainable environment.
"I am publishing today the report of Lord Marshall, formerly President of the CBI, into the role of economic instruments and the business use of energy. I thank him for his work, which substantially moves
160
forward the debate, and the Government will give full consideration to his recommendations as part of its wider strategy on climate change.
"Today I am also publishing a consultation document, containing proposals for a £50 reduction in vehicle excise duty for the smallest and most environmentally efficient cars.
"Just as the Government are modernising our industrial economy, so too we are modernising employment policy.
"The House will be pleased to know that by next April 300,000 people will have benefited from the New Deal. That is now giving men and women previously left out and excluded a new sense of hope.
"Already, 29,000 companies have signed up to the New Deal and 30,000 have found jobs with employers, jobs they would not have had without the New Deal.
"We are now ready to extend the New Deal. From 30th November, 60,000 opportunities will be created for the long-term unemployed in 28 areas of the country.
"In Northern Ireland, in support of the peace process, we will now guarantee new opportunities to all those men and women who have been unemployed for more than 18 months.
"We will also extend nationwide the New Deal skills shortage programme, and offer up-front support for training to help fill the vacancies that come on-stream every month.
"And, by March next year, I can confirm that to tackle skill shortages there will be 120 centres for IT and high-tech training in every part of the country.
"Side-by-side with the New Deal there will be new guarantees that work will pay more than benefits.
"From April, as a result of abolishing the entry fee to national insurance, all employees will receive a tax cut of £66 a year.
"And business will be pleased that I can announce that from April, employers will not pay national insurance on earnings below £83 a week, the 1999 level for the personal tax allowance.
"When it is economically right to do so—and so that work pays more—we will introduce the 10 pence starting rate of income tax.
"From 1st April, 1.9 million employees, including 1.3 million women, will benefit from the minimum wage.
"And I can also confirm that the minimum income guarantee for a low paid family, which as a result of the working families tax credit was announced at £180 will, as a result of the minimum wage and tax and benefit changes we are making, be raised to £190 a week from October next year.
"So that work pays—a guaranteed minimum of £190—with no income tax to pay on incomes below £220 a week.
"This will guarantee a minimum income for a lone parent with one child of at least £5.50 an hour, and for an adult with 2 children £6.37 an hour.

161
"To enable parents and carers to balance work and family responsibilities, I want to provide extra help for child care. We have provided resources for up to one million new child care places over the next four years. And today, consistent with our national child care strategy we will extend our new child care tax credit to cover all children up to age 14; and, in the case of children who are disabled and who have greater needs, until the school leaving age of 16.
"We will also match the working families tax credit with a new disabled person's tax credit that will ensure that work pays for a disabled man or woman who takes a job.
"A disabled person, with one child, moving from benefit to full-time employment, will be guaranteed a minimum income of £220 a week, with no income tax payable on income below £274 a week.
"Disabled men and women taking up work will be as much as £78 a week better off.
"So under this Government, disabled people, who want to work, will now be guaranteed fair treatment at work and work will pay.
"And matching the minimum income guarantee for disabled persons in work there will be a new disability income guarantee of £128 a week for the severely disabled out of work.
"And at the same time, we are guaranteeing pensioner couples a new minimum income of £117 a week. And this will be followed in the Budget with a guarantee that pensioners will have no income tax to pay unless their income rises above a new specified level.
"And as a result of the measures we have taken—by following up our cut in VAT on fuel with tougher regulation and our new winter fuel payments—I can say that pensioners are saving £108 on their fuel bills and the poorest pensioners are saving £140.
"So our task as a country for the coming year, steering a course of stability, is to meet the productivity challenge, to extend fairness and welfare to work, and to make the modern investment we need in our future.
"And I am pleased to announce that, following the modernisation of the private finance initiative, there will be new investment in our infrastructure—in over 1,000 schools, in over 25 hospitals and in dozens of public transport projects—over the coming three years an additional £11 billion. And I can also confirm that over the three years from next April, public investment itself will double and do so at the right time—the right decision, the right course of action for our country.
"I have one further announcement. Because of our prudence in the management of public finances, government spending is well within the limits we set. Our prudence is for a purpose. Therefore, to ensure in every part of the United Kingdom the health care that people—and especially elderly people—need this winter, I am today making an additional and
162
immediate winter cash allocation, to be spent in the next five months, of £250 million more for our National Health Service.
"And I can confirm that, because this Government believe in the best health and the best education, not just for a few but for all our people, we will invest an additional £40 billion in the modernisation of education and our health service over the next three years: public services that in the months and the years ahead are safe in this Government's hands, a government who are steering a stable course, prudently investing in our future, proudly building strong public services and consistently keeping their promises to the British people. I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. Noble Lords will also wish to congratulate the Minister on his stamina. Indeed, perhaps noble Lords should congratulate themselves on their stamina because it is certainly an extremely lengthy Statement covering a wide range of issues.
Such Statements are now adopting a particular pattern. The central points tend to be announced in the press the previous day, as they were in the case of this Statement. More particularly, there is a tendency now for the Statement to repeat points, as though they were new matters, which had been announced previously. That is true of a number of the items to which the Minister referred.
He started by referring to the position which the present Government inherited. He and I have disagreed about that before. My personal view remains that it was the best inheritance which any government have inherited in the post-war period. He picked up a particular point. He said that what was wrong was that consumer expenditure was out of control. If that were so, why did the Chancellor clearly fail in his first Budget to deal with that problem as a result of which, combined with the decision to make the Bank of England independent, he created a situation where interest rates were bound to rise; there was a corresponding increase in exchange rates; and manufacturing industry in this country has suffered severely as a result of that mistake?
While one must hope it is not so in the future, since the Government came to office there has been a marked lack of co-ordination between monetary and fiscal policy. We are told that the Treasury is in control of fiscal policy and that the Bank of England is in control of interest rate policy. But interest rate policy is not the same as monetary policy. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the Minister which of the two is concerned with and in control of the money supply. In particular, is it or is it not the Government's intention to fund the deficit in full? The Minister took some credit for what is happening to long-term interest rates. Is it the Treasury or the Bank of England which is responsible for that?

163
The Minister has two particular favourite achievements to which he likes to refer. The first is the fact that public expenditure plans are set in concrete. In the light of his announcement, there would seem to be a considerable variation as regards what he has announced previously in that respect. Will he confirm that that is so and will he quantify it?
The Minister is a great enthusiast for the so-called golden rule. Indeed, he argues that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has continued to achieve that golden rule although its actual formulation has altered somewhat from that which was established previously. But is it not the case that, for example, the recent review of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—and I must declare an interest because I have been a governor of it for many years but I certainly have had nothing to do with this particular piece of analysis—states:
"Strategically, the government stressed the distinction between current and capital spending and committed itself to borrowing only what is necessary to finance capital investment over the economical cycle"?
It then goes on:
"The projections in the EFSR show the 'golden rule', that borrowing is not used to finance current spending, being met throughout the period from 1998 to 2001 and beyond. Our projections do not show it being met in any of these years. This is despite making similar assumptions about public sector spending and investment".
One must have the gravest doubts as to whether the Government are in fact still going to achieve their golden rule.
The Minister has put much stress, as he did yesterday, on the international financial situation. He sought to argue that that was one reason for the Government making a very significant reduction in their forecast for economic growth. The fact is that all countries live in the global economy. Why is it then that the rate of growth which he is now forecasting is significantly lower, indeed, half, that which is expected in France and Germany and, indeed, half that which is expected in Australia, which has most certainly been affected more by the down-turn in the Asian markets than we have? I hope that the Minister can answer that point because it makes it clear that the problems which we are facing are, to a large extent, not international problems but those which have been affected by the Government's own economic policy since they came to office.
There is a great deal in this Statement which is way off the normal scope of Budget Statements. In particular, one should stress that a central aspect of the Government's economic policy was that they would reduce social security spending in order to spend more on health and education. The Minister and I exchanged views on this matter a few days ago. Will he now confess that there will not be any cut in social security spending? On the contrary, is it not the case that the increase in social security spending is almost as much as that on health and education combined? Will he clarify that particular point because it has undermined much of the Government's economic policy?
164
Indeed, the effect of that has also been shown in other ways. The Government's policy has had a particularly serious effect on thrift, savings and on pensions. As regards pensions, in the first Budget, the effect of ACT was to reduce the funds available to pension funds by something like £5 billion.
It is also the case that the effect of the Government's present economic policy has been to produce an almost unknown situation where Stock Exchange prices and annuity rates have been going down together whereas previously, normally, if one went up, the other went down and vice versa. The effect of that is that people retiring now may well find that the pension which they can actually expect for the rest of their life is 35 per cent. less than they might reasonably have expected when this present Government came to power.
If there is one thing in the area of pensions and benefits and so on which adds insult to injury, it is the measure announced last week. Then we were told that if a disabled person had been able to find employment, and had been sufficiently prudent to contribute to a defined contribution company pension scheme, incapacity benefit would be reduced. That is something about which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has complained and I hope that the House will succeed in reversing that.
I have only two other points to make, although there are a great many matters which I am unable to cover. Perhaps I may first raise a matter which has already been before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord referred to a situation where the starting rate at which people pay income tax will be raised. That was announced by the Chancellor last year. Although he gave the impression that it was going to be done in last year's Budget, we now understand that it will be introduced next year. It was combined with a clear statement that the position of those who were then not going to contribute to the national insurance scheme would be protected. This measure was not going to be implemented until that was made clear. Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that protection?
My final point is this. The Chancellor is now clearly determined to undermine the contribution principle, either because people will not receive benefits for which they have contributed under the national insurance scheme or other people will receive things for which they have not contributed. In the light of the international situation I said yesterday that Lord Keynes's shadow might well be lurking in the Gallery. Under this Government one asks what is happening to Lord Beveridge's shadow because there is a fundamental undermining here of something which has formed the basis of our welfare system since the end of World War II; and that is very dangerous indeed. When one considers the overall situation, to a large extent this Statement reflects the Government's failure to date. We must hope that they do a little better in the future.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this Statement. Let us not be petty about it. This Statement is good news. It is much more

165
optimistic than anyone would have expected. I just hope that it is right. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked why our growth rate was lower than that of Germany and France. It is expected to be lower because we are at a very different stage of the economic cycle. Given the kinds of the projections that the Government have put forward—I hope to God that they are right!—that suggests that in due course we might converge because the picture for next year and the year after is very much more optimistic than I personally expected.
The Statement has to be judged by two criteria. The first is the macro-economic one: the outlook for growth and the policies to promote it. Secondly, there are the supply side measures and tax changes. The first question that arises is whether the Chancellor is right to be as optimistic—or, if one likes, relatively unpessimistic—as he has been. Obviously, there are great difficulties about the sources of information at the present time. When he was Chancellor, Lord Macmillan on one occasion referred to the difficulty of looking up train times in the previous year's Bradshaw.
The difficulty at present is that quite a few of the guides that we have are blank pages. One of the most important criteria which the Government have to take into account is what is happening to wages and earnings. At the moment we do not know. They have decided not to publish the figures because they have been so unreliable in the past. They were underestimated at one stage and over-estimated at another. We may well have higher interest rates now than previously because the statistics were so unreliable.
The crucial question which the Government have to judge is as regards the output gap. Without figures for earnings it is very difficult to make up one's mind. What are the signs? I have never been a doomster. It is sometimes fashionable, in particular in journalistic circles, to preach doom and gloom because it gives one a kind of spurious reputation for profundity. Certainly there are reasons for worry. I do not believe that anyone can be sure that the Japanese situation has bottomed out. One cannot be sure that the Brazilian economy will be rescued or that that of Latin America will not slide. If it does it will have the gravest implications for the United States. But the American position does not look too bad at the moment. The Fed is extremely flexible and very enlightened, as I mentioned yesterday.
The outlook for the European Union is fairly optimistic. It is likely that it will not have quite the rate of growth that it was looking for, but there will be a reasonable measure of growth. Against that background the position of the United Kingdom does not look too bad. As the Chancellor has pointed out, we start from a position of low inflation compared with the past. A number of companies are in a strong position. The question of corporate liquidity is not a very serious one. When one looks at the gloomy prediction of the CBI, which has often been the harbinger of recession in the past, one finds, as Mr. Anatole Kaletsky points out today, that there is a certain contrast between the general gloom expressed by businessmen who have been pronouncing their views as to what will happen to the economy—they are not necessarily worth more than the
166
views that I or someone else would express—but when they are asked about their particular companies they are rather less gloomy.
At present there are very mixed signals. It seems to me that the best policy for the Chancellor in the circumstances is not to panic. Moods change very rapidly and we should stick to a long-term strategy. That is what he seems to have done. By that test the Statement is to be warmly welcomed. I do not know whether the projections will be borne out. Most of them are not. Almost inevitably they will be wrong, but which way they are wrong we cannot tell. Will they be too gloomy or too optimistic and by how much will they be wrong? What is required is a steady nerve and, on the whole, I believe that that is what the Chancellor has shown. It is to be welcomed.
As regards micro-economic changes, I was somewhat worried that because of all the special whinges for special concessions there would be a number of specific measures, but they seem to have been restricted. The tax concessions seem to be reasonable. However, can the Minister say whether the Government will look with a great deal of sympathy on the Marshall Report? In connection with our long-term survival, environmental well-being and economic welfare, there is clearly a need to shift taxes onto pollution and away from people and companies.
I am somewhat disappointed that there is nothing more definite about the taxation of company cars. It does not appear to be an insuperable obstacle to tax cars on engine size. Surely a great deal more can be done about company cars when there is so much evidence that people who have them undertake twice as much driving as they would if they had private cars. We cannot discourage car ownership, but we should discourage the amount of driving which people undertake.
I am glad that the Chancellor has postponed the 10 per cent. tax rate for the time being. Cannot the Government have second thoughts about it? When Chancellor Lamont introduced the 20 per cent. rate he made a profound mistake. All the evidence produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that it was not egalitarian. It does not promote equality and complicates the tax system. It is a gesture. The announced rate of 10 per cent. tax is equally a gesture. It is an absurdity. I hope that the Government will abolish that nonsense. Far more can be done for the poor, and the general wellbeing of the tax system if allowances are raised.
This is not strictly part of the Statement, but as regards social policy a number of measures have been announced. The one measure that would do far more for pensioners and their long-term wellbeing would be to grasp the nettle of poverty in old age in the long term and accept the need for a compulsory second tier funded pension. It is deeply disturbing that, according to a Financial Times report, it looks as though the Government have now shirked away from that important decision. That would be a great tragedy.
We on these Benches express some reservations about the micro-economic measures and the tax changes. No doubt we shall examine them in due course in greater

167
detail. But as regards the most important aspects of the Statement, I hope that the Chancellor's relative optimism is justified. The overall view of the Chancellor, on the face of it, suggests that he is sticking to his long-term policy prescriptions. On the whole, we must welcome those whatever the reservations may be on the micro-economic front.
4.38 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the message gets back to the Chancellor about the difficult task I have in this House compared with the task he has in another place. I am faced with a governor of the National Institute of Economic & Social Research, and the chairman, I believe, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, both purporting to be politicians when they are really experts questioning an amateur. Sometimes I quail before the quality as well as the quantity of the interrogation that I suffer.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that there is a tendency in these Statements to follow a pattern and to repeat previous announcements. I do not deny that. I used the word "confirm" on a number of occasions and it is true that the 10 per cent. lower level of income tax has been heralded on a number of occasions, though it has always been said that it will be when the economy can afford it, not that it would happen this year or next year. However, perhaps I may take comfort in the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark, who insisted that,
"What I tell you three times is true".
Perhaps the message will get through—not, of course, to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite, but to noble Lords and the country generally—that we mean what we say, and fundamentally that is the message that we have tried to get over in the past 18 months.
The noble Lord went back to the record of the last government, which is his privilege. He does not have much else to go on except that. He complained about the first Budget not doing anything about the growth of consumer spending. In a situation where inflation was heading to over 4 per cent.—a level double that of our major competitors—what we did by devolving responsibility for short-term interest rates to the Bank of England and ensuring that long over-delayed decisions on interest rates were taken independently and effectively, now seems clearly justified. Similarly, the fiscal tightening on which we embarked and our control of public expenditure to the figures we inherited not just for one year, but for two years, seem in retrospect also to have been entirely justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked who was responsible for long-term interest rates; whether it was a matter of monetary or fiscal policy. He knows better than I do that long-term interest rates are set by the market and come down—as they have come down—when the market is confident that the Government are in good hands; that we have stable, long-term policies. That is exactly why they have come down and why the difference between our long-term interest rates and those of Germany have gone down by around 100 basis points since the last election.
168
The noble Lord gave us evidence from the National Institute of Economic & Social Research in relation to the "golden rule". I say straight away that the national institute has the same assumptions about most of the economic and public finance variables with which we are concerned and therefore there is some puzzle as to why it comes to a marginally different view from that to which we come. The explanation must be that it is more pessimistic on the public finances. The explanation of that in turn must be that it has not taken into account the latest encouraging out-turn figures. If we look more widely than the national institute, at other forecasts, the collective view of independent forecasters' most recent forecasts is for growth of 1.1 per cent. compared with our lower figure of 1 per cent. and of the newest forecasts, 0.9 per cent. In terms of the accuracy of economic forecasting we are not talking about a great difference. It can be safely asserted that the Chancellor is in line with informed opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked why we have lower growth than France and Germany when he turned to considering the global economy. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, answered that entirely effectively. I agree with him. It is obvious that we are at a different stage of the economic cycle and it would hardly be expected that our growth figures could compete with those who are at an earlier stage of the economic cycle. Indeed, I remember forecasting, when Dominique Strauss-Kahn first came to office as Finance Minister in France that, paradoxically—though I fully support the Chancellor in terms of growth—he was more likely to have a successful record than we would in this country.
The noble Lord then returned to his old arguments about social security expenditure. We never said that there would be an absolute reduction in social security expenditure. We said that social security expenditure would be used for the purpose of getting people back into work and supporting those in most need; that we expected to do better in that regard than the previous government, and indeed we have. Over the period of this Parliament we expect social security expenditure to increase by 1.25 per cent. per annum in real terms compared with the figure in the last Parliament of 3.8 per cent. in real terms. The money now is going for children and pensioners, not those who are deprived of work by the mismanagement of the Government. That is in the context of there being 400,000 more jobs in this country than there were when we came into office almost exactly 18 months ago.
The noble Lord must be short of material for he again returned to argue about advance corporation tax—what is more properly described as the removal of the double relief anomaly. The experience over the past 15 months has shown that all the hysterical forecasts—I do not use that word in relation to the noble Lord—made in relation to the effects of those changes proved and are continuing to prove to be entirely unjustified.
The noble Lord made a great deal of issues relating to pensioners and yet there was no specific reference to pensioners in the pre-Budget Report. As he knows, a review is in hand and its results will be announced at the appropriate time. I believe he said that the return on annuities has been reduced to those who are seeking to

169
cash in their annuities as they enter pensionable age. Indeed, that is correct; I recognise that. But returns on annuities reduce as there is greater confidence in the ability of this Government to control inflation and to move out of the "boom-bust" economy. We are sad for those pensioners who are receiving a reduced return on annuities, but in return they are getting a greater guarantee of a low inflation, stable economy and stable society in which they will pass their retirement years.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made more points in relation to pensioners to which, if he will forgive me, I shall not respond in detail. We must await the definitive statement on that issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very positive comments. He talks as though the Chancellor is making optimistic forecasts. But if I make the comparisons, as I have done, with independent forecasters, he will agree that we are being just as prudent in our assessment of tax revenues, and our assessment of most of the other ingredients of our forecasts.
He is quite right to say that pay figures are in disarray at the moment and that is something to which we shall no doubt have to return. I shall be interested to read Dr. Holt's evidence to the Treasury Select Committee today. The noble Lord is right in saying also that there is a huge element of world instability; that the whole thrust of the Statement has been that we have taken into account realistically the increase in world instability and the downturn in the growth in world trade and even in world growth. To that extent I believe it will be shown, as it has been shown since the last Statement, that we are being prudent rather than extravagant.
The noble Lord understandably expressed concern about micro-economic changes. But he will understand that this is a pre-Budget Statement and not a Budget. Your Lordships have never had Budgets presented to them in this House. Many of the comments are made in imprecise terms for perfectly good reasons; that is, to avoid evasion and so that there can be reasonable consultation on the details. I hope that the noble Lord will find that there is consultation in the months between now and the Budget.
The noble Lord asked us to assure him that we shall take the Marshall report extremely seriously. We would not have commissioned it unless we intended to do so—and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, would not have agreed to undertake that work unless he believed that we intended to do so. We are certainly doing that.
My final point is on the CBI and expectations. I very much appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said about that. Expectations data are always perceptions rather than reports of reality; I have contributed to them so I should know. Even when businesses are reporting, they have order books which represent the future. They report the general climate of opinion in the country as much as actual fact. I am not saying that expectations data are useless, but they swing around a lot compared with the reality. I am grateful to both noble Lords.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, although I do not agree with everything that my right honourable friend the
170
Chancellor has said, I congratulate my noble friend on having read out that lengthy Statement so well. I agree that the Chancellor may need to borrow a little more. He has shown that that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I often feel terribly sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on such occasions. He cannot really have believed what he was saying, but he did not have an alternative to put to us. So, there were no miraculous alternatives to the need to borrow at present and in the circumstances that the Chancellor outlined.
I have one or two questions to ask my noble friend. I note that the assumptions have been validated by the National Audit Office. I have a huge regard for the National Audit Office, having been chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for some years. However, it could be wrong on that point, just as the Government could be wrong on the whole question of statistical variations.
I note that the famous golden rule would enable the Government to borrow for capital expenditure and to balance current expenditure over the economic cycle. Does my noble friend accept that there are clearly problems with the definitions of "capital expenditure", "current expenditure" and "economic cycle"? Can my noble friend explain to me how variable the economic cycle could be and his definition of "current expenditure" and "capital expenditure"?
I have done some work on current and capital expenditure in another life. I have also done a bit of creative accounting in that sense, so I know that the definitions can vary quite substantially. As I have said, it is reasonable in the circumstances that the Chancellor has decided to borrow. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, did not refer today to a "black hole", but obviously he cannot yet have read what has been said in another place. I assume that the noble Lord did not refer to how to fill a "black hole" because he does not believe that there will be one. As I have said, I often feel sorry for the noble Lord, for whom I have great regard.
If we are to abide by the golden rule, regardless of the definitions, would it not be more reasonable for the Chancellor—perhaps my noble friend can confirm this—to recognise that there could be margins of error? Indeed, there have been margins of error over the years and in their Budget Statements most Chancellors recognise and admit to them. We now have so many Statements—pre-Budget, post-Budget and mid-Budget Statements. Clearly, given the world situation, there could be substantial margins of error and, although the Chancellor's forecast for next year of growth of between 1 and 1½ per cent. could be as accurate as those of anybody else, the rate of growth could equally well be zero. In those circumstances, if the forecasts were wrong to that extent, would the Chancellor still be able to meet his forecasts about the overall economic and financial situation? Although the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, did not talk about doom, gloom and recession—he is too nice a fellow—may I ask my noble friend his definition of "recession"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested that my noble friend refers to the possible

171
need for an increase in borrowing. He recognises, of course, that that has been fully taken into account in the figures presented. I note and applaud the difference between him and some Conservative spokesmen who seem to think that in good times you cut taxes and in bad times you cut spending and ultimately get away from government altogether. Although we have not gone into detail about the Budget for every year of the next five years—there would be no fun in that—we take the view that the investment that we propose to make in health and education, in particular, is an investment for the long-term future of our country. That is why we are sticking by the £40 billion of expenditure on health and education over three years. In addition, it is the right time as far as the economy is concerned.
My noble friend is, of course, right about the golden rule. It depends on definitions of "capital" and "current" expenditure. A great deal of progress has been made on that. As an accountant, my noble friend will know that accountants will continue to query such definitions—I nearly said "distort", but as my noble friend himself said that I do not feel afraid of repeating the word. It is also true that an economic cycle is difficult to identify until you have passed it! The definitions seem to work pretty well and we seem to understand fairly well where we are in this present economic cycle. Therefore, I can resist my noble friend's invitation to spell out the Government's policies in the context of the Armageddon that he put to me as an alternative.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all independent economists agree that the economy that this Government inherited was very healthy? The budget deficit was reduced by the one-off windfall profits tax. Does the Minister agree that as a country we must remain competitive and that something is looming on the horizon with regard to the withholding tax in Europe? That was tried in the United States and in Japan. The result was that that section of their financial markets moved overseas. If we fall into that trap, our financial market will be penalised. The business will not go to Europe; it will not go to Frankfurt or anywhere like that; it will go to the USA or Bermuda. Can the Minister assure us that the Government and the Chancellor will vigorously resist that sort of thing?
Does the Minister agree that it is essential to encourage saving? I know that he will not agree with what I am about to say. Surely hitting savings in the last Budget to the tune of about £5 billion was a mistake because it penalised thriftiness. In the next Budget, will pensions be affected by changing the fiscal policies?
Finally, on tax harmonisation, as the Minister said, our corporation tax rate is one of the lowest in Europe, but if there is harmonisation, that could mean that corporation tax will rise. Of course, corporation tax has not risen and I congratulate the Government on that. However, other back-door taxes on businesses,
172
particularly small business, have been devastating. Consequently, I hope that the Government will resist any change in the harmonisation of taxation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord undermined his first argument by saying that all independent economists agree. The time when all economists do agree will be a time when I believe some of us will take a well-earned retirement. No, for the reasons given in the Statement, we do not agree that it was a golden legacy from the previous government. We had rising inflation, we had continued reductions in investment and we had an explosive economy that had to be dealt with.
As far as concerns competitiveness, I strongly agree with the noble Lord that the latter is absolutely the key. However, if he thinks that withholding tax is the key to achieving that, I believe him to be much mistaken. I recommend the McKinsey Report to him. He should also consider the many more important barriers to competitiveness which were referred to in the Statement in some detail. I believe he will find that to be much more constructive.
The noble Lord is also right to say that it is important for us to encourage saving, especially for pensioners. That is why our emphasis all the time is for a stable and low inflationary economy at the heart of our policies. Finally, as regards tax harmonisation, it would need our agreement to enter into tax harmonisation. However, it is not our intention to do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is something which evidently escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I have in mind the Government's recognition of the need to give employees a real share in the long-term future of the businesses for which they work, aligning their interests with those of established shareholders.
However, while the steps that my noble friend has announced today are important in terms of the purchase of shares by employees, does my noble friend agree that something additional is required; namely, the need to give an incentive to companies to allocate shares to the workforce by providing a tax break for the companies concerned? That has worked with great success in the United States, especially in some parts of the airline business which were showing signs of real collapse—indeed, the possibility of Chapter 11 operations starting. As a result of employee share option purchase schemes coming into operation, productivity increased, the price of shares increased, the well-being and performance of the companies increased and, indeed, many of those airlines are today, in a very tough world, showing distinct signs of success. Is this not something that we ought to approach with rather more zeal than we have in the past in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's contribution. Of course, the announcements made about employee share ownership are only outline proposals in advance of the Budget itself in which definitive announcements will be made. Indeed, this is the beginning of a consultation

173
period on employee share ownership. The very interesting and valuable point that my noble friend made will certainly be taken into account in that consultation.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, reference was made a few moments ago to tax harmonisation. Has not the Government's resistance to tax harmonisation in the European Union been undermined by the Government's support for the policy of the OECD on so-called, "harmful tax competition"? Provided that there is no support for tax evasion, what is the difference between one country winning business from another by being able, through its own prudent policies, to offer a more benign tax regime and a country winning trade from another country by producing more efficiently?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as was the case when it was last raised, this subject is somewhat wide of the pre-Budget Report. Indeed, I do not propose to say anything more than I have already said. We are not obliged to implement any proposals that may be brought forward under the rules of Article 100. We have not said that we will not enter into negotiations because there are clearly some advantages in doing so. However, we shall not do so if there is going to be serious damage to our financial industries.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is a remarkable Statement. However, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I utter three words of caution. Indeed, having performed so excellently, I hope that my noble friend does not then decide that he would rather be sitting elsewhere. First, unless I misheard my noble friend, he seemed to say that we will have only one year with economic growth below trend; namely, next year. In other words, there will be just a blip. I believe that that is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, was also drawing to our attention. I very much hope that that is true; but, to say the least, I am astonished. Therefore, I trust that my noble friend will convey to my right honourable friend the fact that we would love to see that outcome but that it looks a little on the optimistic side.
My second point refers to the question of employee share ownership. It sounds very good in theory and I certainly toyed with it in my younger days; indeed, precisely along the lines set out by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In theory, it should reduce conflict between employer and employee. However, its difficulty lies, does it not, on the side of risk. If employees put their assets into the same company from which they earn their income, they are actually adding to their risk during the cycle rather than subtracting from it. The point would hold a fortiori if pension funds then put even more into the companies for which they were paying pensions. Therefore, without suggesting that that is a bad idea, it is certainly one that I hope my right honourable friend will approach with the utmost caution.
Thirdly—and, I am afraid, rather acerbically—did I hear correctly that my right honourable friend is proposing that businessmen should go to schools which will tell them how to improve their performance? Does
174
that not seem to contrast with the proposition that we have a 40 per cent. productivity gap? As those businessmen are responsible for that productivity gap, would it not be better for them if they stuck to their muttons and let the schools get on with what they know about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the first issue of whether we are expecting only one year of growth below trend, I am sure that when my noble friend has the opportunity to study the figures in detail he will see that we are indeed forecasting GDP growth to be 1 to 1½ per cent. in 1999, then rising slowly to 2¼ to 2¾ per cent. in the year 2000 and 2¾ to 3¼ per cent. in 2001. In other words, we will take three years to get back to the level which we are forecasting for 1998. So it is not a single year figure; indeed, it hardly could be so.
My noble friend's thinking on employee share ownership is another useful addition to the review which will take place between now and the Budget. We recognise the risk that share participation could reduce the ability and willingness of people to change jobs when that would be desirable. As far as concerns businessmen going into schools, I should point out to my noble friend that I do not believe I have ever used the term "businessmen" and I do not believe that I ever would. However, it is certainly not the intention that the increased contact between the world of education and the world of work should be by the top managers who, as he said, are responsible for our poor productivity. I believe that the contact must be at all levels in industry and commerce.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I listened to a broadcast of the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a radio programme. I thought to myself: "That is a very impressive man". He is producing a Statement which could have come from Kenneth Clarke, only it was delivered with a slightly different voice.
There are two points which I believe deserve clarification. The first is the assumption of a badly inherited economy. Indeed, if that was the case and the economy was in such bad nick, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer stick to the same tax and spend rules and follow exactly the same rules set out by his predecessor? Secondly, mention was made in the Statement of the 40 per cent. productivity gap. In today's edition of The Times, Anatole Kaletsky, admittedly going on about the productivity gap, talks about the differences between productivity in Great Britain and the United States. He shows Great Britain as having a figure of 100 and the US with a figure of 137. Most of the other major economies are much below that, but of course some of them are higher.
Will the Government stop running down that which is good? By all means criticise that which is bad; of course we accept that. But when those two statements seem to me to be factually wrong, why go on about it? After all, according to the OECD, this country has the fourth biggest economy in the world and it is doing jolly well. It has done well since 1990 under both governments. It would be more gracious of the

175
Chancellor to accept some of the good things which he inherited and then the criticisms of the bad things he inherited would carry more weight.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am truly sorry that it is such a universal theme on the Opposition Benches that they have to hark back over and over again to this so-called golden legacy which we inherited. The Statement sets out the position clearly and I have repeated it once already. We inherited an economy in which investment had been neglected for many years and in which the lack of decision-making on interest rates had led to an unsustainable increase in inflation. We inherited many good things too—no one is saying that everything was wrong—but perhaps next year or the year after we can get away from 1st May 1997 and we can start to talk about the present.
I have not read Anatole Kaletsky's article that the noble Earl mentioned; I have been reading the briefing notes rather than the raw material today, I am afraid. However, Mr. Kaletsky clearly confirms exactly what is said in the Statement; namely, that the difference in productivity between ourselves and the United States is something of the order of 40 per cent. and the difference in productivity between us and Germany and France is of the order of 20 per cent. Even if those figures are wrong—some of them are, of course, unknowable statistics—there is a serious difference which cannot be allowed to continue.

Iraq
5.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on Iraq which is being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place.
"Madam Speaker, with permission I should like to make a Statement on the latest developments in Iraq.
"Last August Iraq informed the Security Council that it was suspending co-operation with UNSCOM and the IAEA other than on monitoring activities. The effect was to prevent both agencies from carrying out surprise inspections at sites which they suspected were part of a programme for weapons of mass destruction. The work of both agencies was confined to monitoring the status of sites which they had already cleared.
"The Security Council responded with Resolution 1194 which provided both the penalty for this violation of Saddam's agreement and an incentive for him to comply. As a penalty we suspended the regular review of the continuing need for sanctions. As an incentive we offered a comprehensive review if Baghdad returned to full compliance. Nevertheless on Saturday Iraq notified the Security Council that it would no longer co-operate with UNSCOM even on such monitoring.
176
"As the outgoing President of the Security Council, Britain convened an emergency session which agreed to a statement condemning the Iraqi action. It records the view of the Security Council that the Iraqi decision is a "flagrant violation" of Security Council resolutions and of the agreement they made with Kofi Annan on his visit to Baghdad in February.
"The Security Council's support for the statement was unanimous. It was fully endorsed by Russia whose spokesman said that Russia was deeply concerned about the Iraqi decision. Baghdad's attempt to close down the work of the inspectorates coincides with the evidence that Saddam Hussein continues actively to pursue his ambition to maintain his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction.
"Only two weeks ago a group of experts received the results of the tests carried out in French and Swiss laboratories to corroborate the US findings of traces of VX nerve gas in fragments of Iraqi missile warheads. The French laboratory found evidence consistent with the presence of nerve gas in the warheads, and both confirmed that Iraq had tried to decontaminate the warheads. For years Saddam has maintained that Iraq has never achieved a deliverable VX weapon. These discoveries expose his denials as one more lie.
"The greatest anxiety relates to Iraq's programme for biological weapons. UNSCOM has concluded that Baghdad's most recent declaration of its biological weapons capacity fails to give a "remotely credible" account of the programme.
"We are in close consultation with our allies to maintain a united front and to achieve the most effective pressure on Iraq. Today a resolution will be tabled in the Security Council which will demand that Iraq immediately restores co-operation with both UNSCOM and the IAEA. That strong resolution has been drafted by Britain and we shall be working to achieve unity around it. We want to find a diplomatic solution but we have always made clear that all options remain open.
"The latest decision by Baghdad is particularly perverse as the Security Council agreed only last Friday on the terms of a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with its undertakings. Those terms held out the prospect of a time-frame for the completion of the work of UNSCOM and the IAEA, which could lead in turn to the lifting of sanctions on Iraq.
"However, any such progress can be achieved only with the full compliance of Baghdad. So long as Baghdad continues to conceal its capacity for chemical and biological warfare and so long as it obstructs UNSCOM from revealing the truth about those programmes, there can be no progress towards lifting sanctions.
"Our dispute is with Saddam Hussein. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. On the contrary we have grave concern for the suffering they are experiencing under Saddam Hussein. Only last month Max Vanderstahl, the UN special rapporteur on Iraq, presented his latest report which concluded that there

177
has been no improvement at all in the repeated violation of human rights by Saddam Hussein, including torture, summary execution, arbitrary arrests and persecution of minorities.
"Britain took the lead at the United Nations in pressing for a doubling of the oil for food programme. As a result Baghdad can now sell over 10 billion dollars of oil per annum to pay for food and medicines, which are in any case exempt from sanctions, and other humanitarian goods. I am pleased to report to the House that the latest information available to the UN confirms that as a result there have been positive improvements in access to food and medicine.
"Saddam Hussein appears to be gambling that the world will grow weary of his constant evasion and his repeated confrontation. His calculation is that we will eventually give up and abandon the sanctions regime without requiring him to abandon his ambitions for regional supremacy through weapons of terror. We must remain ready and resolute to prove him wrong. It would be too dangerous for Iraq's neighbours in the region to leave Saddam Hussein with the capacity to produce weapons that could wipe out whole cities. It would be too damaging for the authority of the United Nations if Saddam was allowed to break the current agreement he entered into with the Secretary General. He cannot and will not be allowed to win".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. From these Benches I confirm that, while we support all efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the present crisis, we also welcome the Government's determination to keep all options open, including military options, which, interestingly, even in general were absent from the Foreign Secretary's Statement on this occasion. Regrettably the events of recent days have proved once again that the only language Saddam Hussein truly understands is the language of diplomacy backed by the vocabulary of a commitment to force.
This is far from the first time that Iraq has severely tested the patience of the international community. Saddam Hussein is an expert player in a deadly game of brinkmanship and in brazen defiance of world opinion. Only nine months ago, in February, to avoid military action he undertook to "co-operate fully" with the United Nations and to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to the UNSCOM inspectors. It is that same undertaking which Iraq is now so blatantly flouting.
At that time the Foreign Secretary rightly told another place:
"If Saddam were now to be permitted to set aside all those decisions of the UN, and if we were to walk away and to allow him to do so with impunity, there would be no point in invoking the power of the UN the next time we are confronted by a dictator threatening the security of his region or the lives of his people".— [Official Report, Commons, 17/2/98; col. 909.]
Does the Minister stand by those remarks today?
178
At that time the Prime Minister said that only, "effective diplomacy and firm willingness to use force" brought about the agreement and that "nothing else" would ensure its satisfactory implementation. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are prepared to display equal resolve through the international community now? Will she also comment on the deployment of British forces in the region, including the Tornado aircraft stationed there? Are there preparations to dispatch more British forces to the Gulf?
The Foreign Secretary's Office has rightly described Iraq's unilateral decision to stop UNSCOM carrying out its duty as "totally unacceptable". The Defence Secretary has said that Saddam Hussein should back down or "face the consequences". What discussions have taken place on the range of options now available to ensure Iraqi compliance with those UN resolutions agreed after the Gulf War? Does the Minister agree that, whatever options are chosen, they must end once and for all this dangerous see-saw of defiance which is so damaging to the authority of the international community? Furthermore, what information does the Minister have to support Richard Butler's belief that the present situation is the most serious confrontation between Iraq and the United Nations since the end of the Gulf War?
I welcome the Minister's statement that all options are being kept open. Will she confirm that clear strategic objectives will lie behind any threat of air-strikes? What discussions have been held with the other members of the Security Council on the military option, in particular with France and Russia? What indications are there that they would support the threat of such action? What steps will the Government take to ensure that a resolute stance against Iraq will be backed by the Gulf states?
I also wish to ask the Minister about allegations made by the Iraqi defector, Sami Salih. He alleged that there was wholesale breaching of UN economic sanctions; that Iraq never had any intention of complying with the terms of the UN weapons inspection teams; and that he had seen "missiles hidden all over Iraq". Following those allegations, what action did the Government take through the UN to ensure that economic sanctions are watertight and that arms inspectors could continue unimpeded?
Finally, will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on the resignation of Mr. Butler's deputy, Scott Ritter? In September he accused the British and American governments of weakness and duplicity; of creating an illusion of arms control in Iraq but in reality refusing to support planned inspections of presidential sites. In September, a Foreign Office spokesman responded to Mr. Ritter's accusations by saying,
"it is not a question of going soft on Iraq. It is simply that new tactics are required so that we can achieve the desired result of disarming Saddam".
Will the Minister tell the House what those new tactics were, and, in the light of this week's events, what success they have achieved?
5.24 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the sentiment expressed in the Statement. It is totally unacceptable that the Government of Iraq should have weapons of mass destruction at their disposal at any time.
One position not stated was what steps the Government are taking to push the Secretary-General to intervene personally in this dispute. He was successful in February in bringing Iraq back into line on the question of monitors. Could the Secretary-General, after his trip to the western Sahara to examine the future of that country, be pushed to intervene directly in Iraq?
At present Iraq is suffering under the penalty of sanctions; the sanctions are biting deeply into the daily lives of those who live there. I supported the point made that the Government have no animosity towards the people of Iraq. However, it must not be forgotten that many thousands of children are dying through a lack of medicines and food. What position are the Government taking in order to ensure that food given to Iraq through the oil-for-food deal is being distributed equally? A body of evidence suggests that, while quite a lot of food is reaching the area around Baghdad and the north, far less is reaching the south of the country.
The military option seems to be touted as the only one open to us. Will the Government make sure that, before the military option is used, there is a clear purpose to any military action? The lessons learnt from the attack on Sudan are still fresh in the mind.
What ability do the Armed Forces presently have to mount significant attack? To what extent would it be necessary to wait for such forces to be available? I realise that the Minister may not be able to answer that question.
Finally, we should not forget the effect that military action would have on the Arab nations and on their viewpoint and support for Saddam Hussein. A strike without clear political and military objectives which was seen to hurt the Iraqi people rather than the Iraqi leadership could do far more damage than good among the Arab nations.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for their support on this issue. Perhaps I may reiterate on behalf of my right honourable friend that all options are being kept open. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, seemed to imply that we were moving quickly towards military action; on the other, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, needed a little reassurance that military action had not been ruled out. There is a diplomatic path which is presently being pursued. But I repeat what my right honourable friend has said; namely, that no options are closed off. All options are therefore open, including the military one. But it is right and proper to pursue the diplomatic paths properly first.
I agree wholeheartedly with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that Saddam Hussein is picking a fight with the Security Council of the United Nations. He has in effect broken his solemn word given to Kofi Annan earlier this year.
180
Our current efforts in the Security Council are aimed at sending a firm message to Saddam Hussein that he will not achieve his aim of securing the lifting of sanctions by defying the Security Council—by defying in effect the will of the international community. That is what we are presently working towards in the wording that is being discussed in the Security Council. We are looking for the path of effective diplomacy. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government are fully resolved on this issue. We are of course taking one step at a time in that diplomatic effort.
Both noble Lords raised the question of military capability in that part of the world. The fire power that Her Majesty's Government have is the same fire power that we had earlier this year. Different parts have been moved in and out, but the capability remains the same as it was earlier this year. If it comes to military action—and I am sure that all your Lordships hope that that will not be the case—there will be clear strategic objectives and all the options will be discussed.
I was asked particularly about the Gulf states. On 27th October Foreign Ministers of the EU and the Gulf Co-operation Council member states issued a joint communiqué supporting the full implementation of all Security Council resolutions. It is clear that, like us, the Middle East governments would prefer a diplomatic solution, but they are aware of Saddam's record and the threat that he poses. They insist that he must comply with the Security Council resolutions and that he will be responsible if he fails to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the question of Mr. Scott Ritter's resignation. We all share Mr. Ritter's frustration with the years of Iraqi attempts to thwart UNSCOM and in particular with Iraq's latest decision to restrict still further its already limited co-operation. But Security Council support for UNSCOM remains firm. It is not for us to judge Mr. Ritter's decision to resign, but we regret the loss of a dedicated and experienced member of UNSCOM.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right that there is still work for UNSCOM to do. The October report of UNSCOM made clear that there was still work to do on chemical weapons, ballistic weapons and especially biological weapons. The latest six-monthly IAEA report in October indicated its assessment that all outstanding questions should continue to be addressed under the ongoing monitoring and verification process.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised the question of Mr. Kofi Annan's involvement. The Security Council is at the moment discussing the resolution. The Secretary General will be kept fully abreast, no doubt on an almost hourly basis, of how the discussions are continuing.
Her Majesty's Government have been at the forefront of trying to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to where it is needed in Iraq. We have done everything we can with regard to the oil-for-food provisions. While those provisions have been increased to some 10 billion dollars, food and medicines were in any case exempt from sanctions. I would regret it enormously if children were suffering in any part of Iraq, but the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, must put the blame where it belongs, fully and squarely at the doorstep of Saddam Hussein.
5.34 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we are in a pickle, are we not? I suspect that Saddam Hussein will run true to form and behave as he has in the past. We shall then get very cross and he will be bombed. Because he is bombed, he will not allow any monitors in the country. The terrible dilemma is that we should never dare to use the ultimate amount of force which would be necessary, which is to put infantrymen on the bridges in Baghdad. That would be the only way to take control. You can bomb until you are blue in the face, but it will be no use except in support of forces on the ground, when it would be sensible. I do not say this to embarrass anyone. When we consider the force option we should think about what would happen if we bombed Saddam and he ignored it and carried on behaving as he had before. A few factories would have been bombed and the RAF would have had a lovely time practising bombing. That is the danger which we face.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the RAF would at all enjoy such a dreadful task, if it came to it. The position is extremely grave, but I stress that this is not a time to project forward to what may or may not happen on a military basis, particularly in an open debate in your Lordships' House. Diplomacy is now taking its course in the appropriate forum, which is the United Nations Security Council. I have made clear that all options remain open and that those options include the military option. It is the responsibility of all of us to consider the strategic points put forward by the noble Earl.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the government Statement this time has achieved a new level of irenic tone in that it seems to be hoping for international law to prevail without violence. On many earlier occasions a hankering after a final solution by force of arms has been detectable. The Government are to be congratulated on having used their chairmanship of the Security Council to achieve such a just, equitable and law-abiding approach to this new crisis. Can the Government now take one step further forward and say that force will not be used without a new United Nations Security Council resolution? If such a resolution is available, the use of force would undoubtedly be legal; if it is not available, the use of force in such circumstances would not be undoubtedly legal.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, throughout this whole unhappy saga the Government have always hoped for a non-violent solution to this problem. The Government hope today for a non-violent solution to this problem. In that respect the position of Her Majesty's Government has remained consistent throughout. I can assure my noble friend Lord Kennet that Her Majesty's Government will not act unlawfully.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is the Minister perhaps understating her enthusiasm for what she described as positive improvements in access to food and medicines? Is it not the case that there was a serious interruption of aid from humanitarian agencies in June
182
and July and that the Iraqi Foreign Ministry then allowed goods into the country? If there has been some change of heart by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, does she see any sinister motives in that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is not for me to look into the mind of Saddam Hussein for sinister motives. He has a consistent record of preferring to exploit the suffering of his own people rather than of allowing the international community to help the people of Iraq. I repeated what my right honourable friend said in another place. It is the United Nations that has confirmed that, as a result of the changes made in the oil-for-food arrangements, there have been positive improvements in access to food and medicine in Iraq. That is a report of the United Nations, not of Her Majesty's Government. We must all hope that it is true. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out, there may be parts of Iraq to which the benefits of the aid are not getting through. I am afraid that that would be entirely consistent with what we have seen of the way in which Saddam Hussein has behaved in the past. There are parts of Iraq which clearly do not have access in the way that more favoured areas do.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while expressing my support for the Government's present attitude, does the Minister agree that we cannot discuss this situation either in terms of the activities of the Iraqi government in producing weapons of mass destruction. or in terms of the provision of humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq—which all of us must wish to see—without recognising the cardinal fact that the Saddam Hussein regime is not a government as understood in international law? It is a group of people who have seized power, who maintain it by ruthless elimination of all elements of opposition, actual or even potential, and upon whose word nothing can be placed.
We are not dealing with a country which may commit aggression against or threaten a neighbour; we are dealing with something which is beyond that kind of consideration. One can only sympathise with Her Majesty's Government and the other members of the United Nations who have to try, through the admitted procedures, to frame their position while always recollecting the truth of the situation: that as long as this regime persists the danger to the international community and the sufferings of the Iraqi people will continue.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, as far as both weapons of mass destruction and humanitarian aid are concerned.
Iraq has maintained that it has never weaponised VX. That claim has been shown to be untrue by the United States' tests on warhead fragments. In addition, those tests have been verified by further tests in France and Switzerland. Those who claim that this is merely the word of the United States, have seen that word corroborated by other analyses in Switzerland and France. That demonstrates that the word of Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted by the international community.

183
Moreover, the humanitarian situation in Iraq is very grave indeed. We have already discussed the position concerning humanitarian aid, but the extent of human rights abuse in Iraq is very grave indeed, as Mr. Van Der Stoel's latest report has exposed. The violations include arrest, summary execution, torture, ethnic cleansing, the persecution of minorities and denial of freedom of speech. The list is endless.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Iraq falls very far short of the standards that the international community expects.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I acknowledge entirely the point that the Minister has made about the possibility of all options being considered. Does she agree that the contribution which the armed forces make to the overall position of Her Majesty's Government is absolutely essential, and that the arming, equipping and manning of the armed forces—in this case particularly the Royal Air Force—to achieve the position required is essential?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble and gallant Lord. The contribution made by Her Majesty's armed forces—and in this instance particularly by the RAF—is absolutely vital in maintaining the credible threat of force. We have seen a consistent pattern of Saddam Hussein not complying with the diplomatic effort unless he believes that the credible option of force is open to us. I know that on occasions I have been reluctant to discuss in detail in your Lordships' House the equipment and dispositions of the armed forces. The noble and gallant Lord will fully understand the reasons for that. He is entirely right that the armed forces must be properly equipped for the very grave task that they may have to undertake.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I support the Government's Statement, and in particular the imposition of sanctions. I have two questions for the noble Baroness. First, how effective have those sanctions been? Secondly, does she know of any nation or company which is breaking the sanctions? If so, what representations will Her Majesty's Government make to the United Nations in order to discourage and dissuade those countries and firms from breaking the sanctions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have no information on particular companies. I will make inquiries and, if it is possible to put any information into the public arena on that issue, I shall write to the noble Earl and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. I do not know whether such sanctions have been broken; nor whether Her Majesty's Government have information on that issue or whether it is proper for such information to come into the public arena. I shall make inquiries.
The noble Earl asked how effective have these sanctions been? One could argue that the sanctions have been effective to the extent that Saddam Hussein has been contained within his ambitions concerning
184
weapons of mass destruction. We have seen on many occasions—three notably within the past year or so—his efforts to break beyond the sanctions. But sanctions have been very effective in keeping under control his overwhelming regional ambitions.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty facing the Government, the United States' Government and all those who are concerned—as we should be—at the prospect of Saddam Hussein retaining weapons of mass destruction. We have surely reached the point where we cannot afford to mobilise ourselves and our opinions once again—this will be the third time this year—and then make an obvious compromise which would, I fear, undermine the credibility of the United Nations and, indeed, the credibility of the United States and the United Kingdom.
My strong feeling is—and I hope my noble friend can assure me on this point—that if we are not prepared to back up our words with deeds, we should on this occasion decline to mobilise ourselves in the pretence that we are going to do so. We cannot afford to bluff any more. I hope that the Government will make the correct decision to demand from Saddam Hussein really bankable assurances before we agree the next time not to use the force that might well be required.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the question of bankable assurances from an individual who has been proved to have lied on a number of occasions may be a very tall order. I assure the noble Lord that this is not a question of bluffing anybody. Her Majesty's Government are firmly resolved on this issue. The noble Lord said that we cannot afford to mobilise ourselves and then make a compromise. In a sense, of course, we are already mobilised. As I was able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, our firepower remains ready and in place should it be needed. That firepower is the same now as it was earlier this year.
It is right for Her Majesty's Government to pursue the path of diplomacy. It would not be right to move straight to the option of force without looking at the diplomatic option first. But no one should be in any doubt that the exploration of that diplomatic option is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of wanting to ensure that no military action is taken unless it is absolutely necessary. We are all very well aware that once force is used there will be the potential for loss of life. That is a very grave step to take—it is a very grave step to take for our Armed Forces and a very grave step to take for the people of Iraq. It is right and proper that we pursue the diplomatic option first but no one—no one in your Lordships' House and certainly no one in Iraq—should be in any doubt that we will look at other options if that does not prove to do the trick.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it may not be a coincidence that this brazen statement of Saddam Hussein has been made at a time when the United States has been weakened by the threatened impeachment of its President? While that matter must be one for the American people and for the American Congress, can she, through the diplomatic

185
channels which are so tactful in these matters, inform the United States of what a tragedy it is that at this critical time in world history its President has been placed in that position?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think it is quite a matter for question and speculation whether the United States has been weakened by the threatened impeachment of the President. If the United States opinion polls are anything to go by, that question is open to a good deal of analysis. I am not in a position—I do not believe anyone in your Lordships' House is in a position—to judge what is motivating Saddam Hussein to take this action at this time. We know that he started down this path in August. He was given further options, as my right honourable friend's Statement in another place described and as I have been able to tell your Lordships. Only this weekend he has made it clear that he will no longer co-operate with UNSCOM. Why now? There may be a whole range of reasons. The fact is that we are where we are. The international community has been threatened by Saddam Hussein, the authority of Kofi Annan has been undermined and it is now up to the international community through the United Nations Security Council to try every diplomatic course open to us to make the position clear to Saddam Hussein that he simply cannot behave like this.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I have to admit to slight surprise when I heard what the noble Baroness said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shore. Will she confirm what she said that there has been no diminution in the capacity of this country and other countries of the United Nations to take military action—no diminution in military terms in their ability so to do?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord's surprise was in relation to what I said about the fire power available. I have taken advice on this point. It is quite an obvious point for us to raise at the moment. The assurance I have given to the noble Lord is one I was given before making the Statement to your Lordships' House today. If there is any reason for me to review that assurance, I shall of course make that position clear. I shall write to the noble Lord and make that clear. But the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, was, as I understand the position, in relation to Her Majesty's forces. I cannot at the moment answer the question in relation to other fire power available.

Scotland Bill
5.54 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 5.
[Amendment No. 208A not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 208B:
Page 69, leave out lines 32 to 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those who quite rightly are somewhat eagle-eyed when we come to discuss amendments will have noticed that this is the second time I have brought this amendment before the House. There is no mystery about that. It is simply that, despite speaking at great length about the package of technical amendments of which this was one, when it came to its place on the Marshalled List it was not actually moved. I apologise to the House for that and hope at this stage that the House will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 208C:
Page 71, line 11, after ("1") insert ("to 3 and 5").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment amends the provisions of the reservation of entertainment under Section 5, Head 2 of Schedule 5. It provides that Section 4 of the Cinemas Act 1985 is not covered by the reservation. The reason for the amendment is simple. The reservation is intended to cover the licensing of premises for use for film exhibitions and classification of films and videos. It is not intended to cover matters relating to public safety such as fire safety or building standards. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 208DA:
Page 71, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
("The interception of communications; but not the subject-matter of Part III of the Police Act 1997 (authorisation to interfere with property etc.) or surveillance not involving interference with property.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 208E:
Page 71, leave out lines 30 and 31.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 72, line 3, at end insert—
("Exception from reservation
The distribution in Scotland of the New Opportunities Fund raised by the National Lottery.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed this matter in Committee I wanted to move the whole of the expenditure of National Lottery money to the control of the new Scottish executive. However, in the light of that debate, I have decided to come back with an amendment which is very much more tightly drawn and refers only to the New Opportunities Fund. Your Lordships will know that there is an arts fund, a sports fund, a heritage fund, a charities fund and now there is the New Opportunities Fund.
In answering the debate in Committee on 23rd July the Minister was very helpful. He said that there would be mechanisms for Scottish Ministers to exercise appropriate powers of direction over the New Opportunities Fund's activities in Scotland while

187
keeping control at the UK level. The problem is this. The arts fund money and the sports fund money will be distributed by Scottish bodies which will be appointed by the Scottish executive. When we come to the heritage fund and the charities fund, those are cross-border bodies and I am content with the arrangements that are in hand for Scottish nominees to be on the bodies and for the ability of the Scottish executive, and therefore the Scottish parliament, to make suggestions to the two bodies. However, the New Opportunities Fund is different in this regard. It will pay out money for health and education.
I said in Committee that when I sat on the Back Benches during the passage of the National Lottery Bill I heard a great deal from the Labour Party about the need to make sure that the Government did not use National Lottery money as a substitute for money that should be paid out from general taxation. The Government at that time gave assurances that that would not happen and they kept their word until the election. We are now in a position where National Lottery money is to be used for health, education and childcare.
I am not arguing whether or not that is right. I happen to believe that it is not because it is a breach of the undertakings given by the then government and sought by the present government when the National Lottery Bill was being considered that money would not be used to fund matters that should be paid for by general taxation. I accept that that is water under the bridge. My concern is that education, health and childcare are devolved entirely to the Scottish parliament; they are matters entirely for the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. It seems odd that money can be spent in those areas by the New Opportunities Fund in Scotland without the Scottish executive having the same control over the expenditure of that money as the UK Government. I should like to see the New Opportunities Fund treated more akin to arts and sport and bodies appointed by the Scottish executive in Scotland specifically to spend the new opportunities money on Scottish education, health and childcare, taking account of Scottish priorities and the different Scottish stance on those three issues. It would be much more satisfactory to go down that route and have Scottish bodies concerned with arts and sport than to have cross-border bodies despite all of the assurances given to me by the Minister. He told me that there would be internal structures and that the New Opportunities Fund would be sensitive to the Scottish interest. I accept all of that in good faith. However, we should treat the New Opportunities Fund in the same way as we treat arts and sport and set up a free-spending body in Scotland to spend the money in that fund in Scotland according to the priorities of Scottish education, health and childcare.
I would quite understand the position of the Government if these issues had not been devolved. However, because they have been devolved the New Opportunities Fund should follow. I believe this to be a fairly straightforward arrangement. No doubt I shall receive further assurances from the Minister. But I remain puzzled as to why this important new fund is not to be treated in the same way as the arts and sports
188
funds and Scottish bodies are not to be set up to spend the money in Scotland along the lines of the very different Scottish education, health and childcare systems. I believe that that would make common sense. I hope that I shall make some progress on this matter with the Minister. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I support my noble friend in this amendment. When the National Lottery Bill came before your Lordships' House at Committee stage in particular I raised this very point with the Minister. I should place on record his letter dated 4th March this year in which he provided me with a great deal of additional detail and spelt out the arrangements for a degree of involvement by the Scottish executive in the way in which National Lottery funds would be disbursed in Scotland. However, grateful as I am to him for that information, he did not and could not answer the central question. He was able to say:
"The allocation of resources will follow an approach appropriate to each initiative, which may include Barnett where that is the right approach".
To that extent some reassurance is proffered by the Minister. However, the central point remains unanswered. Health, education and environment are at the very centre of the responsibilities to be given to the Scottish parliament, but only the Secretary of State, a Member of the Westminster Parliament, will be in a position to give directions. I understood that the central justification for devolution was that, while this Parliament and the Secretary of State within it might wish to promote initiatives and to give directions or propose a particular policy approach, for their own good reasons the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive might prefer to re-order those priorities. They might prefer children's education to health. The policy point is not important but they might wish to re-order those priorities.
As I understand the answer given to me, there will be a degree of involvement by the Scottish executive and if an initiative is to be pursued it will be for the Scottish executive, for example, to prefer charity A to charity B as the body to take forward the initiative but the setting of the initiative is for the Secretary of State within the Westminster Parliament. That seems to me to be one of the most extraordinary anomalies that has arisen over this legislation. One might better understand it if this had been a provision in the original National Lottery legislation, but the Bill that came before Parliament set up a scheme of arrangements in advance of which this Bill had already been published. It is quite astonishing that this matter has not yet been properly dealt with. I support my noble friend in suggesting that this is a matter to be left to the Scottish parliament.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie in protesting about the position of the National Lottery relative to Scotland. Noble Lords are aware that there were originally five good causes and a sixth good cause

189
was added. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, I protested about that in Committee. The position is now worse in that following the millennium all moneys in the Millennium Fund will go into the New Opportunities Fund.
Noble Lords on this side of the House maintained throughout the passage of the National Lottery legislation introduced by the previous government—with tremendous success for so many voluntary organisations throughout the United Kingdom—the arm's length principle so that there was no direct government involvement. Organisations were set up to disburse the money and the Government did not have a direct say in the distribution of it.
Now the New Opportunities Fund will be administered by civil servants and will be subject to the direct control of Ministers. I believe that that is unfortunate and absolutely wrong, particularly when the Government have said that the New Opportunities Fund will be to provide direct support for a range of education, environment and public health projects. All of those issues should be dealt with by direct taxation, not by milking the lottery, which was set up for voluntary good causes: charities, heritage, sport and the arts. All of that is working very well. I am disappointed that the Government have introduced a sixth fund by which they avoid spending government money on those matters which should be the responsibility of government. They are taking money from the lottery to save the taxpayer having to pay directly for matters for which they should be directly responsible.
Having indicated my displeasure at the introduction of a sixth fund, my noble friend is absolutely right that this matter should be administered in Scotland. I was somewhat concerned to read in the press that the Secretary of State for Scotland would consider allowing communities in Scotland to buy land in order to set up local land trusts. I believe that that is pretty far removed from the original objectives and principles of the National Lottery Act.
One hopes that the Secretary of State will think again about his use of the sixth fund. But it is right that it should be administered in Scotland where at least it will be much more obvious where the money is coming from and going to than it would be if it was administered by skeleton staff in the Secretary of State's office in Whitehall. I believe that what my noble friend has suggested is the right way forward and I hope that the Minister will agree.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall not express a view on whether or not the New Opportunities Fund is a good idea. However, I believe that the measure raises unnecessary controversy between Westminster and Holyrood. The fund will supplement budgets of the Scottish parliament. The suggestion that any body other than the Scottish parliament will formulate policies and decide how the money is to be spent is extraordinary. It could distort some of the policies which the parliament proposes.
190
It is a small change that could make a big difference and the Government should consider it. From the point of view of the Scottish parliament the measure will be extremely irritating and may raise controversy.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I declare an indirect interest as my husband is chairman of the Scottish Arts Council. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, raised important elements and issues of doubt about the exact role and function of the New Opportunities Fund. When lottery money is being used as a substitute for government funding there is perhaps a blurring of the distinction between additionality, additional funding, and subsidiary.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, under Chris Smith, is responsible for the guidelines which are followed when lottery money is administered. In Scotland, a proportional amount of money is allocated to each of the strands. This final strand is currently the sixth good cause, at least until the Millennium Fund is wound up.
While it is an attractive notion that the Scottish parliament should make its own decisions—that is what we have been talking about throughout the Bill—and decide on its own guidelines according to the perceived needs of Scots by Scots, there is less point in devolving one of the strands in isolation. How would it be disentangled from the rest? I believe that there is greater merit in having unity of purpose and some synergy between the various strands of grant allocation.
I believe that until the Scottish parliament can address the total picture from the Scottish perspective it is preferable to stick to the current arrangement and have lottery guidelines for all the good causes determined at Westminster.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the reservation of the National Lottery as a single UK-wide lottery offers the largest possible prize fund and the highest possible return to good causes in the United Kingdom. The basic idea is to keep the lottery as a UK-wide organisation and entity. A single UK-wide National Lottery distribution fund is an extremely important part of a single National Lottery.
The distribution arrangements have been discussed at length in another place and it makes no sense at all to attempt to introduce separate arrangements for only one of the six good causes. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. However, it is right and proper that we recognise the legitimate interests which the Scottish parliament and executive will have in ensuring that Scotland receives its fair share of all lottery proceeds and that Scottish circumstances are fully taken into account in the distribution arrangements in Scotland. With the recent announcement that the New Opportunities Fund will receive one third of lottery proceeds after 2001, it is particularly vital that the initiatives that will be funded from it take cognisance of Scottish interests and priorities.
In the first place, the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, as amended, guarantees a place on the New Opportunities Fund for a member who is suited to make

191
the interests of Scotland his or her special care. Scottish Ministers, will have a particular interest in that appointment and I can assure noble Lords that that interest will be recognised. We are currently considering precise arrangements which will fully meet Scottish requirements and at the same time be compatible with the character of the lottery as a UK institution.
The first three initiatives to be funded from the New Opportunities Fund—healthy living centres, IT training for teachers and out-of-school hours activities—are all UK-wide initiatives. However, they will take Scotland's distinctive needs fully into account. In particular, Scotland will receive a very favourable share of the funds accruing to each; 11.5 per cent. for healthy living and child care initiatives and 10 per cent. for IT training. These allocations recognise Scotland's distinctive needs, in particular in terms of relative deprivation and health records. By having a national fund rather than allocating money to a separate Scottish fund on a per capita basis or on one which reflects the lottery's income, and by identifying the main themes, it is possible fully to recognise the relative need of Scotland in relation to those initiatives. It amply demonstrates how Scotland can benefit from the flexibility of current arrangements.
By contrast, if the distribution of the funds of the New Opportunities Fund were to be devolved, the allocation to Scotland would have to be set much less flexibly and probably less favourably from Scotland's point of view; for instance, on a simple population index Scotland would receive only 8.9 per cent. of the income.
The initiatives I have mentioned are only the first which the New Opportunities Fund will fund. The success of the lottery is such that already consideration is being given to what future initiatives might be funded. A consultation paper on this will be issued within the next few weeks. It is of course quite possible that an initiative might emerge which is primarily, or even exclusively, of concern to Scotland. Indeed, the opportunity currently exists. We have identified the possibility of an environmental initiative under Green Spaces. That can be given a particular twist in recognition of the precise environmental interests in Scotland, which may not be identical to environmental interests in England. The idea of a Scottish initiative, rather than being ruled out, is compatible with the current arrangements. I assure noble Lords that we are giving serious consideration to the way in which the views and roles of Scottish Ministers can be best expressed and carried through.
I believe that we have the best of all possible worlds. We have a national institution. Its public attraction stems from the fact that it is national and can generate—let us be honest—a big prize. That brings many people into the lottery. We do not wish to fragment that. The existing distribution arrangements mean that UK-wide initiatives can be funded. The money, when distributed, can take account of particular Scottish interests,
192
priorities and relative need, which is an appropriate mix and a good way forward. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government's view on this matter. However, I remain puzzled. If the New Opportunities Fund is to deal with education, health, childcare and the environment, I do not see how it can have UK-wide initiatives. All these matters are entirely devolved to the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. Therefore, unless the Scottish executive twin with the UK Government, there can be no UK-wide initiative in any of those areas. I suspect that that is a matter which people will have to get used to. Many people do not yet appreciate that simple fact about devolution.
I hear what the Minister says about the involvement of the Scottish executive with the people who run the New Opportunities Fund. In the light of the fact that the disbursement of the National Lottery money is already on a Scottish basis on two issues, it seems odd that the Government should stand firm against the New Opportunities Fund and go down the same route.
I remind the Minister of what he said on 23rd July. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, does not seem to realise this point either. He stated:
"Distribution of lottery funds for the arts and sport is handled by Scotland-only bodies. Their members are appointed at present by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is also responsible for the issue of financial policy direction to those bodies. … In future these tasks will fall to Scottish Ministers. In other words, complete control over the membership of Scottish arts and sports councils will rest with Scottish Ministers and they will be able to direct the councils on matters of policy without reference to Whitehall and Westminster. In addition, Scottish Ministers will, if they choose, be able to appoint other bodies to act as distributors of the arts and sports shares".—[Official Report, 23/7/98; col. 1084.]
I remain puzzled as to why what is good enough for the arts and sports, and already exists, is not good enough for the New Opportunities Fund, which relates entirely to issues which are being devolved.
I suspect that somewhere down the line there may be friction on that issue. I have tried to warn the Government about this, as has my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. However, I can see that I am not making any progress. I hope the Minister is right and that this will work happily. However, if it does not and it ends in friction between Edinburgh and Westminster, as my noble friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour suggested it might, dare I say to the Minister that he heard it from us first? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 210 to 213 not moved.]
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 75, line 19, at end insert (", including all aspects of digital signatures").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. It deals with modern technology. Digital signatures are necessary to identify the senders of an electronic message. Encryption is the coding of the electronic message so that it cannot be accessed by an

193
unauthorised person. The recipient must know its point of origin. Just down the road, in the War Cabinet Rooms, Winston Churchill's messages to President Roosevelt were scrambled. They were put into a jumbled noise which was then unscrambled at the other end. It was Professor Alan Turing who broke the Nazi Enigma code and contributed greatly to allied successes. So, encryption is certainly not a new idea.
This amendment clarifies the definition of electronic encryption which is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. It would ensure that digital signatures are also reserved. There is a growing awareness that commerce and secret commercial decisions, conducted through the exchange of messages on open computer networks, are likely to increase enormously in both volume and value.
A common assumption in all analyses is that since the delivery of electronic messages is on open networks, by definition they are not wholly secure. People dealing with each other in a business sense need to have security in both the identity of the sender and the integrity of the message.
The widely stated view of industries, governments and professions is that those requirements can be met only by means of two independent but closely associated procedures; namely, the attachment and recognition of electronic signatures, and the strong encryption of the message. The framework within which reliability can be added to electronic or digital signatures and encryption is now perceived to be by the use of one or more asymmetric encryption keys issued within a public key infrastructure. However, other forms of ensuring security are being discussed and will no doubt be developed.
In effect, asymmetric public private encryption keys are issued to a user by a certification authority after due inquiry. Messages encrypted and decrypted by those keys may be relied on at the time of use if a reliable authority—that is the certification authority which issues and certifies the public and private keys which constitute the key pair—can itself be relied upon in the manner in which it carried out its functions and to the extent to which it is recognised by higher authorities in any vertical scheme of mutual recognition.
Those matters can best be regulated on a global scale. Regulation by the Westminster Parliament should, however, extend to digital signatures. In view of the reasonableness of the amendment, I hope that the Minister is able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's desire to ensure that digital signatures are included in the reservation on encryption. I can assure the noble Lord that digital signatures are in fact included as an area of policy reserved for the United Kingdom. It is therefore not necessary to refer explicitly to digital signatures in this schedule.
As the noble Lord observed, encryption has long been used by banks and is an essential tool for electronic commerce. Its uses include keeping electronic data—ranging from an e-mail that might be sent over the Internet to a file stored on a floppy disc—confidential.
194
Another use, which is at issue here, is to prove that an electronic document was sent by someone holding a particular code and that the document has not since been altered. In other words cryptography can be used as an electronic signature.
I wish to point out that the Notes on Clauses state that electronic encryption covers the general use of encryption of communications or data in electronic form for the purposes of commercial confidentiality and authentication. The word "authentication", which means verifying who originated an e-mail or an electronic document, clearly relates to the use of encryption as an electronic signature. There is, therefore, no need to make this amendment.
Furthermore, I should point out to the noble Lord that a distinction is usually made between the terms "electronic signature" and "digital signature". Briefly, "electronic signature" has a wider meaning than "digital signature". So all digital signatures are electronic signatures, but not vice versa. The effect of this amendment might therefore be to limit the reservation to digital signatures but not electronic signatures. I doubt that this is what the noble Lord intends. In view of those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, in view of the encouraging reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the Bill as drafted covers digital signatures, I do not wish to press this matter. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 214A and 214B:
Page 75, line 23, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 25 and insert ("Part III of the Police Act 1997 (authorisation to interfere with property etc.)").
Page 75, leave out lines 30 to 33.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 76, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) the subject-matter of section 1 of the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972 (contributions in connection with mineral exploration) so far as relating to exploration for oil and gas,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 215C and 226D.
Amendment No. 226D clarifies that the Scottish parliament can legislate on financial assistance to industry for the purpose of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment. That would, among other things, enable the parliament to make provision of a general nature which permits such assistance to industries, including those which operate in reserved areas. The parliament will not, however, have competence to legislate for such assistance specifically in relation to a reserved commercial activity.
Clause 52 lists powers which are to continue to be exercisable by Ministers of the Crown despite the Clause 49 transfer of functions. Amendments Nos. 215A and 215C simply clarify the extent to which financial assistance under Section 1 of the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972 and under Sections 10 to 12 of the Industry Act 1972 will transfer under Clause 49 and, therefore, be exercisable concurrently by virtue of the references to those provisions in Clause 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 215B:
Page 76, line 39, leave out ("deposits in the sea") and insert ("activities").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that during Committee the Government tabled, and the House accepted, an amendment to the oil and gas reservation reserving Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 so far as it relates to oil and gas exploration and exploitation in relation to deposits in the sea outside controlled waters. The purpose of that amendment was to remove any doubt that the oil and gas reservation should catch operational discharges from oil and gas installations and the deposit in the sea of oil-related articles such as redundant oil installations which are potentially subject to regulation under Part II of the Act.
Our earlier understanding had been that "deposits in the sea" would cover all types of potentially polluting activity relating to oil and gas exploration and exploitation covered by that Act. However, we have reflected further on this point and we now consider that this may not be the case and that it would be safest to use the word "activities". The use of the word "activities" instead of "deposits in the sea" makes it clear, for example, that the flaring and incineration of waste gas and fugitive emissions are also covered by the reservation. This amendment is merely clarificatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 215C:
Page 77, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) sections 10 to 12 of the Industry Act 1972 (credits and grants for construction of ships and offshore installations),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 216A:
Page 78, leave out line 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, grants in respect of bus fuel duty rebate were previously regarded as a tax matter and, as such, it was right to reserve them. However, as a result of a ruling from the Office of National Statistics and the Treasury, grants in respect of bus fuel duty rebate have now been reclassified as public expenditure with responsibility for this expenditure transferred to the Scottish Office. In the circumstances, it is appropriate
196
that, following devolution, the Scottish parliament should also have responsibility for such grants in line with its general responsibility for bus policy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 78, line 15, at end insert—
("Tolls or charges for the use of Trunk Roads.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 218.
I start with Amendment No. 218. In Committee we discussed this matter and I believe that we were at cross-purposes. This part of the Bill seems to suggest, or at least to me it does, that the Scottish executive could decide to increase the amount of money which must be paid by an insurance company or, indeed, by an individual in respect of health treatment after a road accident. Currently, health boards may claim, up to a ceiling of £2,949, any money due for the treatment of a road accident casualty. That is normally paid by the vehicle insurance company.
In Committee, I was not arguing that the money should go to the UK Government. I am quite content that the money, up to the ceiling, should go to the Scottish health boards, as it does at present. I was concerned about the Scottish parliament and the executive having the power to increase that ceiling quite separately from the UK. That may create a situation in which in Scotland the ceiling was, for example, £5,000, whereas in England it was only £2,900. I asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate what consequences that would have on car premiums in Scotland.
I did not seem to be arguing my case very well. I did not manage to convey that the insurance companies might consider that they were open to greater liabilities, and therefore, as is the nature of insurance, the premiums would be increased to cover the liabilities. I asked whether I was right that that possibility existed and whether the Government had discussed those matters with the insurance companies. The noble and learned Lord was unable to help me with that. I suggested that the Government should reflect further on the issue. I have tabled this amendment to see whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can clarify the matter.
Have the insurance companies been consulted? Is there not a danger that they will load the premiums of Scottish drivers? If the Scottish parliament were to take that power and increase the payment demanded, would not the insurance companies then increase their premiums? They already increase the premiums depending on where one lives. If one lives in the centre of a city, the insurance companies, probably quite rightly, have decided that the danger of theft and accident is greater than if one lives in the countryside. Therefore, the premium is greater if one lives in the city. It is that loading about which I am concerned, if the delegated power means what it says.
I turn back to Amendment No. 217. I had not even thought about this matter until I saw an article in the Scotsman on Monday 19th October which told me that the Government were considering using the M.8 as a pilot scheme for road tolling by electronic means. The

197
suggestion there was that the Scottish Office would launch one of two pilot schemes for electronic charging in Britain on the M.8. It seemed to me a rather interesting prospect that the Scottish parliament, in search of more money, could introduce tolling on the trunk roads of Scotland in order to get more money from motorists. I believe that trunk roads should be dealt with on a UK basis and I hope that the UK Government are not considering making the Scottish motorist the test-bed for electronic charging.
Needless to say—and I shall not bore the Minister by reading it—Mr. Alex Salmond was already making hay on the basis of that proposition on 19th October and he would make even more hay if it came about. I want to be clear as to who would have the power to introduce electronic or other tolling on trunk roads in Scotland. Would that be something the Scottish parliament could do or would it be something which only the United Kingdom Parliament could do? My amendment proposes to reserve those matters to the United Kingdom Government. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for that explanation. I was quite curious to see what was the objective of his Amendment No. 217. I was interested to hear that it is to do with the idea of electronic tolls on the M.8. I shall not go into the question of test beds that he raised. I thought on from that and two points came to mind which I would like to put to the noble Lord. Perhaps he can answer them when he winds up on this matter.
I assume that the Scottish parliament will be responsible for the maintenance of all trunk roads and so forth because as far as I can see that does not appear to be a reserved matter but a fully devolved one. Therefore, whoever has responsibility for paying, if a toll is ever going to be raised anywhere, should equally have the responsibility for raising payment.
I wonder whether he has considered my second point. I presume that the Forth road bridge and the Skye bridge are both considered trunk roads. Therefore, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to reserve to Westminster any decision by the Scottish parliament as regards tolls on those two bridges. Given the great support in the Highlands for getting rid of the toll on the Skye bridge, I should imagine that is one thing he would like to leave to the Scottish parliament. Did the noble Lord consider that in framing his amendment?
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on Amendment No. 218, to which my name is attached as well. I am concerned that we do not have a situation where there is unnecessary controversy between Scotland and England. If we have a situation where insurance companies are necessarily compounding the amount that they wish to charge as a premium to Scottish drivers over English drivers, that is a recipe for disaster. People drive across the Border from all directions. I earnestly hope that cognisance is taken of this amendment.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the amendments in the opposite order. As regards
198
Amendment No. 217, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, pointed out, its effect would be to reserve the responsibility for tolls or charges for the use of trunk roads. The Government find that unacceptable for two reasons. One of them is a reason put forward by the noble Viscount. The amendment would have the effect of separating responsibility for managing and maintaining the trunk road network from that of charging for using the network. As charging would have direct implications for management and maintenance, such as traffic flow, that does not strike us a sensible approach.
Secondly, the amendment would separate responsibility for charging on the trunk road network from the responsibility for charging on local roads. It will be clear to noble Lords that one has direct implications for the other. Therefore, there is a need for consistency in the application. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 218, despite the views expressed by both noble Lords, I am unable to accept it either. The effect of the amendment will be to reserve the provisions of the Road Traffic Act which deals with the recovery of payments towards the costs of treating road traffic casualties. The provisions of the 1988 Act clearly refer to the recovery of costs incurred by local hospitals and therefore they are concerned with health and not transport. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, accepts that it would be appropriate for the money to go to the local national health trust which incurred the treatment expenditure and not anywhere else. As health is a devolved matter, it would be inappropriate for this area of cost recovery and administration to be reserved.
I turn to the question of charging, which was the point of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Powers in relation to charges are exercised by health Ministers. The devolution of such powers would have the effect of giving Scottish Ministers the responsibility for setting charges which are commensurate with the treatment costs in Scotland rather than applying a UK average. The parliament will also be able to determine the most appropriate means for effecting recovery of the costs so that the National Health Service in Scotland can derive the maximum financial benefit from its ability to charge.
As regards the point raised about insurance companies, the Association of British Insurers is aware that, after devolution, Scotland will be able to apply different treatment charges to those applied in England. I am advised that it has raised no specific concerns about that possibility. With reference to the impact on motor insurance premiums, that is a matter for the companies themselves to assess in due course. But significant differences in the amounts which Scottish and English motorists would have to pay seem to us to be unlikely at this stage. The determining factor here is where the accident occurs and, therefore, where the injured person is treated. Clearly, that would apply to English and Scottish motorists.
For example, English tourists or people on business travelling in Scotland may have an accident there and be treated in Scotland. Their insurance companies would

199
have to pay the costs. Equally, there may be Scots injured in accidents and their insurance companies would pay the costs. The determining factor in this case is where the accident has occurred or where the person has been injured and treated and not where the motorist resides, which is the normal basis on which insurance is assessed. In any event, there is no question of people receiving different treatment simply because their accident occurred in England rather than in Scotland, or vice versa. With those explanations—
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. There is a point which I do not believe has been raised. I ask the noble and learned Lord to look at page 78 of the Bill, lines 12 and 13, which read:
"The conditions under which international road transport services for passengers or goods may be undertaken".
That is a reserved matter. Unless the United Kingdom Government have control over the tolls or charges for the use of trunk roads, they will be unable to control the conditions mentioned there under which international road transport services will be undertaken. Therefore, if this amendment is not accepted, will there not be a contradiction on that point?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I do not think that there will be a contradiction. There is no intention of impeding the transportation of goods. It is simply that there may be charging for the use of trunk roads, just as there may well be charging for trunk roads in England for goods vehicles or others using the trunk roads.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the clarification. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the way the Government have decided the issues, but at least it is clear and now on the record in Hansard. As regards trunk roads, I entirely accept the argument and take the point that the Scottish parliament and executive will be able to put electronic tolls and charges, or any other kind of charges, on the Scottish road system. That will at least make it clear for the future who is responsible for these issues.
Concerning the point about health payments, from my side there is no argument that the money should go to the trusts in Scotland. We then moved on to the question of whether it would be possible for Scottish Ministers to increase the charges. The Minister has made it clear that it would be possible. Inevitably, that means that the premiums could go up in such circumstances. The fact that the Association of British Insurers is aware, but did not raise any concerns, is neither here nor there because it will pass on those concerns to the customers. It is very simple.
The argument was that a person from England visiting Scotland might be asked to pay higher charges. The insurance companies will live with that, as they will live with higher charges for Scottish drivers. The example I gave about Scottish or English drivers based in the countryside paying lower premiums because there was
200
less chance of accident or theft in the countryside than in the towns, does not mean that insurance companies walk away from someone if they visit a town or city and are involved in an accident or have their car stolen. Insurance companies live with that; it is the overall risk that they take into account. And the overall risk for somebody living in the countryside is less than for those living in the towns, even allowing for the fact that people in the countryside occasionally visit the towns and are subject to those greater risks.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate underlined my point rather than went against it. The insurance companies will have to "cough up" any extra money for somebody from England who has an accident in Scotland, and they will live with that. The point is that they will load the premiums of Scottish drivers and that is something the motorists and motoring organisations will have to watch out for; that is, that the Scottish parliament does not use it as a convenient way to raise more money for the health service by upping the amount of money paid to health boards from road accident victims and therefore from insurance companies. The moment that happens insurance companies will review their premium position and, if I were their actuary, I would advise them that they would have to review their premiums slightly upwards and Scottish motorists would have to pay higher premiums than they otherwise would.
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying these issues. The Government's intentions for both those amendments are now on the record, and we shall see what the Scottish parliament decides to do with those issues in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 81, line 2, leave out from first ("of") to ("Part") in line 3.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during Committee the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—temporarily not in his place—tabled an amendment to insert into the exceptions to the social security reservation a reference to Section 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948. His argument was that, if Section 22 of that Act is to be excepted, then Section 26 ought also to be excepted as the two provisions are closely related and both deal with the provision of accommodation by local authorities and their powers to charge for such accommodation. We agreed to look further at the relationship between those two sections.
In considering Sections 22 and 26 it became clear to us that neither of those sections deals with matters covered by the social security reservation. Section 22 of the 1948 Act is about the provision of accommodation by local authorities and their powers to charge for that accommodation. The provisions of Section 22 are applied by Section 26 which enables local authorities to arrange for accommodation to be provided by the voluntary sector or private providers. Those sections are also applied in relation to the provision of accommodation by local authorities in Scotland under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. The

201
provision of accommodation by local authorities and their powers to charge are not covered by the reservation and we have therefore decided to delete the reference to Section 22 altogether. I hope that meets with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the noble Baroness kindly referred to my noble friend who is not in his place. Noble Lords will be aware that he has been one of the most assiduous attenders on this Bill through all its stages in your Lordships' House. While I do not have a clue as to what the amendment does, on his behalf I thank the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 218B:
Page 81, line 6, after ("children),") insert ("section 15 of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 (industrial injuries benefit).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 218B, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 218E.
Amendments Nos. 218B, and 218E, along with Amendment No. 145C to Clause 52, which we have already considered, make up a package of amendments relating to training for employment and job search and support to ensure that the former is devolved and the latter is reserved. The two amendments refine the job search and support and social security reservations in Schedule 5 in order to ensure that that policy is achieved.
Amendment No. 218B adds an exception to the reservation of social security matters to ensure that payments to persons undergoing training who have injured themselves are not a reserved matter. Amendment No. 218E adds an exception to the reservation of job search and support. It will except parts of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 relating to assisting persons to establish themselves as self-employed persons and relating to the disclosure of information under the Act. Those matters would otherwise fall within the reservation of the subject matter of the 1973 Act but would not fall within the existing exception for training for employment. Your Lordships may be aware that the 1990 Act established Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Matters relating to the economic development agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which not only support economic development but also assist people to obtain training for employment and to establish themselves as self-employed, are also to be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The Government believe that this package presents a sensible split of legislative competence and an efficient and practical sharing of powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 218C:
Page 81, line 21, at end insert—
("Exception from reservation
The subject-matter of sections 1 to 7 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (aliment).
Interpretation
If section 30(2) of the Child Support Act 1991 (collection of payments other than child support maintenance) is not in force on the principal appointed day, it is to be treated for the purposes of this reservation as if it were.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we are concerned that the blanket reservation of the subject matter of the Child Support Acts may restrict the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament in relation to the law on aliment more than is intended. Aliment is that part of Scottish private law that deals with the obligations of one person to pay maintenance in respect of children and others. The Scottish parliament should be able to legislate on the general rules of Scottish private law, of which aliment is a part, in so far as they do not conflict with the law of child support.
We have particular concern that the reservation of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 30(1) and, prospectively, by Section 30(2) of the 1991 Act to collect maintenance other than child support maintenance would prevent the Scottish parliament from legislating generally in relation to the imposition of obligations of aliment and the assessment of the levels of aliment payable and from legislating generally as to the collection and enforcement of such aliment.
This amendment is therefore to clarify that the Scottish parliament will be able to legislate on aliment other than where it is superseded by the Child Support Acts.
The second part of Amendment No. 218C ensures that Section 30(2) of the Child Support Act 1991, which is not yet in force, can nonetheless be considered as part of the subject matter of the 1991 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 218D:
Page 81, line 28, leave out from ("authority") to ("persons") in line 29 and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 218E:
Page 83, line 39, at end insert (", and
(b) the following sections of Part I of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 (Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise)—

(i) section 2(3)(c) (arrangements for the purpose of assisting persons to establish themselves as self-employed persons), and

(ii) section 12 (disclosure of information).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 84, leave out lines 2 to 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 219, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 220.
We discussed Amendment No. 219 in Committee but did not discuss these two issues taken together. Amendment No. 219 would remove from reservation the law on abortion and move it to the Scottish parliament. Amendment No. 220 seeks to reserve euthanasia. The amendments seem to be in opposite directions but that is

203
entirely because the Government's current policy in the Bill goes in opposite directions. Abortion is to be kept at Westminster whereas the law on euthanasia is to be devolved to the Scottish parliament.
The two issues have three things in common. First, they have a considerable moral dimension. Secondly, they involve the criminal law. Thirdly, they involve health. I do not believe that we are encompassing the moral dimension in legislation, so I can leave that to one side, except to underline the point that that is a common theme of both abortion and euthanasia. People have very strong feelings on both of those issues on moral grounds, one way or the other.
When one comes to setting up a Scottish parliament, one has to approach those two issues from a different attitude, and that with regard to the criminal law and to health. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at various stages in the progress of the Bill, has justified the decision to devolve something to the Scottish parliament or to keep something at Westminster from the point of view that one starts with the big picture, the great issues that have been devolved, and one then asks: Are these issues closer to the big issue of being devolved or closer to the big issue of being reserved?
Perhaps I may give an example. We have debated frequently the question of agriculture and fisheries and the interaction between the agricultural and fisheries policies in the United Kingdom and in the EU. Eventually, we obtained from the Government a clear statement of the position—that is, that the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy are matters of foreign affairs, including matters relating to Europe and, therefore, have to follow that heading and will be dealt with by the United Kingdom Parliament. Other aspects of agriculture and fisheries which do not involve Europe, including the carrying out of the policy, may be devolved, but the actual policy will stay at Westminster because the broad heading of the negotiations with the EU is a Westminster decision.
In considering the two issues of abortion and euthanasia, we must now ask ourselves: Where does the criminal law go and where does health go? It seems to me right and proper that those two issues should follow those two broad headings. In this case, we do not even have a dilemma because both broad headings go to the Scottish parliament. The criminal law goes in its entirety to the Scottish parliament. Scots law will go to the Scottish parliament which will decide and legislate on matters relating to the criminal law. All those lovely Acts, such as the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act—and all sorts of other such legislation with which we have had pleasure in this House and in the other place—will go to the Scottish parliament. We do not argue about that. One of the key arguments in favour of having a Scottish parliament is that there will be a unique body of Scottish law.
Euthanasia and abortion also involve health—and health is to be devolved entirely to the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament will be entirely responsible for health, just as the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for it at present.
If one follows the principled approach to these matters, it seems clear that two issues, which involve both the criminal law and health, should be devolved to the Scottish parliament. The Government have accepted that in the case of euthanasia, but not in the case of abortion. That seems odd. Their only justification in Committee appeared to be that one could not have a different law on different sides of the Border. If that is the view taken by the Government, we should not be going down the road of devolution. The whole point about devolution is that it envisages the possibility of the Scottish parliament coming to a different conclusion regarding the position in Scotland from that reached by this Parliament in relation to England and Wales.
Indeed, on 4th May 1978, when the last devolution Bill was discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who then occupied the position of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said in relation to that Bill, that abortion should be devolved. In the debate on whether it should or should not be devolved, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, answering the point that it would be undesirable to have different legal provisions on either side of the Border, said:
"In the Government's view, this is what legislative devolution is all about. It would surely be a nonsense to exclude from devolution a field of law just because it raises a number of difficult issues.
It would, in my view, be insulting to suggest that the elected representatives of Scotland would not be responsible enough to deal with these issues and that they would fail to give proper weight to the feelings of the people of Scotland".—[Official Report, 4/5/78; cols. 487–88.]
I would go further and say that they would fail to give proper weight to the problem of different laws south of the Border, but they would have the decision in their own hands.
That seems perfectly sensible. If it is to be a parliament in which we are to have confidence—I do, although it does not seem, in this regard, that the Government do—I believe that it should be given the ability to make such decisions both on euthanasia and abortion.
One does not have to go back to 1978 to look for some help with this argument. I have only to go back to 5th October this year, to the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill. Discussing the question of whether or not abortion should be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said:
"The position is very simple. Abortion law comes under criminal justice. Criminal justice is a reserved power and therefore abortion is a reserved power … when responsibility for criminal justice and policing is passed to the Assembly, which it is our clear intention will be the case when the conditions are appropriate, responsibility for abortion will also pass to the Assembly… As I have said, the day that we transfer those powers, responsibility for abortion will be transferred as well".—[Official Report, 5/10/98; col. 228.]
Please can we have some consistency within Government? It is perfectly clear that in this Bill the responsibility for criminal law and for criminal justice is to be devolved. Following the logic that the Government explained on 5th October, abortion ought to be devolved because, as I have said, not only does that follow from what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said about the criminal law, but I believe that it also follows the health service point which I mentioned earlier.
It is totally illogical for the Government to maintain their current position in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. It is also illogical for them to have one policy on abortion and another on euthanasia, both of which affect the criminal law and the health service to a huge degree and both of which have a very large moral component.
I think that I have made the case. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for making the Government's policy so abundantly clear on 5th October. I look forward to consistency from the Government about devolution and I look forward to them accepting Amendment No. 219. If they do not accept Amendment No. 219, they should accept Amendment No. 220. If they do not, there is a suspicion that there is some other motive behind their actions. If there is some other motive, I should be deeply grateful if the Government would let us know. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly make clear our position in regard to the amendments. Abortion was discussed at some length in Committee. I believe that there was a Division and that noble Lords took a decision. In that respect, those of us on the Liberal Democrats Front Bench will accept the views expressed by the House in Committee. However, it will be a free vote for my noble friends and they may go whichever way their consciences take them.
On euthanasia, I find it rather odd that something that basically does not exist can be devolved or reserved. Euthanasia, whatever it may be as a concept, is not something that exists in law. We have manslaughter, culpable homicide, murder and all sorts of things, but one thing that we do not have is euthanasia, so I do not see how we can write it into the Bill.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise to oppose Amendment No. 219 as I opposed a similar amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, in Committee. As I said then, in dealing with timescale, circumstances and conditions to be met before termination can be carried out, the 1967 Act did not, and does not, differentiate between different parts of the country with the exception of Northern Ireland—a point to which I shall return. Throughout the UK common criteria and common conditions must be met before termination can take place. The arguments for justifying that decision are just as valid today as they were then. That view was supported by your Lordships' House when it substantially defeated the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, by 88 votes to 45, after a debate which lasted one-and-a-half hours. I would have expected the decision of the House to be final. However, having said that, the fact that we are having the debate again gives me the opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, during previous discussions and indeed today.
The noble Lord suggested that somehow myself and the two other noble Baronesses who spoke on this side of the House could not possibly have a view of the matter because we were new to the key arguments on devolution and, therefore, did not appreciate the real
206
effect of the amendment. I can only speak for myself. I am certainly not a recent convert to the question of devolution. Indeed, I have been a supporter of devolution and an active participant in the debates since the 1960s and 1970s when it was not quite as popular as it is now.
On the last occasion, the noble Lord went on to say that the debate was not just about whether one is for or against abortion—that is correct—but about a grown-up Scottish parliament taking serious decisions. It is serious for a woman to have to decide whether to have an abortion. Having taken that serious and distressing decision, whether it is carried out should not be determined by whether she has the money to travel across the Border in either direction. If women can afford to travel and pay for abortions that is fine, but if they cannot that fundamental right is denied them. It is that right that we are talking about today.
I am sorry but I must correct another inaccuracy by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he implied that I believed that the law in Scotland would be more restrictive. In fact, I appreciated that the medical profession in Scotland has a strong tradition of support for abortion. In 1996, the last year for which figures are available, the NHS in Scotland provided 99 per cent. of abortions free of cost to women, while the proportion paid for by the NHS in England and Wales varied between 97 per cent. and 34 per cent.
We might well see more liberal and effective laws in Scotland, but that is not the issue. Nor is the issue the competence of the Scottish parliament to take these important decisions; it is about the consequences for women—the consequence of cross-Border traffic. It is this cross-Border traffic which justifies abortion being a reserved matter. The heartache of the 6,000 women who came from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom in 1995 in order to have abortions clearly illustrates the problem. The existence of such traffic is no reason to introduce such bad practice into the differences between England and Scotland.
I reiterate: this debate is not about the content of the law or about any change in abortion law; nor is it a question of whether the law in Scotland would be more rigid or relaxed, nor indeed is it about the competence of the Scottish parliament to take serious decisions. It is about who should have legislative responsibility over a complex and sensitive issue that can affect the lives of many women. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, it is about whether the Scottish parliament should be able to legislate and create a situation where the law on abortion is different on either side of the Scottish Border. However, the noble Lord did not mention the question of cross-Border traffic. I really wonder whether he is at all concerned about it and the effects on women.
For me, abortion is primarily a health issue but it is also an ethical one. That causes confusion and inequality of access. The need to overcome that in the best interests of women would be met by having a system which is common and consistent throughout the country. That can only be achieved by all women. whether from Scotland, England or Wales, having equal access to abortion. That would almost certainly not be the case

207
if this amendment were to be carried. I hope that your Lordship's House will be consistent and oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mackay has made a most powerful case in favour of both his amendments. There is only one factor that I wish to add to what he said. It is something which I hope the noble Baroness will find is an answer to some extent to the case that she has just put forward. The Scottish courts have always had a separate jurisdiction in criminal matters, not only under the Act of Union but indeed ever since the beginning of time. They have different rules on procedure, on the burden of proof and on evidence. When we have legislated in the United Kingdom parliament on criminal matters, we have always done so separately; that is to say, we have legislated on the one hand for England and Wales and, on the other, for Scotland. There have been exceptions but they have been very rare.
The latter brings me to the subject of abortion. The noble Baroness was quite correct to refer to the Abortion Act 1967. But surely this is essentially a criminal matter on which a devolved parliament should have the right to give further consideration if it thinks necessary. The noble Baroness mentioned the ethical side of the matter, as she was fully entitled to do. However, abortion is so much condemned in the broad on both sides of the Border—that is, apart from the exceptions which are statutory—that I cannot imagine a devolved parliament in Scotland relaxing the law. If the parliament finds that the law needs to be strengthened, it is only right that it should be able to do so. In any event, in the broad, we must leave criminal jurisdiction to the Scottish courts. I very much hope that my noble friend's amendment will be accepted, even by the Government.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support for my noble friend's amendment. I should like to pick up on one very interesting point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The Government have decided that the Scottish parliament has the devolved right to deal with euthanasia. If the new parliament chooses to pass a law that brings euthanasia into being, would that not mean that that parliament would be directly in conflict with the Westminster Parliament?
I apologise if I am slightly out of court here in terms of my understanding. However, it is my clear understanding from the lengthy debates that we have had that the final power and arbitration sit within the Westminster Parliament. In devolving euthanasia, I understand that the Scottish parliament could bring about a situation which would create conflict within the United Kingdom.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, rise to make a few brief remarks. I find myself in the rather unusual position of not being able to support my noble friend Lord Mackay on his first amendment regarding abortion. However, when it comes to euthanasia, I support him
208
wholeheartedly. I feel most strongly that all these issues should be reserved matters and that we should only have one rule throughout the entire United Kingdom.
I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who said that there is no such thing as euthanasia. However, it is a subject which seems to be more openly and more frequently talked about these days. Indeed, I would not be at all surprised if within a very short space of time it becomes a normal fact of life. Therefore, we should not ignore it and pretend that it does not exist because it is already happening now; we just do not talk about it. Whether that be right or wrong, it is what is happening. I very much hope that we will have a UK policy on euthanasia. I sincerely hope that we can also have such a policy on abortion.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, put forward a closely argued and powerful case for these two amendments. Of course he deserves to be taken seriously in that respect. However, I believe that he is mistaken in the conclusions that he has drawn. In terms of devolution, this is not in any way a matter of distrust of what the Scottish parliament might do as regards the criminal aspects of either abortion or euthanasia when the latter becomes a legal issue. Indeed I think the whole tradition of Scottish criminal law, particularly in these matters that involve moral questions as well as criminal questions, has had a good record over many generations, and probably a more civilised one than south of the Border.
However, I think the question before us is whether the rather special issues involved in abortion and euthanasia, when that becomes a legal issue, are issues on which there should be a single United Kingdom position which would prevent the kind of distasteful and expensive traffic that may occur across the Border between Scotland and England if there were not a single United Kingdom policy. I do not speak on the abortion issue with any particular knowledge, although I have taken my own view on the matter in free votes over the years. Compared with others who have spoken so far I may have a closer and more immediate interest in a possible law on euthanasia. I am a reformer as regards euthanasia. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that as regards the special cases of both abortion and euthanasia the case for United Kingdom uniformity is overriding.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with that and I disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I believe that both these issues should be reserved. One concerns the beginning of life and the other the ending of life. They are in some ways linked. They are great spiritual and moral issues. To say that either should be devolved because it relates to the criminal law is not a justifiable argument. I think the disadvantages for Scotland of devolving the issue of abortion would enormously outweigh the advantages. I do not believe there is any need to go into what I mean by that. I think many noble Lords will understand what I mean. I believe there would be huge disadvantages for Scotland in having to decide this issue from time to time because of the nature of Scotland, its social groupings

209
and so on. I believe that that should be a reserved matter. I hope that the Government will not accept Amendment No. 219.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I did not join in this debate in Committee for the simple reason that I was in the Chair. However, I heard the entire one-and-a-half hour debate, just as I have heard many debates on this Bill when I have been in the Chair. I enter the debate now for two reasons. First, I express my surprise that we are debating now on Report exactly the same worded amendment as we debated in Committee and which was defeated in the Division Lobby by 43 votes. This second debate today—excellent though it has been—is a most unusual departure from our normal practice. I welcomed the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, when he said that noble Lords on his Benches would accept the decision of the Chamber in Committee.
My second reason for entering the debate is in many ways a more substantive one, although I must confess that I find the way in which we appear to have disregarded our normal practices in some of these debates a fairly substantive matter. I believe the issue of abortion to be a UK issue and one that should be kept that way. In that sense I also believe that the issue should not be devolved in the Northern Ireland Bill either. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in moving the amendment, said—among his three arguments—that this was a moral issue. It is a moral issue and an ethical issue, but it is also a powerful emotional issue. I believe that matters of this kind should be dealt with on as wide a scale as possible and that is why I think abortion should be dealt with in the way I have described.
There is the whole question of whether abortion is a matter of health or of legality. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, with whom I usually agree on these matters, argued that Scotland has its own special judiciary. I would simply say to him that for the past 30 years since the 1967 abortion law the Scottish judiciary appears to have dealt with this issue—covering both the English system and the Scottish system—effectively.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that was because we have a United Kingdom Parliament which made that law and the Scottish courts had to observe the provisions of it. But now that we have devolution, it seemed to me to be right, on a matter on which there may be slightly different feelings north of the Border, that a new Scottish parliament could, if necessary, for example, strengthen the Act.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am at one with my noble friend Lord Sewel who said in Committee that, although criminal law as such was to be devolved in Scotland, because there was a clear law on abortion it had been decided that that could be a reserved matter. That is a powerful argument, but I also think that the argument that my noble friend Lady Gould proposed is a powerful one. There is a great deal of concern about cross-Border traffic in abortion. There is already too much distressing movement of people from one area to another in order to obtain an abortion. I would not like to see us add further to that problem.
210
Of course it is quite true—as has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that a Scottish parliament may attempt to improve the abortion law. It may keep it as it is; it may detract from it; or it may improve it. But if there were a difference between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other, there would be an increase in the movement I have mentioned. I believe we should attempt to decrease the traffic in abortion rather than to increase it. For all those reasons I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, we had an extensive debate in Committee and it would be quite wrong to repeat the arguments that we heard on that occasion. However, I wish to make one or two observations. They do not concern the substantive question of abortion which is not the issue before the House today. There is the question of consistency in the legislation which we pass.
In the case of the Northern Ireland Bill the Government have indicated that the issue of abortion will ultimately be decided by the Northern Ireland Assembly if that is its wish. Yet the same right is not being given to the Scottish parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out in relation to this amendment, linking it with the euthanasia issue gives rise to another inconsistency; namely, that abortion is treated in one way and euthanasia in another.
The issue before the House is devolution. Is this, or is it not, a matter on which properly elected parliamentarians in Scotland should be able to decide? They are mature people. We do not know best. They should be able to make up their minds on these questions. These social, moral and ethical issues are matters upon which people reflect and which they consider in great detail.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, it leads to some inconsistencies in different legislatures. That is already true throughout Europe today. Unless we wish to move to a pan-European approach to these matters—for which I do not believe anyone would seriously argue—surely the argument for subsidiarity is better. We should move to a situation such as is outlined in this admirable amendment. It trusts Scottish people to decide on these matters for themselves. In other words, if we are serious about devolution, we should support the amendment that is before the House.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. We on these Benches are consistent in our attitudes. I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that in the past 20 years matters have moved in a sinister way. We have seen the extraordinary events in America; doctors who legally practise abortion have been shot and killed by the so-called "pro-life" lobby. That movement is growing in this country. For that reason this needs to be a United Kingdom matter, quite apart from the cross-Border traffic that might evolve.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who was once my noble friend, that I suspect his motives, in that he wants a smaller field within which to operate. The

211
noble Lord is against abortion in any form whatever. That being the case, although, all things being equal, I should prefer this matter to be in the hands of the Scottish people, in the present event I have no doubt that it should remain a United Kingdom responsibility.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we return to the issue of abortion and the linked issue of euthanasia after an extensive discussion in Committee. The Committee decisively rejected the very proposition that is before the House now.
Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on a point he advanced. In Committee on 27th July we discussed the linkage between abortion and euthanasia. That is not a new matter. It was discussed extensively on 27th July (Hansard, col. 1305).
I also refer noble Lords to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, at the end of that debate. He said:
"I do not believe that we would gain anything by having a revisitation of this issue at Report stage. For that reason, having had a good debate and having had Members opposite not only exercising their consciences but exercising their common sense and their individual judgment, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee".— [Official Report, 27/7/98; col. 1307.]
He did so, and the Committee decided. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is satisfied to rest on the opinion of the House as expressed in Committee. I should have hoped that we could all have done that.
I can be relatively brief. I have listened carefully to the views of all noble Lords. However, I fail to detect any new argument from those that were deployed at an earlier stage. I fully appreciate that abortion is an issue of great sensitivity and significance in Scotland and one which rouses deep emotions on both sides of the argument. But it is important to recognise at the outset of our debate today that we are not discussing the rights or wrongs of the current law on abortion. What we are considering is where legislative responsibility should lie for an issue which, while of great significance to the people of Scotland, is of similar importance to people south of the Border.
The desirability of this wider (Great Britain) perspective was recognised in the Abortion Act 1967 which, as noble Lords know, extends to Scotland. We believe that this common approach to abortion, which has endured for over 30 years now in Scotland, England and Wales, is right. In practical terms, we recognise that we have argued the case for devolution in terms of the type of argument explained by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. We have argued on the basis of which matters should be reserved and devolved—on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, terms "the big issue". I describe it as a more principled approach. Matters of health are devolved, as is much of the criminal law. However, we have recognised that there are areas of the criminal law which should be reserved, and that has been accepted by the whole House without Division. I refer to the misuse of drugs, firearms and treason. We have already decided, for good reasons, that those three areas of the criminal law should not be
212
devolved. If good reasons can be adduced as to why abortion should not be devolved, that does not in itself run contrary to the approach that we have adopted.
Having set out a principled approach, particularly in relation to devolving health issues in general, the burden of the argument rests with those of us who wish to maintain the reservation of abortion; it is for us to make the case. That case can be made briefly, but powerfully and persuasively. It is simply this. If in the future there were to be a considerable difference in the abortion law north and south of the Border and that in itself produced a significant cross-Border trade of women seeking abortion, that would be regarded as offensive by public opinion. That is the case that I make. It is the case upon which I rely. I recognise that it is not drawn from some high principle. It is drawn merely from a feeling that our fellow citizens would find it basically unacceptable that there was a cross-Border trade in women seeking abortion within Great Britain. On that basis, I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in the debate. First, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that had my amendment been out of order, I doubt whether the Clerks would have accepted it. Secondly, although we discussed euthanasia last time, the linkage is important. A little consistency is needed from the Government. Thirdly—this addresses the Minister's remark that there were no new arguments—the arguments advanced by the Government on 5th October on the Northern Ireland Bill seem to introduce a totally new dimension. I do not believe that the noble Baronesses Lady Gould and Lady Lockwood took part in that debate and said to their noble friend Lord Dubs that they disagreed with his assertion that the abortion law should follow the criminal law, which is the Government's clearly stated position, on the record. All I ask for is consistency. That position should apply to Scotland, as well.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Lord knows the constitutional situation in Northern Ireland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, devolution throughout all parts of the United Kingdom is on exactly the same principle. The Government have decided not to devolve the criminal law to Northern Ireland currently but have made it clear that, when they do devolve it, the abortion law will go with it. The arguments with regard to Northern Ireland should be the same for Scotland and vice versa.
My noble friend Lord Renton made the point that Scots law has a long tradition of being different from English law. The Scottish parliament is being set up to legislate on a wide variety of matters. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that she believed in devolution, it did not sound like it. This very large Bill, which we have now been discussing in Committee and on Report for 14 days, contains a vast number of important issues which we Scots shall decide for ourselves in Edinburgh. I believe that abortion should be one of them.

213
If noble Lords will not support me on the first amendment, I look forward to their supporting me on the second amendment. The noble Viscount said that euthanasia is not a matter on which there are currently laws. In fact, it is illegal and so serious laws apply to it. I think the noble Viscount meant that there were not laws which allowed for euthanasia in certain circumstances. While that may be the case, there is a great deal of discussion on the subject. In the countries of some of our European friends laws already exist which allow for euthanasia in very limited circumstances. There are vigorous lobbies both for and against in this country—by which I mean both England and Scotland. It is very possible that in the next few years legislatures will have to address these issues. If the House does not think that abortion can be trusted to the Scottish parliament, I suggest that nor can euthanasia. I therefore invite the opinion of the House on the first amendment and, dependent on the result, I shall invite the opinion of the House on the second amendment.
7.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 219) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Luke, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Biddulph, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Buscombe, B.

Monson, L.

Chesham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Norton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Patten, L.

Dundee, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Forbes, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sempill, L.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Home, E.

Stewartby, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Teviot, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kingsland, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Waddington, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Wynford, L.

214

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Addington, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ahmed, L

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Alli, L.

Kintore, E.

Amos, B.

Levy, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Bach, L.

Lockwood, B.

Balfour, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Barnett, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Berners, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Borrie, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Maddock, B.

Carlisle, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Monkswell, L.

Chandos, V.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Christopher, L.

Montrose, D.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Newby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Northfield, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Orme, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dholakia, L.

Razzall, L.

Dixon, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rowallan, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Flather, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Geraint, L.

Sewel, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Goodhart, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Goudie, B.

Stair, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strange, B.

Grey, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hacking, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hardie, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thornton, B.

Haskel, L.

Thurso, V.

Hayman, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Uddin, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Varley, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Warner, L.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 84, line 33, at end insert—

SECTION 6—EUTHANASIA ETC.
Reservation
Euthanasia.
The approval, refusal of approval, or withholding of medical treatment and health care.
The granting or withholding of consent to medical treatment and healthcare on behalf of patients who are incapable of making their own decisions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the sake of consistency and to allow noble Lords to be consistent, I shall seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
7.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 220) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Berners, B.

Marlesford, L.

Biddulph, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blatch, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Buscombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Chesham, L.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Patten, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Rowallan, L.

Forbes, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sharples, B.

Home, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Strange, B.

Iveagh, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Kingsland, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Vivian, L.

Luke, L.

Waddington, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Acton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Addington, L.

Astor, V.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Alli, L.

Balfour, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Barnett, L.

Amos, B.

Blackstone, B.

216

Blease, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Levy, L.

Burlison, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Christopher, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Maddock, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Craigavon, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Currie of Marylebone,L.

Monkswell, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Northfield, L.

Dholakia, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Parry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Razzall, L.

Flather, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Richard, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Grey, E.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hacking, L.

Stair, E.

Hardie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thornton, B.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Thurso, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hoyle, L.

Uddin, B.

Hughes, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Warner, L.

Hylton, L.

Whitty, L.

Islwyn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 9.1 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Service Helplines
8.1 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their long-term policy towards helplines in the field of health services.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, helplines have become synonymous with the upwardly mobile society of today. The better educated we become and the better health we enjoy, the more help we require from anonymous people at the end of a phone. All sections of our modern society—old and young, rich and poor—have problems, and we all know someone with more problems than ourselves. There has been a proliferation of new helplines to deal with every problem imaginable. Some are government led and funded; others are privately run and financed by charities. But all provide a vital service for many, many people too frightened, concerned or embarrassed to confront someone on a face to face basis.
The Department of Health runs 16 helplines, the best known of which are Childline, drinkline, aidsline and drugsline, but, interestingly, does not provide any service for the many people who want access to alternative medicines. The Government have also started up NHS Direct, a 24-hour advice line staffed by nurses and intended to cover the entire country by the millennium. Fourteen million pounds was spent on the pilot schemes in Milton Keynes, Preston and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. This year, £35 million is being put into the second phase covering 13 new areas and a further 19 million people. This month it has been announced that a single telephone line service is being installed at a cost of £4 million to put patients in touch with the full range of NHS services.
But is all this taxpayers' money being well spent? According to the Health Service Journal on 30th July this year,
"It is unclear how the new service fits in with existing primary care and information services offering telephone advice".
It seems that there were only 4,000 calls to the three pilots in 10 weeks. That is a very low uptake, being only 25 to 60 calls a day. Furthermore, when people were asked about the service in the pilot areas they said that they would use it for the following reasons: to get medical advice on minor ailments; to get medical advice if the GP was not present; to get advice as to whether they should go to accident and emergency, or the surgery; to get advice on self-help groups; to get information on patients' rights; or to get a second opinion. But they also said that they did not want the service if it took away from existing health services and that they would prefer to see a doctor in the first place. So there was not an enormous amount of enthusiasm from the public in these pilot areas, except for the secondary matters of health.
So could it be that the speed of the planned growth of NHS Direct suggests that the fulfilment of political promises precedes rigorous evaluation; or is it that the research is aimed at clarifying not whether NHS Direct develops but how? If this service is to develop, it must be at a very fast level for both the service itself and its
218
nurses, both of whom will be on a steep learning curve. First, they must ensure that the service is safe and effective, especially in regard to the best processes to be used regarding which decision support software works best. Secondly, they must ensure that the service develops national standards rather than fragmented regional ones. Thirdly, they must ensure that the service is an integral part of the NHS itself. Fourthly, they must ensure that the service gives help to all. It must be wary of providing a service to those who do not need it because it is using such high technology. Fifthly, it must develop into more than just a helpline. It must become a forerunner for the future NHS whereby the system provides convenient and reliable interactive gateways to health and other welfare services such as managing chronic diseases, dispensing prescriptions and booking hospital appointments.
But—and this is the core question I am asking in this debate tonight—can and should this service be developed at the expense of, or separately to, the existing specialised helpline services already run privately by charities at great expense, with volunteers of enormous skill and specialised knowledge; or should it be integrated with them to provide a new dynamic package of care for those who need it?
I must declare an interest as a director of Sane, the mental health charity. I must also say how pleased we are to have a maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, whose contribution I much look forward to hearing; and I should like to say how delighted I am that five other noble Lords will be expressing their views on this vital subject.
There are approximately 1,000 existing helplines in the United Kingdom. In the field of health there are 108 dealing with general health matters, 53 with mental health problems, 140 with disabilities and 60 with sexual problems. I wish to concentrate on two of these helplines—Saneline and the Samaritans. Both work very well together and both provide a 365 day service, taking nearly 5 million calls a year between them. But both are being undercut by government funding going to new charities.
Saneline is not a referral service. It is committed to providing accurate and up-to-date information on options of care available in their own area. Callers who ring are stayed with throughout the time needed for the necessary help and support to be provided. Discipline is ensured by helpers, who get paid expenses only, each of whom receives 40 hours of training before starting work—a longer time than a good many social workers receive in the mental health field. Callers are put into a network of care and calls are followed up by a visit and/or a call back the following day. There are an average of 70,000 people phoning each year, averaging 800 hours a month of one-to-one contact. It costs Sane £900,000 a year to run. That is only three times what we are told the initial government investment in CALM—the Campaign Against Living Miserably—cost for its three month pilot scheme, which was restricted to Manchester and to 15 to 25 year-old men. As Sane already provides a specialised service for this group of people, I am forced to ask which organisation provides the better service and the better value.
I ask the Minister to tell the House how she envisages that the nurses who are running NHS Direct will have the necessary knowledge to advise in anything other than generalised terms. It is obvious to me, and it should be obvious to this Government, that specialised nurses would be needed; and as there is a shortage of them already, where are they to come from? We certainly cannot afford to take them away from the frontline in the hospitals.
The latest government statement suggested that 15,000 nurses would be required to help run their current planned helplines, and this despite the current recruitment and retention crisis. So how can NHS Direct be serviced? If you are not providing specialisation, what happens if incorrect information is given? How many ordinary nurses know that 16 Lithium are fatal or that seven Paracetamol can kill; what drugs react badly with other drugs; and what are the side-effects of the new drugs coming on to the market? They are coming on all the time. They cannot, but Saneline's information data base of 13,000 records, which is continually updated, has all the information at the touch of a button for the carer, the doctor and the caller.
So why are CALM and NHS Direct created when the system to help these targeted people is already in place with a proven track record? This is duplication and may be a misuse of funds from other mental health services and the NHS generally. So I must ask whether the Government intend to audit the objectives, standards, outcomes and value for money given by both CALM and NHS Direct.
I turn to the Samaritans, which has been in existence since 1953. With 204 branches and 20,500 volunteers, it is the biggest of all helplines. It receives 4.5 million calls a year, of which 67 per cent. are from people contemplating suicide, and spends 3.3 million hours on the phone. It costs more than £1 million each year to run. Of all those calls, nearly 27,000 come from prisoners. They help to stop many suicides each year. The Government want them to continue to do that and yet they will not give them any help with funding the splendid work that they do. Recruitment is difficult. Now that the Government are intent on poaching volunteers and staff to the new lines that they are promoting and duplicating it will become harder.
I ask the Minister to answer the following questions. First, what are the Government's intentions with regard to the provision of helpline services for health-related matters and in particular the provision of emotional support for those in crisis taking into account the existing services and back-ups provided by the existing charities? Secondly, why is it no longer appropriate to provide financial assistance from central funds and Section 64 funding in particular in support of core costs for large existing and established voluntary organisations such as the Samaritans and SANE when at the same time the Government expect such organisations to play an active role in reducing suicides and improve the nation's mental health? Thirdly, are the Government prepared to acknowledge and use the significant resource that is available from the voluntary section to help achieve an improvement in the nation's
220
health, mental and physical, and well being? Fourthly, are the Government aware of the need for a carefully co-ordinated strategy to address the incidence of suicide which in 1997 accounted for 5,712 deaths in Great Britain and untold distress for those who have been bereaved in this way? Fifthly, do the Government intend to keep on seeking new providers through advertising in obscure journals such as the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities and under the auspices of the Central Office of Information without contacting existing experts in these fields in order to give them a chance to bid for the franchise that they offer? Sixthly, can the privately financed charities have a guarantee that it is worth their while continuing to exist and to raise finances or do the Government intend to take over their functions? It is vital that those questions are answered in order that the existing charities can forward plan and budget. If the volunteers of the Samaritans and SANE were paid half the minimum wage that the Government have introduced, which would put them well below the poverty line, the cost to the nation would be over £14 million a year.
I earnestly request the Minister to work together with the established charities to provide for the health of our nation in a concerted and co-operative way but not in the confrontational and fragmented way that many of the charities feel is happening at the present time. I look forward to the noble Baroness's reply with great interest.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, there are many traditions in this House. One of them is to feel nervous when making a maiden speech. I am not always a true believer in tradition, but I can confirm that this is a tradition that I am already following. Indeed, I now better understand that old story of the young boy who was taken by his father to an art gallery where they stopped in front of a large picture of "Daniel in the Lion's Den". And the little boy said, "Daddy, why is Daniel smiling?" and his father replied, "Well, you see, he doesn't have to speak during the dinner hour".
I take this opportunity to say how grateful I am to all of your Lordships for making me feel so welcome and to express my thanks to the staff of the House for being so helpful and supportive. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for tabling his very interesting Question, thereby giving me the opportunity to intervene this evening.
I should declare my interest in this matter. I am a non-executive director of the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust and the LAS has been chosen to organise one of the second-wave NHS direct pilots. I should also record that I was until last month director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and for a time was a trustee of the Help for Health Trust which runs some of the existing telephone health information services.
It is a truism that information is power. I hope it will not be taken in the wrong way by those of your Lordships who are or have been medical practitioners when I say that even now too many patients feel

221
patronised by the professionals they encounter in the health service. However, whether those professionals like it or not patients are becoming empowered. The information revolution is going on around them. Patients are becoming better informed. They have access to more information and more sources of information. Some people already go into the consulting room having self-diagnosed themselves and already considered treatment options. They arrive in the presence of the doctor ready to negotiate their treatment—and, what is more, are capable of doing so. This will becoming increasingly common.
Medicine is not some mediaeval alchemy whose truths are jealously guarded by the lucky few inducted into its mysteries; nor even is it high science whose intricacies can be grasped only by a tiny minority. Much of the aura of medicine—hence much of the inequality between doctor and patient—is created by a differential access to information. We will see a gradual change in the role of the professional. When we go to see our doctor in the future we will not be consulting her or him as the provider of information about our condition, but increasingly our doctor will be the person who explains and interprets that information. That will change quite dramatically the balance of power between provider and user of services. Yet that is the direction in which the NHS must go, with the individual service user being an equal partner in determining his own care. That is why developments such as NHS Direct are so important. Not only is the service available whenever patients want it—24 hours a day and 365 days a year—but I also believe that it will help to reduce the burden on over-stretched GPs, hospital casualty departments and ambulance services. Patients will be able to get direct advice quickly and easily.
My understanding is that more than three-quarters of those who have rung the pilot NHS Direct lines have been advised to act differently from their pre-call intention. In many cases this has meant that a GP has not had to be called out, an emergency ambulance summoned, or time taken up in a busy accident and emergency department. There have also been cases—the converse, if you like—where it has been necessary to advise people to take more urgent action than would otherwise have been their intention. That is about potentially saving lives.
As I have no doubt already tried the patience of your Lordships with the length of this speech, I conclude with four questions that I hope the Minister can address later. First, what consideration is being given to meeting the needs of those with language difficulties or those for whom English is not their first language? Secondly, is it the intention that NHS Direct will in time supersede the existing telephone health information services—I do not mean simply those to which the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, referred—or will they continue and operate in parallel? I believe that there would be benefits for patients if that happened. Thirdly, is it envisaged that patients and patients' representatives will be involved in evaluating the pilots and advising on the development of the service? Finally, as NHS Direct becomes a national
222
service in the year 2000, what plans are there for publicising the service and will there be a single phone number for the country as a whole?
8.17 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on his excellent and thoughtful speech. His record in public service is second to none and we hope that in your Lordships' House he will have many more opportunities to make a contribution. I am well aware of his involvement in race relations. I am delighted that he identified one of these subjects in his speech. He was a member of the Home Secretary's Race Relations Advisory Committee. I am also involved in the field of mental health and am aware of his work in that sphere. I hope that he will be interested in what I have to say about the issues relating to race and the helplines. I give one word of warning to the noble Lord. I hope that he does not support his local team, Tottenham Hotspur. It is not a team that I support. If he does so, I shall be very unkind to him on future occasions.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for this important debate. Some time ago the noble Lord and I discussed this subject and we agreed on the need for a clear strategy on helplines. In a free and democratic society information plays a very important part and yet access to information is bound to be fairly limited. We are living proof of a society where at the touch of a few buttons on a computer we have access to information that would not have been possible a few years ago.
But there is a downside to the availability of information when it concerns the most intimate or personal details of individuals. Service providers are stretched to the limit and time constraints allow only limited access to those on whom we rely for such information. Often voluntary organisations are left to pick up the pieces because of limitations on service providers in the statutory sector. In almost all areas of public life the Government's strategy often relies upon the voluntary services to fill gaps left by the statutory agencies. No one can dispute that large numbers of voluntary organisations, in this case in the field of health, provide guidance and support by way of helplines. This involves the adequate training of volunteers and staff but also the production of printed information which is helpful to callers.
I have had a number of discussions with voluntary agencies working in the mental health field. It is all very well to equip organisations to start up a service by providing core grants. Saneline deals with a quarter of a million calls made by 70,000 people. The resource implications must be enormous, but there is a bottom line to such funding organisations receiving core grants, having established services, are now expected to be self-funding.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will have more to say later on, but let me stress that the need for helpline services in the field of health is relevant to all sections of the community.
Britain is a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. The ethnic minority population forms about 5 per cent. of our total population. People from various parts of the

223
world have made this country their homeland. Their welfare needs and language differ from the indigenous population. More importantly they have shared needs, special needs and separate needs in the field of health. Some of the health issues affect one or the other groups. Their comparatively short stay in this society does not lead them to use services with which they are not familiar. We need to establish that helplines cater adequately for their needs by providing services that are easily accessible and making sure that provision is made to use and train volunteers from these communities who are able to communicate with them.
Perhaps I may give an example. It is not directly relevant to the helpline in the health services but to racial attacks and racial incidents, of which there are an estimated 130,000 a year. Police forces were concerned about the low level of reporting. In a number of areas helplines were set up and manned by people with different languages. Suddenly, the level of reporting rose because people had confidence in being able to communicate in their own languages. The same applies in health services.
I believe that the effective provision of helpline services should attempt to meet the needs of our various communities by providing help, advice and literature in the language they understand. More importantly, it should cater for the needs of refugees, who are often the victims of serious human rights abuses and are desperately seeking help and advice relating to their health problems.
The gist of my case is that helplines can provide a crucial service to people with special needs, and in particular those who are under stress. Helplines could provide information not only to individuals with health needs but also to friends and relatives. Much more use should be made of ethnic press, radio and television programmes so that services are well advertised and easy to access.
What we require is a clear government strategy which provides a service of the necessary quality and which addresses the needs of all sections of our community. There ought to be adequate funding which will assist not only the survival but also the growth of voluntary helplines which are important for success in this field. There ought not to be duplication of services which are already provided and which afford a high standard of public satisfaction. Scarce resources ought not to be wasted.
Helplines, as demonstrated in other parts of the world, are a new and exciting service. We ought to build on the strength of existing organisations which have a proven track record in this field.
8.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, my diocese covers a varied area of the West Midlands with a population of more than 2.5 million. It includes, for example, the Wolverhampton and Black Country together with the Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme conurbations. It also includes county towns such as Stafford and Shrewsbury, together
224
with the many farming communities stretching from the Peak District in north Staffordshire to places such as Oswestry on the Welsh border. Some are remote communities.
I believe that, in principle, those who are aware of the helplines in the field of health services are strongly in favour of the kind of evidence which, for instance, the Health Minister, Mr. Milburn, shared with members of GP co-operatives at the conference in Warwick last month. It was evidence which the BMA also welcomed, though rightly insisting that it should be carefully evaluated; evidence, too, which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, the Health Service Journal confirmed as broadly favourable. For example, at Warwick the Minister was able to tell us—and here I wish to be a little more positive about the pilot schemes and the evidence—that in the first three months of helpline pilot schemes 15,000 calls were made to the three NHS Direct pilot centres. Even more importantly, following the advice from trained nurses over the helplines, 30 per cent. of the callers were able to look after themselves at home rather than having to attend a GP's surgery or local casualty department. Surely that fact means a saving of NHS money and time and, as the previous speaker mentioned, avoids unnecessary stress on hard-pressed GPs.
I understand that in 200 cases callers needed emergency help, even though they were unaware of that when they first picked up the helpline, a point to which both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred. At Warwick the Minister rightly claimed that a health service helpline can be a life saver. I also note that the helpline call centre equipment not only provides the means for patients and nurses or a doctor to talk to each other, but also allows for clinical decision support software to be used by the nurses as an aid in assessing and recording patients' symptoms in line with previous calls.
Other good considerations support the helplines trend in the health services. For example, primary care is available only at three access points; our GP, the casualty department of a local hospital or by dialling 999 for an ambulance. But, alas, as many of us know, an appointment with our GP may take a week or 10 days to arrange. A visit to a casualty department often involves a very long wait, as I have found. And many people do not want to call an ambulance on 999.
Sometimes the doctors tell us that we are not as seriously ill as we supposed. Talking through symptoms over a helpline can help us to realise that there is no immediate need for medical attention. Reassurance may be all that is required.
Furthermore, many families no longer live in close proximity and family advice is often no longer available. In many of the rural areas of my diocese transport services are few and far between. As I said, many people are unwilling to telephone for ambulances. Only last weekend I was speaking to a middle aged lady who cared for a very aged mother. The mother started an alarmingly bad nosebleed at three o'clock in the morning. They did not want to call an ambulance; they needed a health service helpline with the wise advice of a trained doctor or nurse.

225
As we know, owing to increasing workloads, many GPs are frequently unavailable at weekends. We also hear of the alarming shortage of medical students. In fact, many medical practices are already offering their own health helplines in order to reduce the mounting workload.
A member of my own family has been suffering from Alzheimer's disease for the past 12 years. Because of the excellent work of our GPs, district nurses and care assistants, we are able to look after her at home. But not long ago she developed a chest infection which in turn triggered a severe convulsion. The convulsion caused a perforation of her bowel, which led to severe breathing difficulties which I did not understand. As a GP was not available on that occasion, I was obliged to wait five hours for a deputy doctor who arrived just before midnight. I was reluctant to ring for an ambulance as I did not know how serious her condition was. After another five-hour wait she was admitted at 6 a.m. the next day, some 12 or so hours wait in total. I believe that an NHS helpline with a trained nurse or doctor would have helped us greatly.
A further encouraging factor, which we have already heard from noble Lords is the proven value of the voluntary sector. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: As chairman of SANE, I naturally wish to give added strength to the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Rowallan who so splendidly introduced this debate.
Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that, yes, a helpline for the National Health Service is a good idea, but we are talking about helplines for the mentally ill. He was talking of wider issues. I know that he mentioned Alzheimer's disease, but nose bleeds are a different problem.
My connections with charities date from when I succeeded my mother as president of the NSPCC on the Isle of Wight. At that time, in the late 1970s, I wondered why we still needed charities to look after children. Were not the social workers, who had been established some 30 years before, going to do that? The answer was, "No, they cannot do it by themselves". One of the great features of the NSPCC which I discovered before I even touched on mental health is that it was able to be experimental, try new methods and help children ab initio without the public feeling that by going to it they were going to "auntie government". There is a reluctance by people to put their problems in the hands of government officials of whatever sort. That has nothing to do with party politics. People turn more readily to organisations such as the NSPCC than to social workers.
It is also a fact that, excellent though many social workers are, they are not quite so free to give treatment and to refer cases up the line quickly if they want to deviate from the norm. I discovered that that splendid charity, which had been in existence then for nearly 100 years and which is now much older than that, had a job to do in filling a gap. It still has that job to do and does it very well.
226
I was asked to look after the interests in this House of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. I readily backed that because it was a charity that had been created from the ground up. It had not been imposed by worthy people from above. I saw the possibilities of that charity because it could deal with matters flexibly. The Department of Health, in the early 1980s, was not really stuck into the problems of the mentally ill in the way that it had been involved with the mentally handicapped. It was doing its best but the mentally ill were a problem. People were trying to reduce the number of hospital beds because they had been told that would be a good idea. The whole matter seemed to me to be difficult.
I turn to SANE, an association of which I became chairman some 12 years ago. SANE started its Saneline because it received a lot of publicity. Its superb chief executive, Marjory Wallace, is a great publicist, apart from being a great fundraiser and a highly intelligent person who can pick up matters quickly when the need arises. We discovered that people ringing our ordinary telephone number wanted help, so we formed the helpline. Then we discovered that they needed more information than that with which we could easily put them in touch, so we developed a database. That database is unique in its form. I think that my noble friend Lord Rowallan touched on that. If he did not, I expect that the Minister knows enough about this matter to know that it is a uniquely well-balanced database manned by volunteers. Another aspect of helplines run by charities is that they are run, as far as possible, by volunteers on a day-to-day basis, with a few experts available for back-up where needed. That is the basis upon which the Samaritans was founded. That is a terribly good aspect of helplines.
We have a particularly good helpline which needs to be developed, not squashed. I believe that we should be encouraged to develop it more by having some of the extra money that I heard on television this evening is to be given to the Department of Health by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That could be a good investment. As the right reverend Prelate indicated, if our helpline were given the support it needs, the health service could be spared trouble and expense.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the initiation of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the valuable contribution of other noble Lords. In particular, I welcome what I thought was a shrewd contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
My involvement with helplines stems from CancerBACUP, founded by my late wife, Dr. Vicky Clement-Jones. She was a bright, young 32 year old medical registrar and endocrinologist at Barts Hospital who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 1982. During the five remaining years of her life, she devoted herself to setting up CancerBACUP and its telephone Cancer Information Service. In its first 10 years of existence from 1985, when CancerBACUP was officially launched, it dealt with a quarter of a million telephone inquiries. It now deals with something like 45,000 inquiries a year and sends out some quarter of a million

227
booklets. Yet, with 6,000 new diagnoses each week, if one other carer is included, it is reaching less than 10 per cent. of people who could benefit. CancerBACUP would certainly like to do much more to meet the need.
Vicky's motto was always, "Information is the antidote to fear". As a result, both CancerBACUP and I welcome the announcement of NHS Direct in last year's White Paper. In principle, I welcome the Government's commitment to roll out NHS Direct across the country and their resource commitment of something like £100 million annually. I also welcome the statements in Information for Health, the new NHS information strategy, that NHS Direct could be the stepping stone to a much wider future of telemedicine and telecare.
It is clear, however, that there are a number of concerns voiced by professionals and the voluntary sector in relation to NHS Direct which need to be allayed. Many of them have been expressed by noble Lords. Above all, there is the question of the relationship between NHS Direct and the specialist voluntary sector helplines. It is vital that NHS Direct works alongside existing voluntary sector helplines. It needs to make sure that optimum cross-referral to specialist services, whether for mental health problems, cancer or asthma, takes place, that duplication is avoided and that genuine co-working takes place. Only if NHS Direct sees its role as that of a gateway, not necessarily as a final point of destination, will the right relationship be built. NHS Direct must maximise the value of existing quality helpline resources in the voluntary sector.
If NHS Direct is used as a gateway, particularly if common telecommunications are used, the quality of service, both for NHS Direct and the voluntary sector, will be vital. They must operate within the same quality framework.
There are some 1,000 voluntary helplines across the UK but their quality differs widely. With the advent of NHS Direct, some kind of kite-marking or accreditation is needed which could follow the guidelines of good practice in telephone work drawn up by the Telephone Helplines Association. In that regard, as many noble Lords will know, the issue of confidentiality is absolutely vital.
Those helplines which are of sufficient quality, but only if they are, should be able to enter into service-level agreements with NHS Direct to provide specialist information, support and advice on referral. I would go further. For example, could not the Department of Health pilot arrangements between NHS Direct and suitable helplines over the next couple of years?
There are many other issues apart from those on which there is only time to touch briefly. Current funding of non-NHS helplines looks somewhat random. The information which the Department of Health has given me recently shows that that appears to be the case. What were the criteria for support of those helplines? I understand that the interim reports on the first pilots will be published by the Department of Health this
228
December. But do we yet know enough about NHS Direct's effect on primary care services? Will it build on the extremely successful Wiltshire trial and the University of Southampton research? Why is the NHS not already developing draft national guidelines or protocols? At present, that will happen only at the beginning of the year 2000. Should not the second phase pilots be working next year, with draft national guidelines?
Will the £100 million pledge cover all the costs of those helplines of NHS Direct or will local trusts be expected to cover some of the costs? What are the recruitment implications? Those were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. There are estimates, which he mentioned, that another 15,000 nurses will be needed to provide a full national service for NHS Direct. In the face of a major recruitment crisis, with 8,000 nursing vacancies, will sufficient nurses be available to staff the service?
In the light of all the above, is the December 2000 deadline for national roll-out realistic? If those issues are resolved in time, I should be extremely happy to make sure that in due course NHS Direct becomes the third best-known telephone number in the country; that is, after people's home telephone numbers and 999. But the last thing any of us wants is for the service to fail because of over-hasty implementation and a lack of clear vision as to where it fits in with the voluntary sector.
8.43 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rowallan deserves our thanks for presenting us with an opportunity to debate a subject which is both topical and of considerable interest to many in the medical world and outside. He covered a great deal of ground in his speech but I should like to underline and pursue one of the things which he touched on; namely, the development of NHS Direct.
NHS Direct was announced in last year's White Paper—The New NHS. The first wave of pilots in Milton Keynes, Northumbria and Preston was launched in late March 1998. It is a nurse-led scheme designed to act as a triage and information helpline for anyone wanting medical advice who lives within the scheme's designated area.
There is no doubt that such a scheme offers tremendous potential for fast-tracking patients to the advice or service which they need and for relieving the burden on GPs' surgeries. I welcome the fact that NHS Direct is nurse-led. As the Minister will know, the RCN has taken part in a three-year study with the University of Southampton to determine the safety and effectiveness of a nurse-led, out-of-hours telephone service. The results of that study, which were most encouraging, were published in the British Medical Journal on 17th October.
Emerging from that will be guidance on good practice for nurse telephone consultations and I am advised by the RCN that that guidance will be relevant to both NHS and privately operated services, including specialist health advice lines. The wish and aim of the RCN is to

229
see a common standard applied both within the NHS and the independent sector to ensure that callers receive the right care in the right place at the right time.
Those developments are both welcome and timely. The RCN and Southampton University are to be congratulated on a useful and very satisfactory study. However, the leader of the research team stressed a key point; that to repeat the results achieved, the service must be planned and managed properly using experienced and specially trained nurses. That is where I return to NHS Direct. Thirteen second-wave pilots for NHS Direct have already been designated and we now understand that a third wave, bringing the national coverage to 60 per cent., will go live in February 2000.
That begs a very large question: what analysis and evaluation have been carried out on the three initial pilots to validate and inform the setting up of the second and third waves? It appears that the Department of Health has chosen not to wait for the results of the first three pilots before rolling out the scheme on a very much wider scale. On what basis has that been done? At the very least, we need to have a clear picture of the number of patients directed to their GP or to an A&E department and data on outcomes. To the extent that interrogation through NHS Direct results in an increase in the number of patients sent to GPs and A&E units, we need to know how appropriate those referrals turn out to be. If it emerges that most patients are ill and in need of attention, that is well and good. But if what is happening is simply that a greater number of worried well people are filling up surgeries and delaying examination of urgent and ill patients in hospital casualty departments, then very serious questions will need to be asked. We simply do not know.
I ask the Minister what measures of evaluation are being used by the Government to assess the cost-effectiveness of NHS Direct? What are the key tests for its success or failure? The Minister of State, Mr. Milburn, was quoted recently as claiming that NHS Direct is proving to be a lifesaver, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned. The apparent basis for that statement was that 220 callers to the service had been recommended to seek an ambulance even though the callers themselves had not recognised the urgency of their inquiries. But Mr. Milburn does not seem to have considered that either patients may be overplaying their symptoms on the telephone or the nurses may be adopting an extremely cautious approach. What matters for evaluation purposes is not whether the ambulance was called, but whether it was justified when the patient arrived at hospital.
GPs are worried that NHS Direct, far from reducing the workload in surgeries, may be increasing it unnecessarily. I am aware that primary care co-operatives in Preston and Milton Keynes have expressed their worries about a rise in inappropriate out-of-hours referrals and have voiced their impression that the nurses manning the helplines are working with flawed protocols which are being followed rigidly, with the result that there is no separation of the urgent cases from the non-urgent. I ask the Minister whether those worries are being taken seriously by her department and whether, in particular, the health authorities' steering
230
committees charged with rolling out the scheme across the country will be encouraged to take the opinions of local GPs fully into account as they proceed.
As the RCN has emphasised, the key to success is thorough and appropriate nurse training. I should be grateful for any information which the Minister can give me on the training that nurses are receiving.
There is also another dimension; that is, the long-term effect of NHS Direct on GP co-operatives. A few weeks ago, the Government made the welcome announcement of an increase in funding for the out-of-hours development fund in England. As the Minister will be aware, there are increasing calls on that fund from a growing number of GP co-operatives. It is highly valued. Yet she will know also that fears persist among GPs that that money may be diverted to fund the expansion of NHS Direct. Can she offer any reassurance on that point?
I believe that NHS Direct and GP out-of-hours co-operatives should be regarded as complementary services. If triage nurses were linked directly with doctors available to provide emergency advice and visits, that would indeed make for a seamless and fast-track service. But that is not how NHS Direct is being set up. By and large, it operates independently of co-operatives. I repeat, I believe NHS Direct to be a service with great potential if handled properly, but it appears to have been rushed and, so far at least, it seems to be fuelling unnecessary demands rather than managing existing demand better. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some reassurance.
8.49 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for initiating tonight's short debate which, although it has been short, has been of high quality. It is certainly proving a challenge in terms of responding in 12 minutes to all the issues that have been raised. I shall do my best to answer most of the questions, but perhaps I may write to noble Lords on those questions that I am forced to leave out because of shortage of time.
We also should be grateful to the noble Lord for eliciting a very thoughtful and well-judged maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. He comes to this House with the strongest of track records, both in local government and in the health service. His contribution tonight made us aware why he has that track record. He made us all look forward to the ongoing contribution he can make to the proceedings of this House.
Many issues have been raised tonight about the general strategy regarding helplines. There has been some very specific focusing, particularly in the area of helplines in the voluntary sector and those dealing particularly with mental health services.
As a Government we are committed to providing health services that are fast, convenient and responsive. We recognise the crucial role which good information and advice have to play in helping patients and their carers to manage successfully the consequences of

231
illness as well as to ensure more appropriate and effective use of services and to help reduce inappropriate demands on the NHS.
Information can help to bridge the gap between professional knowledge and patient anxiety. I take on board the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we must have some quality assurance about the information provided. I believe that he will be reassured by the focus on the new information strategy for the NHS; that is, the importance of making sure that quality assurance in relation to health and illness is maintained.
The telephone has a particularly crucial role to play in helping to improve our access information. It is far from being a new medium. However, it has reached the stage in the UK where it is virtually a universal medium and where most of us are increasingly familiar with using the telephone to access information and services on a variety of issues. However, I take note of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we have to make sure that we relate to the whole population and that we provide telephone services that are accessible, particularly to newcomers who do not have the same kind of experience with telephone information services—for example, refugees. There has to be some sensitivity to those issues and to issues affecting ethnic groups.
I was at the Royal College of Nursing yesterday at the Mary Secole Awards. It was interesting to hear a past award winner talk about her project with patients in Sickle Cell Crisis. She referred to the number of calls she had received which had nothing to do with Sickle Cell Crisis. About 25 per cent. related to general health issues. Perhaps I should not mention the 2 per cent. of calls that were from people asking for their shopping to be done. I can identify with that as well.
As has been pointed out in the debate tonight, a wide range of telephone helplines operate in the health field and do an excellent job providing access to information, advice and reassurance. The Department of Health supports wholly or in part over 20 telephone helplines, which cover a wide range of health issues. High profile services have been mentioned such as Childline, national AIDS and Drugs Helplines. We also provide support for the National Asthma Helpline and Quitline, offering confidential and practical help on giving up smoking. We know also of the very fine work that is done by organisations like Cancer BACUP and of course, because of the particular commitments of the noble Lords, Lord Rowallan and Lord Mottistone, the service offered by Saneline. The Government very much welcome the valuable work done by organisations such as SANE and the Samaritans in providing telephone support and advice to people with mental health problems. They do an excellent job and help a great many people, often in very difficult circumstances. I am very happy to pay tribute to that work today. Saneline meets a clearly established need which the Department of Health has recognised by providing funding of around £830,000 over the past five years, including £225,000 of direct help for Saneline. This year we are also contributing over £29,000 for the London Helpline for
232
management and volunteer training. Clearly, it is a valued service which we would all like to see continue and flourish.
Equally, we recognise the important role of the Samaritans, particularly at times of personal crisis or when people may be at risk of suicide. In their Healthier Nation Green Paper the Government pledged to commit themselves to improve the health of the nation and to address the incidence of suicide. We are proposing a target to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least one-sixth by the year 2010. If that is met, nearly 800 lives will be saved.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, asked whether we had the strategy in place. Focusing on high-risk groups is part of the Government action to reduce the overall suicide rate. Because of concern over suicide in certain high-risk occupational groups, particularly among farmers, the department has commissioned research into suicide and to self-harm in those groups in particular.
Noble Lords will have seen how much of tonight's debate has focused on the issue of NHS Direct, a new service which has been introduced, and its interaction with established and specialist services. I recognise the concerns which exist as regards the specialist services and the roll-out of the service and its evaluation. That has been mentioned by speakers on both Front Benches. I was particularly grateful for the welcome given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield to the service and his acknowledgement of the number of people and variety of circumstances that, by its generalist nature, NHS Direct is able to help.
We look to NHS Direct not only to use the technology to respond positively to the needs of patients, but to enable the public to make better use of NHS services. I am not as gloomy as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the possibilities of and potential for misuse. I believe that the potential for focusing people in the right places is enormous. If people have reassurance that they do not need to be in the A&E department at all, it means that those awaiting admission will have to wait a lot less than five hours. The NHS professionals can then concentrate their efforts where they are needed.
By next year we shall have launched a second wave of pilot areas and extended coverage to 20 million people, or more than 40 per cent. of the population. The second wave will include a number of major population areas, including the whole of Greater Manchester, most of the West Midlands conurbation and most of the West Country. In those pilot schemes we shall have to address the issues of the interface, particularly with local services directed at minority ethnic communities.
As regards the new pilot schemes which have been announced, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howe, that GP co-ops are involved in six of the 13 second-wave areas. In one case in west London they are providing a central call centre for the service. In others they are part of the hub-and-spoke model, with some out-station nurse triage in the GP co-ops, which are networked into a central call centre.
So we are looking very carefully at the possibilities of the interface between GP services and those offered by NHS Direct. We have to be careful that providing

233
a service in one place does not create greater demand elsewhere. I also have to evaluate carefully what is being done. The concept of a national network helpline is new and the first-wave pilot sites are being independently evaluated by the medical research unit at Sheffield University to explore how they operate, the benefits they bring, their costs, what effects they have on NHS services and the lessons that may be learnt for NHS Direct. We are taking a developmental approach, making sure that we learn the lessons and evaluate properly but at the same time do not lose the impetus of rolling out the programme which is necessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about accessibility for those with language difficulties and for whom English is not their first language. We are committed to ensuring that it is accessible for people with special communication needs. We want to see how the extensive work we need to undertake can best be organised within a national service.
We want to look too at the evaluation to make sure that patients and their representatives will be involved. Included in the membership of the National Advisory Group for NHS Direct are the patients association, the CHC chief officer as well as representatives of the mental health interests—to which I should now like to turn—and the interface between NHS Direct and the issue of specialist helplines.
We believe that, in the longer term, we fully expect there to be a continuing need for other specialist telephone services after NHS Direct has become established as a national service. Indeed, one of the advantages of NHS Direct will be a single and, over time, very well known telephone number which the public will recognise not only as a quick and reliable route to information and advice on a wide range of health issues—as the right reverend Prelate said—but also as a gateway to other services and other providers of information. It seems quite likely, therefore, that NHS Direct, far from taking over the role of specialist helplines, will have the effect of promoting them by referring more people on to them.
Thus, as NHS Direct develops, there will be the opportunity to build up links with other specialist helpline providers so that callers can be passed on seamlessly, in some cases without the need to redial, to other sources of help. The objective of NHS Direct is to provide first line help and advice. It should not take over the role of the specialist. What it can do is to provide far better signposting for the public who otherwise might not be able to locate easily specialist sources of information. We are keen to work closely with specialist helplines in developing NHS Direct. Both the Telephone Helpline Association and the Samaritans are represented on the National Advisory Group for NHS Direct.
I do not have time to deal with any of the other issues except to say that I believe the possibilities offered by NHS Direct of going even wider into all sorts of other areas like telephone booking of appointments and access to other services is enormous. I understand the need that has been stressed for proper evaluation and to make sure that we do not undermine services that already exist.
234
However, there is an impatience to move forward because there is an enormous potential for improving the speed, quality and accessibility of information services to patients in this country.

Scotland Bill
9.3 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 5.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 85, line 5, at end insert—
("Exception from reservation
The Parliament may require the annual reports of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Commission to be laid before it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 221, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223.
Those noble Lords who were involved in the Committee stage of this Bill will observe that these amendments are similar to ones we discussed and developed at that time, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. He withdrew them after an interesting debate. I retabled them because, despite the clear assurances from the Government in relation to their intentions, when I read the Minister's response in col. 1317 of Hansard I wondered why none of these items was to be placed on the face of the Bill. In each case the Minister said that the intention was to make provision through an executive devolution order under Clause 59. The question that kept coming to me was: if the Government intended to use the executive devolution order under Clause 59 to deal with these issues, why did we have so much other detail in the Bill when many of the other issues could have been dealt with in exactly the same way?
I return to these issues therefore to ask why they should not be put on the face of the Bill. Issues have moved on, as they often do, since we discussed this matter on 27th July. And I should like to take the amendments one at a time because the one in relation to which issues have moved on is the last one I should like to discuss.
In relation to Amendment No. 222, in Committee I noticed that funding direct broadcasting is currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and therefore it will naturally fall to the new Scottish executive to do the same. Why will not the Government put that on the face of the Bill rather than using Section 59 proceedings? It seems to me to be a bit illogical when I look at some of the other matters that have been placed on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 221 and 223 relate to the laying of reports and appointments. The Minister took those on board and said that they would be dealt with under Clause 59. But why cannot they be placed on the face of the Bill? In relation to the reports, the BBC indicated that it will lay the report before the parliament.
But I am interested in Amendment No. 223. At the risk of offending the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am less concerned with the Scottish membership of the Independent Television Commission; it has a different role from that of the BBC. The ITC does not deliver anything at its own hand.
We already have the devolution of independent broadcasting, both radio and television, in Scotland. The bodies which operate independent television for Scotland are bodies which are owned—probably by the various city funds—and managed from Scotland. They deal with Scottish issues and decide whether they will take part in any national programmes. They are very much on their own. That is true of what was Grampian Television and Scottish Television—I cannot remember what Scottish Television now calls itself, but perhaps that is what it calls itself now, although it used to be called STV. Both of those organisations are owned by the increasingly powerful Scottish Media Group, in which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, was a principal player for some time. They are Scottish bodies and they make decisions in Scotland.
There was a similar situation with independent radio. Independent radio was very much the brainchild of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. In Scotland, it was built up very successfully and it was locally based. I am less worried about that than I am about the BBC. I believe that there will be a huge dilemma and potentially a huge difference of opinion between the BBC in Scotland and the BBC nationally. There are signs already that there will be considerable tensions. I doubt whether the British Broadcasting Corporation believes for one minute in devolution, despite the fact that its Scottish headquarters at Queen Margaret Drive in Scotland has for decades been the source of a lot of the propaganda in favour of devolution. The BBC in Scotland does not find much comfort when it discusses matters of devolution with its bosses in London.
I am concerned about the appointment of a national governor. I can foresee a situation where the BBC down here might say to the Government here, "To be honest, we do not much like the person suggested from Scotland; he will come down here and attempt to get far too much independence from the BBC; Culture Minister, would you not prefer to have a safer pair of hands?" I can assure your Lordships that such conversations do take place. A "safer pair of hands" is always an invitation from officials to Ministers that it would be dangerous to do the other thing. There is a danger that that could happen. I believe that putting this provision on the face of the Bill would strengthen the Scottish executive.
A recent press report will bring to your Lordships' attention the reason why I am concerned about that. Essentially, the BBC in Scotland has expressed a wish to opt out of the six o'clock news once devolution comes along and to have a news programme presented from Scotland, giving the Scottish parliamentary position, Scottish views, UK views and world views. The current situation is that at six o'clock we have the national news and at 6.30 we have the Scottish news. The position after devolution will be that a lot of things
236
in the national news will not be in the least bit relevant to Scotland. Who in Scotland will be bothered about what Mr. Frank Dobson thinks about health? That will have nothing to do with health in Scotland as he will not be part of the same government.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Presumably he is aware that that is true at present. A lot of views generated from London are irrelevant in Scotland because the subject is already devolved administratively.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that I acknowledged that, but at least that was within one United Kingdom Government, whereas, after devolution, it will not be like that. Very often decisions made on health are made jointly by Ministers in the UK Government and therefore the same initiative—if it is an initiative—is developed by the UK Minister on behalf of the English health service in parallel with the Scottish health Minister. That will not necessarily happen in future because there will be two quite separate governments.
The point is that the BBC in Scotland would like to go its own way, but it is not being allowed to do so. The BBC nationally will not allow the BBC in Scotland to do that. The interesting thing is that BBC Radio has already gone its own way. In the mornings in Scotland I listen to "Good Morning Scotland" and I do not listen to "Today". "Good Morning Scotland" encompasses events happening in Scotland and around the world. It is a perfectly good programme. In fact, I think it is an excellent programme. In the evening, a programme called "News Drive" takes the place of "PM". Major world events are reported on it.
There does not seem to be a problem in radio, but there is a problem in television. One understands from a report in the Herald on Friday 16th October that there is considerable difficulty. It states:
"BBC governors are due to meet the Broadcasting Council for Scotland on Wednesday amid rising talk of resignation among its 12 members if London keeps control against the wishes of BBC Scotland, its controller, Mr John McCormick, and senior staff. Last night it emerged that Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar has given his conditional blessing to BBC Scotland's ambitions"—
that is to have a fully Scottish-based six o'clock news—
"One BBC insider said: 'Donald is a reasonable man"'—
we all say "hear, hear" to that—
"who accepts the editorial logic but his one worry is that there would be a lapse into the kaleyard".
I can almost hear Donald Dewar saying that. The report continues:
"other Ministers are not convinced … Mrs. Helen Liddell, and Defence Secretary George Robertson. Both are noted for their strong anti-SNP stance and take the view that devolved Scottish broadcasting would give succour to the Nationalists, the strongest supporters of the proposed change, at a sensitive period in Scottish politics".
I am amused to think that they do not think that devolution will give succour to the Nationalists but that devolving the BBC will.

237
I read from that article because I believe that it illustrates the point. Here we already have, before devolution has come along, a severe difference of opinion within the BBC between London and Scotland. In those circumstances, my concerns about the appointment of the national governor for Scotland are well justified. Despite the Minister's assurance, I can see that there may be pressure not to use the executive devolution order under Clause 59 on the issue. In fact, as far as concerns the appointment, it will just be a matter of the Scottish executive being "consulted".
On the last occasion, the Minister said:
"I hope that that goes most of the way to meeting the intentions of the noble Lord".—[Official Report, 27/7/98; col. 1317.]
That is probably true; indeed, it goes most of the way. However, it is the little bit further that it does not go that bothers me. It means that if the Government down here do not like, or are persuaded by the BBC that they should not like, the suggested name from Scotland, they will look for someone else and will not appoint that person. There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, looking puzzled because that is the reality of what happens inside government: powerful departments try to have their way.
Although I suspect that there may be a huge argument going on—and there is currently according to press reports—I believe that a bigger argument may arise in the future. If that is the case, the danger will be that, if the Scottish executive puts forward someone who is very sympathetic to this idea and wants to see BBC Scotland having some devolved powers and allowed to opt-out as I mentioned, the Culture Secretary—I presume—will bend to pressure from the BBC and decide to look for someone else in Scotland. That is why I should like to see the appointment being an exemption from reservation so that the appointment to the BBC and the ITC will be made entirely at the behest of the Scottish executive. In that way, the Government of the United Kingdom would have no way in which they could decide not to accept the proposal. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, on these Benches we are immensely flattered that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has decided on Report to adopt for his side the amendments which we moved in Committee. For our part, we felt that we had a pretty good debate at that time when we went into such matters. I wait with interest to hear the Minister's response as regards current amendments.
As someone who has been playing a sort of Back-Bench spectator role for the most part in the proceedings on the Bill, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that his brilliance in debating is one of the things that made some of the longueurs of this affair tolerable. Indeed, it is interesting to note that we should be discussing this subject at the end of the Report stage.
I believe that it comes down to whether such matters—these which were thoroughly debated in Committee—those dealing with on the face of the Bill, or whether they can be dealt with more adequately without accepting the amendments which, for our part,
238
we were ready not to press on the last occasion. On the three matters which are mentioned in the current amendments, I shall turn, first, to the annual reports of the BBC and the ITC. As we were reassured in Committee, there is no doubt that when the parliament is established and the executive is working such reports will be laid before the Scottish parliament. We do not need material on the face of the Bill at this late stage to bring that about. I cannot imagine that the Scottish parliament, in which I have very great confidence, will be slow in wishing to debate the important issues raised by the noble Lord. Indeed, I agree with very much of what he said on some of the issues regarding broadcasting in Scotland, especially BBC broadcasting.
Again, having regard to the stage that we have now reached with the Bill, the question of the promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland comes to my mind. I wait to hear with interest what assurances the Minister can give us in that respect. On the face of it, it seems rather dotty that Gaelic broadcasting could be a reserved matter to be dealt with by those people knowledgable about Gaelic broadcasting in the various recesses of Whitehall. But that is not the reality of the matter, and I hope to be reassured.
However, I turn now to one of the most important matters. It was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as being one of the most important aspects of his amendments; namely, the appointment of the national governor for Scotland and the appointment of a Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission.
I cannot speak with any knowledge of the BBC's procedures but it was certainly always my understanding as an interested party that the national governor for Scotland at the BBC—the polite phrase is, "after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland"—was someone whom the Secretary of State for Scotland was ready to approve as a member of that governing body. That situation, which has existed for many years, will now, of course, be transferred to the First Minister for Scotland. I have no doubt that that will be the underlying reality.
I did not quite understand something that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said. I think he may have misunderstood the position as regards the Independent Television Commission. I cannot speak with total accuracy about the latest situation but in my time the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which was the predecessor, had an important Scottish member. To my knowledge that appointment had to be approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland and will undoubtedly require the approval of the First Minister for Scotland. That does not require a provision on the face of the Bill, although I should be happy to have it if one wants additional reassurance. However, it is not necessary of itself.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is probably mistaken about the situation with regard to commercial radio in Scotland. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, will correct me if I am wrong. I believe there is still a United Kingdom Radio Authority and I am happy to say it has not inhibited the Scottishness

239
of Scottish independent radio. Therefore it does not seem to me at this stage that the case is made out—in terms of draftsmanship of the Bill—for putting all these matters on the face of the Bill. However, I shall await to hear whether we shall be totally reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has to tell us on the substance of the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised.
I wish to make two general comments. My starting point is that I agree and sympathise with what the noble Lord said although I am bound to say—I hope that he will not take this amiss as it is intended to be a compliment—that the Conservative Opposition's approach to this Bill began with a negative attitude towards devolution. Much of the proceedings on this Bill in Committee—led with brilliant debating skill by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—have outflanked all of us in enthusiasm for Scottish devolution. I can see no case for Scottish BBC television not having its main news bulletins as Scottish news bulletins dealing with the United Kingdom, the news from Scotland as a nation, the news from the United Kingdom, as a state of which we are all members, and the international news, but viewed through Scottish eyes. I think there is a battle to be won on this matter within the bureaucracy of the BBC. I sympathise totally with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, had to say about this.
However, I utter a cautionary note although I am not sure I shall carry all my colleagues with me on this. I regard the degree to which the United Kingdom broadcasting system—that is, the BBC, ITV, and the other new developments including Sky News and so on—has a United Kingdom dimension to be one of the vital cements that holds the United Kingdom together and creates a climate of opinion that there is a United Kingdom climate of opinion.
Therefore a tricky professional balance has to be struck between having a United Kingdom broadcasting system that makes us all feel members of the United Kingdom and at the same time has the vitality in Scotland to make us all feel proud of Scotland and Scottish broadcasting. That is the professional challenge ahead of us.
Subject to what has been said, I do not feel that this matter requires a lot of new wording at this late stage in the Bill. What is needed is to follow through the realities of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 221 and 223. As is well-known and appreciated, the BBC is governed by its Royal Charter, which was renewed in 1996. As I indicated when we last considered this part of the Bill, some changes in procedures will be made in relation to appointments and annual reports reflecting the establishment of the Scottish parliament and executive. The Royal Charter provides that the Board of Governors of the BBC should include a national governor for Scotland, selected on the basis of his or her knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of the people of Scotland. It
240
has been custom and practice for the Secretary of State to be consulted in advance of that appointment. When the Scottish executive is in place, the appointment of the national governor for Scotland of the BBC will be made after consultation with Scottish Ministers, as both noble Lords identified. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is right. That sort of consultation basically means someone who has the support of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised the possible dangers—for instance, that some awful radical might want to seize more for BBC Scotland than the BBC might wish to concede on a UK basis and that pressure would be brought to appoint a "safe pair of hands", a phrase with which I am now familiar. I should have thought that the pressure to appoint a safe pair of hands could be more effectively applied under the present arrangements, whereby the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are members of the same Executive. It would be rather difficult to apply that sort of pressure when there are different executives, when the First Minister will be consulted and will give his view. It would be rather difficult for the Secretary of State for Culture, dealing with the head of what is effectively another executive, to be able to obstruct and thwart the nomination of the Scottish executive.
The Royal Charter provides that the annual report of the BBC shall be sent to the Secretary of State, who lays the report before both Houses of Parliament. That is the present arrangement. In future, the report, together with the annual review of BBC Scotland, will also be sent to Scottish Ministers, who will in turn lay those before the Scottish parliament—exactly the procedure envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I am sure that members of the Scottish parliament will take a keen interest in broadcasting in Scotland and will wish to debate it. It will be for the Scottish parliament to decide whether it wishes to invite members of the broadcasting community in Scotland to submit reports or appear before the parliament or a committee of it. My understanding is that broadcasters will be willing, indeed keen, to give evidence to the Scottish parliament.
For the Independent Television Commission, we intend to make provision through the executive devolution order under Clause 59 to secure that the annual report will be laid before the Scottish parliament as well as at Westminster. We shall similarly provide that the Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission is appointed only after consultation with Scottish Ministers.
I move to Amendment No. 222, which relates to Gaelic broadcasting. As we have said before, the promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland is clearly a matter of primarily Scottish interest. In practice, the funding is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but in line with the usual arm's length approach to broadcasting the funding of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee is made through the Independent Television Commission. The function of funding Gaelic broadcasting will be transferred by the executive devolution order under Clause 59 to the Scottish Ministers, who will be answerable to the

241
Scottish parliament. It will be open to them, subject to the agreement of the Scottish parliament, to vary the annual allocation of funds to the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee.
I do not believe that the amendment would bring about any improvement or increased accountability for Gaelic broadcasting. By executive devolution, government funding for Gaelic broadcasting will be a Scottish responsibility, albeit within the unified regulatory framework for broadcasting for the United Kingdom. That is the key to the Clause 59 procedure, which is a means by which executive devolution is achieved within a framework where the function itself is reserved. I believe that that is the appropriate way to tackle the problem rather than to bring it on to the face of the Bill.
With those assurances, which I hope I have made as persuasively as I made them in Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating the Government's assurances on these three amendments and perhaps going a little further than he went in Committee.
Just as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, seemed flattered by the fact that I had picked up his amendments, I feel a little flattered by the words he said about me. We need to be careful not to have too much of a love-in between these Opposition Benches, or the Government Front Bench might become worried.
I am content with the explanation, although I still think it is a little odd that some matters have to be put on the face of the Bill while others can be dealt with by executive order. However, at this late stage of the Bill, the matter is not worth pursuing.
I looked carefully at the schedule which tells me what happens to orders. I notice that orders of this kind are Type A orders, which means that they will have to be approved by resolution of both Houses at Westminster and of the Edinburgh parliament. We shall therefore have an opportunity to debate these issues when they are brought forward by the Minister under Clause 59.
I am not sure that the noble Lord totally allayed my concerns with regard to Amendment No. 223 regarding the appointment of a national governor for Scotland. I was interested to hear that he recognised the phrase "a safe pair of hands". I remain a little concerned, although I am reassured by having his views on record that in the new circumstances it will be a great deal more difficult for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to decline to accept a nomination of the Scottish executive than it might be under the current situation, where the Secretary of State and the Culture Minister are members of one government and the matter can easily be resolved in the corridors of Whitehall. I understand that point. I suppose that in the real world, if there were a dispute, we would soon read about it in the newspapers, and I suspect that the Government would quickly be told that they were about to create a
242
big issue in Scotland and that they should back off. Almost reassuring myself, adding to the Minister's reassurance, I am content and I look forward to the debates we shall have when these orders are, in the fullness of time, laid before your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 85, line 39, leave out from ("authority") to second ("to") and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 86, line 25, leave out from ("Timescales") to end of line.
The noble Lady said: My Lords, the House may be surprised that I have returned to this matter when a somewhat similar amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, was disagreed with in the Division at Committee stage. This amendment is slightly different in that "Timescales" have been left out; that is to say left in the reserved matters. I believe that the inclusion of them in the previous amendments may have been a sticking point with the Government and with some noble Lords. Having had an explanation of what the timescales are from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at the Committee stage (at col. 1331 of the Official Report of 27th July) I am persuaded that they should continue to be reserved matters.
As I am sure all your Lordships are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, has announced his intention to introduce a Private Member's Bill next Session to do, as I understand it. virtually what this amendment does. But the reason for his Bill is the opposite of mine, according to a letter from him published in the Telegraph on Saturday 24th October. He would like to have British Summer Time in winter in England because he believes that it would lead to a reduction in crime, give more time for outdoor sports and help trade and tourism. He fears that the introduction of this will always be blocked by the Scots, who do not want it.
On the other hand, I am a Scot and live in the north of Scotland, where we found British Summer Time in winter quite intolerable during the experimental period between 1968 and 1971, when it was inflicted upon us. On the 21st December, the winter solstice, there is a difference of 42 minutes between the time of sunrise in London, which is at 8.04 and the time of sunrise in Aberdeen, which is at 8.46. There is another 22 minutes difference between the time of sunrise at Aberdeen and the time of sunrise at Lerwick, which is at 9.08. That means that with British Summer Time sunrise in Aberdeen would not be until 9.46 and sunrise in Shetland would not be until 10.08. I suspect that if faced with darkness until fourteen minutes to ten or eight minutes past ten in London, Londoners might not be quite so enthusiastic about summer time in winter.
It is much more difficult to get up and get going in the morning when it is dark. The body's built-in clock rebels. No non-nocturnal animal in its right mind does a thing like that. I have heard that this can contribute to clinical depression.
The Government's opposition to this aspect of the amendment is very short-sighted. Far from being another nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom, this should help to avoid the break-up of the United Kingdom. If we Scots are contented we are very much less likely to wish to be independent from the United Kingdom than if we are unhappy, as we assuredly would be should the Government try to impose summer time on us in winter.
A report has been published in the past few days which suggests that if we had summer time all the year round, 100 fewer people per year would be killed on the roads. I am afraid that, sooner or later, the nanny Government will act on that report and inflict summer time in winter on Scotland, taking the line that nasty nannies take: "It's good for you, so you'll just have to learn to like it." I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I greatly support what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is attempting to do. During all my time in another place I was very much in favour of Greenwich Mean Time in the winter. Indeed, when we had a Bill before us some two or three years ago, we were very much in the lead in defeating it. I feel it is most important that we try to remain a United Kingdom in dealing with this matter. I have read what my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare intends to do but I would gladly have quite a big bet with him that he will not get his Bill through either House of Parliament.
I live as near the Border as anyone in this House and I know how totally impossible it would be if we ended up having two timescales in the United Kingdom. I really could not chop and change my watch three or four times a day, and that would go for many of my former constituents and many of those who live in Cumberland but come to work in Dumfries and Galloway. In addition, there are all the chaotic issues of train and airline timetables and so on.
Many people tend to forget that longitude is as important as latitude in dealing with Greenwich Mean Time. Few people seem to realise that Edinburgh is west of Liverpool and that the country has a very westward lean. The further west one goes, the worse it becomes. If one is in Stornoway, it is a very serious situation even as compared with being in Aberdeen. We have to bring it home that the whole issue of summer time must remain on a United Kingdom basis. I would be most disappointed if any United Kingdom government tried to introduce different timescales within the United Kingdom or, more importantly, underestimated the serious impact it would have on Scotland if we went to summer time in winter—not that we seem to get any summer time any time. But the position is so desperately different in Scotland. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has rightly said, we must not be carried away by
244
emotional arguments about the time of children leaving school in the evening relative to their going to school in the morning. Many other statistics can be produced to show just how serious it would be if we changed to summer time in the winter.
So I hope that this will remain a United Kingdom responsibility and I trust that whichever government are in power they will ensure that we have one timescale throughout the United Kingdom and will bear in mind the representations they will receive from the Scottish parliament that we must not go away from Greenwich Mean Time in the winter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Monro. I understand very well what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is saying and what her aspiration is but I would just point out to her that, should this matter be devolved to the Scots parliament, it would be very much easier for the rest of the United Kingdom to decide to change the arrangements. They would then be changed without having to consider Scotland and then Scotland would be obliged to follow suit. We would be more likely to get the wrong answer by having the matter devolved than we would at the moment. At the moment, the United Kingdom Parliament is hanging on to the present arrangements largely out of consideration for Scotland. If the matter were devolved, it would not have to do that. Therefore, I think that what the noble Lady is saying might well prove to be counter-productive. So I do not think I can support her.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I rise to speak on this subject yet again with a certain feeling of dismay, as we have discussed it five times in the past four years. There is a kind of repertory company which always appears to debate the matter. However, we have so far managed to kick it away into the far distance.
I should very much like to support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—I know what she is trying to do—but I do not think I can, if only for consistency—something for which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, keeps asking. I say that because a Private Member's Bill a year or two ago proposed precisely that. We managed to torpedo it in another place and it disappeared.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, makes a salient point. He states correctly that this is a matter of longitude rather than latitude. Edinburgh is in the extreme east of Scotland and is further west than Bristol—let alone Liverpool—which is in the west of England. Often it is forgotten that the country is tipped over in that way and it is not simply a north-south question.
I am tempted to support the amendment moved by the noble Lady for one reason; namely, that if this were devolved to a Scottish parliament it would prevent the United Kingdom Parliament from doing anything so daft as to abandon GMT in favour of Central European Time. Oddly enough, this is one of the very few occasions on which Britain is not out of step with the rest of the world; it is the rest of the world that is out of step with Britain. (Noble Lords should not chortle so quickly.) Strictly speaking, France and Spain should be in the same time zone as Britain: Greenwich Mean

245
Time. For reasons best known to themselves, they have adopted the Germanic system and joined the Teutons in following Central European Time, whereas they should be in the same time zone as Britain. The Portuguese also adopted Central European Time for a short period but quite sensibly gave it up.
What I should like to gain from this debate is an assurance from my noble friend Lord Sewel that whatever happens to this amendment, the Government, of which he is an outstanding member, will not under any circumstances abandon GMT in favour of Central European Time.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I might well have been in favour of this amendment since it is not moved by the clan Mackay. But I believe that we must stick to one time in the United Kingdom. The argument advanced by my noble neighbour Lady Carnegy of Lour (not "Lower", for the benefit of those on the Front Bench) is correct. The disadvantage of having any form of separation in timescale would be excessive. That point has been made by the noble Lord who has just spoken. In spite of its origin, I cannot support the amendment. Britain must have one simple timescale. I have been considering the arguments that have been adduced about accidents at night as compared with accidents in the morning. I believe that that must be taken into account when considering timescale, but that it must be a British timescale I have no doubt.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has observed, we have debated this matter on a number of occasions. Previous debates usually reveal differences inside the clan Mackay. My fellow clansman, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is one of those who is vigorously in favour of Central European Time. Unfortunately, he is not here and so the clan is united this evening. I am not entirely sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, joins our clan. Clearly, one of his forebears could not spell correctly and got it slightly wrong.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, described people like me as non-nocturnal animals; namely, that they have severe difficulty in getting out of bed on dark winter mornings. I far prefer the daylight.
The danger of the amendment was spelt out by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. It is that, if the Scottish parliament were to have the decision for itself and the Parliament of the United Kingdom were no longer responsible for Scotland in this regard, the pressure which your Lordships and Members of the other place from Scotland and the north of England could exert on the UK Government might be diminished. Those foolish voices that would like to put us in a time-zone in which nature has not put us may win the day, which would be difficult for Scotland.
I would prefer to put an arm-lock on this issue and say that the United Kingdom Parliament could make no change unless the Scottish parliament agreed. That would put a double-nelson on the whole issue. The Bill does not contain such a provision, but between now and
246
Monday we might look at that as a way of enabling the Scottish government to have some control over the issue.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has made her point. The danger is that, with Scottish pressure off this place, it might decide to go its own way. That would he extremely difficult because much of Scotland is to the west and the further west one goes the more ridiculous is Central European Time. Equally, as the European Community expands to the east the more ridiculous Central European Time will be for people at the far end, especially if the argument about children going to school in the daylight and coming back in the dark is true.
The United States manages to run a sophisticated, successful country with a number of time zones which do not inhibit communication between one side and the other. Neither is it a problem in the Soviet Union. I believe that we should stick firmly in the Greenwich time-zone where God put us. The issue should be left to the United Kingdom Parliament, perhaps with an arm-lock from the Scottish parliament. Perhaps between now and Monday the noble Lady will consider how to apply the arm-lock.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as a new member of the repertory company referred to by my noble friend Lord Howie, I regret that, for reasons already outlined, the Government are unable to accept the amendment. We are anxious to have common standards throughout the United Kingdom. For that reason, timescales, time-zones, the calendar and summer time have been reserved.
Reference to the recent announcement of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, conjures up a situation which, putting aside the obvious cynicism, concerns many people in Scotland. The possibility of Scotland ending up in a different time-zone is horrifying and the thought of commuters having to adjust their watches every time they crossed the Border from say, Carlisle to Dumfries, does not appeal to us.
The Government do not support the view that because it happens in America, Australia or Russia, it should happen in the United Kingdom. As regards Central European Time and its possible introduction into the United Kingdom as a whole, a number of Scottish factors would have to be borne in mind if it were to be considered again. I would expect them to be given the weight that they deserve before any United Kingdom decision was reached at Westminster.
In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what has been said for—very little for—and a very great deal against these amendments. Incidentally, before I go any further, I think I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that I feel very unsure that the United Kingdom Parliament would consider Scotland's interests in the future after a Scottish parliament has been established. I really do feel very unsure about that. I think that is wishful thinking.

247
Under the circumstances, I think that I am going to withdraw the amendments but I am going to come back next Monday at Third Reading with exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, suggested. I think it would be a great pity for Scotland and England to have separate time zones. Provided that Scotland is not going to be lumbered with British Summer Time in winter, Central European Time, or any other foreign nastinesses of that kind, I would be perfectly happy for Scotland and England always to have the same time zones. But I think that we must take some steps at this stage to try to make sure that we are not going to be lumbered with British Summer Time in winter in Scotland. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 86, line 34, at end insert—

SECTION 7—MINERAL DEPOSITS
Reservation
The exploitation of mineral deposits of unprecedented or substantial national significance.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this issue originally because I noticed that the Government dealt with outer space issues as a reserved subject. It therefore seemed altogether reasonable to reserve minerals under the ocean depths. However, the Government resisted that for a number of reasons outlined by the Minister in a letter to me. He made it quite clear that coal, oil and gas would be reserved but other minerals would not. My concern was that valuable mineral deposits could be discovered under the ocean depths. The Minister stated in his reply that the management of the Crown Estate was reserved but the Crown property would not be. He went on to say:
"It will thus be for the [Scottish] parliament to legislate about mineral resources (other than oil, coal and gas) found on land or under the seabed".
I immediately wondered what would happen were there to be a massive discovery of uranium within Scotland. We know that there is uranium in Scotland. We do not know how much, but we know that it exists. There are countless other mineral deposits—for example, gold. That may not be commercial, but there are many other mineral deposits. The Minister stated in his letter:
"Were valuable mineral deposits to be found in Scotland, their exploitation would be of great significance, in the first instance, to the people of Scotland. The Members of the Scottish parliament will be best placed to make decisions in the best interests of the Scottish people".
I appreciate that that argument would recommend itself to the Scottish National Party. But if there is a massive find of uranium, I simply do not believe that the British Parliament will say, "This is not a matter of any concern to ourselves".
The Minister acknowledged there was a problem. He went on to say in his letter:
"the list of reserved matters in Schedule 5 … can be changed by virtue of an Order in Council under Clause 29".
I appreciate that the essence of his argument is that this Parliament is sovereign and, if for any reason mineral deposits which are of great significance to Britain are found, this Parliament can take action and alter Schedule 5 by amending it. But he states in his letter that this could be done:
"If the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments agreed that that was in the best interests of the UK".
It may well be that the political government in the Scottish parliament is entirely different from the composition of the government of the Westminster Parliament. If the two executives have different political parties in charge, there will be the potential for considerable conflict.
It seems to me that in the absence of any concordats being suggested, the Minister is relying on good will between the two parliaments. It may well be that there is no such good will. It will be no use relying on gentlemen's agreements or on the subject being well interpreted. It may be subject to misinterpretation or no interpretation.
I suggest that unless this matter is specified clearly in the schedule, before the parliament is set up, it will be a source of continuing conflict. It is surely only a matter of time until major mineral deposits are found either under Scottish land or under the ocean depths. In that case, it seems that reservations should be put into the Bill. If they are not, we shall be storing up problems for the future. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have always thought that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, had a good deal of sense in them. However, as regards this amendment, if we find untold gold, silver or platinum in Scotland, then the exploitation thereof must be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. Is that the correct interpretation? If it is, I am against the amendment. If we find treasure in Scotland, we should be able to exploit it. Surely to goodness, if we find treasure, it should be Scottish.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him about uranium, which my noble friend mentioned. It is a matter of natural interest if we happen to find uranium.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, there is no question of the Scottish parliament acting against the national interest. If there is uranium which requires exploitation and great control, the Scottish parliament will agree to that. The Scottish parliament will be sensible about this matter. But if it is found on Scottish soil, surely the Scottish parliament should have control over it.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, one or two matters should be taken into consideration on this amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. It must have been some years since I looked at it, but there is an old Act which goes back before the Union of the Crowns which specifies that gold, silver or other precious metals

249
found in Scotland belong to the Crown. I am fairly certain that that old Act is still on the statute book. It has resulted in deterring a number of prospectors looking for precious metals from ever trying to seek its development in Scotland.
The other matter which has put off the development of many ores in Scotland is that the strata has been so tilted that it is almost vertical, which makes it quite impossible to mine in any way other than by open-cast. Those two matters are worth considering.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas has a point. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has rather walked into a trap which will mean that he will have to bring forward amendments on Third Reading to deal with two other parts of the schedule. It seems rather odd that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, thinks that any treasures yet to be found should be the property of the Scottish parliament but yet is quite content that the treasures already found—namely, oil, gas and coal—should be reserved to the United Kingdom. It seems to me that that is the opposite of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, may not have noticed that up to now we have been living in the United Kingdom.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hope that we shall continue to live in the United Kingdom—which adds to the argument. If it is good enough for oil and gas, as it is in Section 2, and for coal, as it is in Section 3, it seems to me that, looking to the future and the possibility that some other mineral resources may be found, they should be treated in exactly the same way as those which have already been found such as oil, gas and coal. It is amazing that we say that the current wealth found in Scottish waters and under the land in Scotland ought to be reserved to the United Kingdom, but if we are lucky enough to find any future wealth we can keep it ourselves. It is very illogical. My noble friend has a point and I look forward to the Government accepting it.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation as to why he considers this amendment to be necessary. I hope to be able to reassure him that it is not. As I understand it, the noble Lord has particular concern that if in future valuable mineral deposits were discovered in Scotland, this parliament will be unable to legislate over the matter. It is only proper that the exploitation of mineral deposits should be generally devolved along with such matters as planning and the environment, given their importance to the Scottish environment and to Scottish communities. For example, I am thinking of the effects such exploitation would have on the economic development of adjacent communities, on the quality of the environment and the amenities of nearby towns and the countryside. There are also the consequences for the jobs of local people and their livelihoods. It is certainly a matter that should be left for the Scottish parliament to consider and regulate.
250
The ownership and exploitation of coal, oil and gas, however, are all reserved by Schedule 5, Section 4. It is considered that they should form an exception to the devolution of the exploitation of mineral deposits, given their importance as energy supplies and the need to maintain a uniform regulatory regime in these industries. Were valuable mineral deposits to be found in Scotland their exploitation should, in the first instance, be addressed in the context of the communities that will be affected by the development of the minerals. I believe that members of the Scottish parliament will be best placed to make decisions in the best interests of these people.
The noble Lord argues a case at the extreme in that there have been some unprecedented finds of valuable minerals. If that is the case, it is possible for the list of reserved matters in Schedule 5 of the Bill to be changed by virtue of an Order in Council under Clause 29. If mineral deposits of unprecedented national significance were discovered in the future, it would be possible for Schedule 5 to be amended if the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments agree that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom to do so. If the noble Lord is arguing a case at the extreme, I have to answer him in a similar way. If it became a matter of absolute national importance and significance, it would be possible to amend the Act itself by legislation in this Parliament. But I do not anticipate that. I do not believe that the noble Lord creates a situation which is grounded in sufficient reality for us to make provision for it in the Bill. On that basis, I trust that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. But there is a basic inconsistency in it because coal, oil and gas are reserved, but uranium, which can be used as a nuclear fuel, is not reserved. I am simply saying to the Minister that if uranium deposits are discovered in considerable quantities, it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom Parliament would say that it is not a matter for it. If the United Kingdom Parliament intervenes and does what the Minister says by introducing an Order in Council, the Scottish parliament will very much resent such interference. However much the Minister may say that the United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign, if it is not a reserved matter the Scottish parliament will very much resent that interference and it will give rise to conflict between the two parliaments.
I am suggesting to the Minister that it would be better if this matter was thought out in greater depth and these matters reserved, otherwise he will be storing up problems for the future. Having said that, I have put down a marker and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 226A to 226D:
Page 87, line 4, leave out from ("authority") to ("a") in line 5 and insert ("if some of its functions relate to reserved matters and some do not, unless it is").
Page 87, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
("( ) An authority to which this paragraph applies is referred to in this Act as a Scottish public authority with mixed functions.").

251
Page 87, line 17, at end insert ("(referred to in this Act as a Scottish public authority with no reserved functions)").
Page 87, line 29, at end insert—
("Financial assistance to industry
.—(1) This Schedule does not reserve giving financial assistance to commercial activities for the purpose of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) does not apply to giving financial assistance to any activities in pursuance of a power exercisable only in relation to activities which are reserved,

(b) does not apply to Part I of this Schedule, except paragraph 9, or to a body to which paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule applies,

(c) is without prejudice to the exceptions from the reservations in Sections 2 and 3 of Head 5.

(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the question whether any matter other than financial assistance to which that sub-paragraph applies is reserved.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 226A to 226D en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 226E:
Page 87, line 31, after first ("to") insert ("the subject-matter of").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 226E and 226F constitute drafting amendments to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 which say how references to "any enactment" in Schedule 5 are to be read.
Schedule 5 describes reserved matters and generally speaking is intended to fix those matters as at the principal appointed day. This is done sometimes by using general words and sometimes by referring to the subject matter of an enactment. In both cases it is intended that the description is fixed as at the principal appointed day but what may fall within the description may change.
At the moment the Bill provides that all enactments referred to in Schedule 5 are to be read as they have effect on the principal appointed day. That is correct where an enactment is referred to in order to identify subject matter. The reserved matter is the subject matter of that enactment on the principal appointed day.
However, where the reference is not to the subject matter of an enactment—for example, on page 72, at line 38, part of the reservation of insolvency is described in terms of,
"any other enactment relating to the sequestration of the estate of any person —
it is appropriate for the reference to be dynamic and automatically to cover future enactments. The amendment permits this to happen. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 226F:
Page 87, line 32, after ("to") insert ("the subject-matter of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Modifications of enactments]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 226G:
Page 96, line 10, at end insert—
("United Nations Act 1946 (c.45)
. In section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 (measures to give effect to decisions of Security Council), in subsection (4), for the words following "shall" there is substituted "forthwith after it is made be laid—

(a) before Parliament; and

(b) if any provision made by the Order would, if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, before that Parliament."").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Section 1 of the United Nations Act enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to give effect to resolutions of the Security Council. Noble Lords will be aware that that happened recently in connection with the venue of the proposed trial in the Lockerbie case following the United Nations resolution.
Amendment No. 226G amends the wording of subsection (4) of Section 1 of the Act to provide that any Order in Council made under it will be laid before the Scottish parliament as well as before Westminster if any provision in the order would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, while I can well understand why this amendment has been tabled, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can explain whether or not it would be competent for the Scottish parliament to challenge, either in principle or in detail, an Order in Council which may be laid before it in the terms of this amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord also say what would happen if there was a dispute between the Scottish parliament and the Westminster Parliament in that regard?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with both questions together. The amendment is designed to cover a situation similar to that surrounding the Lockerbie trial. If there were a United Nations resolution which affected a Scottish criminal trial, then to give effect to that resolution there would require to be an Order in Council. However, because it affects the Scottish criminal law, the intention would be to place it before the Scottish parliament as well as the Westminster Parliament.
Of course, the Scottish parliament would be obliged to give effect to the United Kingdom's international obligations in terms of the United Nations resolution, which would call on the United Kingdom as a whole to comply. The Order in Council, having been ratified by the Scottish parliament, would enable the Scottish courts to proceed in accordance with Scottish procedure.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he said that the Order in Council would be ratified by the Scottish parliament. I have looked at the United Nations Act

253
1946 and, as I understand it, the procedure involves the provision being laid before this Parliament and, quite frankly, this Parliament has to take it or leave it because it involves implementation of an international obligation.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is correct. "Ratified" was the wrong word. Indeed, I believe that I referred earlier to the provision being "laid before".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 226H:
Page 97, line 18, leave out from ("Scotland)") to end of line 24 and insert—

("(a) in subsection (9)—

(i) after "effect" there is inserted "with the omission of subsection (8) and", and

(ii) in paragraph (a), for "(8)" there is substituted "(7)", and

(b) after that subsection there is inserted

"(10) The remuneration of members of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland shall be charged on the Scottish Consolidated Fund.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. The amendments made by the Bill to the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 ensure that remuneration of members of the Lands Tribunal is a charge on the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The amendment makes the position clearer than did the original provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 226J:
Page 97, line 42, at end insert—
("Superannuation Act 1972 (c.11)
. In section 1(6) of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation as respects civil servants, etc.), for "or the Consolidated Fund" there is substituted "the Consolidated Fund or the Scottish Consolidated Fund".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will enable the Minister responsible for the Civil Service to admit persons remunerated out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme where that may be appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 226K:
Page 98, leave out lines 20 to 32 and insert—
("(2) After section 23 there is inserted—
"Acts of the Scottish Parliament etc.
23A.—(1) This Act applies in relation to an Act of the Scottish Parliament and an instrument made under such an Act only to the extent provided in this section.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) below, sections 15 to 18 apply to—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament as they apply to an Act,

(b) an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament as they apply to subordinate legislation.

(3) In the application of those sections to an Act and to subordinate legislation—

(a) references to an enactment include an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and

(b) the reference in section 17(2)(b) to subordinate legislation includes an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

(4) In the application of section 20 to an Act and to subordinate legislation, references to an enactment include an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament."
(3) In Schedule 1 (words and expressions defined), the following definitions are inserted in the appropriate places—
""Act" means an Act of Parliament."
""Enactment" does not include an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendment No. 226K is technical. It seeks to clarify the provisions contained in paragraph 14 of Schedule 8 which amend the Interpretation Act 1978 so that it deals with the interaction between Westminster legislation and Acts of the Scottish parliament. That is the new Section 23A.
The final part of the amendment is new and provides a general rule, as a starting point, about references to Acts and enactments in future Westminster legislation. It inserts two definitions in Schedule 1 to the 1978 Act which provide that the terms "Act" and "Enactment" will not include Acts of the Scottish parliament or instruments made under an Act of the Scottish parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have some recollection that yesterday when the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, used the words "technical amendments", my ears pricked up. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that when he uses similar words my ears similarly prick up.
This is a substantial amendment and the fact that it comes at the eleventh-and-a-half hour of the debate on the Bill is a matter of surprise. As I understand it, the effect of the amendment is to provide that a substantial number of the sections of the Interpretation Act 1978 should have no application to the construction of Acts of a Scottish parliament. That is contrary to the impression that I have gained throughout our debates on the Bill.
Earlier today, in anticipation of this debate, I went to the Library and obtained a copy of the 1978 Act. Having done so, I can advise the House that it is instructive to look at the rules of construction of statutes which are disapplied by this, at first sight, minor amendment but which in my view is a very substantial amendment.
Section 1 of that Act states:
"Every section of an Act takes effect as a substantive enactment without introductory words".
Section 4 then states:
"An Act or provision of an Act comes into force—

(a) where provision is made for it to come into force on a particular day, at the beginning of that day;

(b) where no provision is made for its coming into force, at the beginning of the day on which the Act receives the Royal Assent".

Section 5 of the Act refers to Schedule 1, which gives assistance on how certain words fall to be construed. They include words which we discussed in a little detail earlier in the proceedings on the Bill when debating the provisions of Clause 25; namely, the meaning of the words, "oath" and "affidavit". Those words are defined by Schedule 1 as including affirmation and declaration. The schedule also includes useful assistance on how one interprets other terms such as "Lord Chancellor", "Sheriff' and "Writing".
I move on now to Section 6, which states that,
"unless the contrary intention appears—

(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

(b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine"—

perhaps I may refer back to the amendment that we discussed yesterday on the Queen's Printer in Scotland in that respect. Section 6(c) then refers to the fact that,
"words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular".
The legislation includes provisions dealing with how one construes references to distance, time and other matters in the construction of statutes.
I could go on, but I do not believe that it is necessary for me to do so. It is clear that Amendment No. 226K disapplies a substantial number of the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978 from the construction of Acts of the Scottish parliament. I personally have some concern as to the competency of that parliament enacting an interpretation Act that would bind the English and Northern Irish courts in the interpretation of Acts of the Scottish parliament. It would undoubtedly be within the competence of the Scottish parliament to bind the Scottish courts, but, in view of the provisions of Clause 28(2)(c) as currently drafted, it might be possible to argue that Clause 28(2)(a) would preclude the Scottish parliament from laying down rules which would bind the English and Northern Irish courts as to how they construed such Acts.
However, much more importantly, I believe that is a very serious mistake to lay down on the face of the Bill in the stark terms set out in the amendment a divergence of approach to the question of construction of statutes, which is a necessary consequence of the words which the draftsmen have used on this occasion. As I have said on more than one occasion, after devolution when members of the Scottish parliament have been elected and the latter is up and running, the man in the street in Scotland will wish to treat the legislation coming from this Parliament in exactly the same way as he treats legislation coming from the Scottish parliament. I believe that the courts should follow a similar approach. Therefore, I must express grave concerns
256
about the amendment, which, as I construe it, seeks to disapply a major share of the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I think perhaps it might be convenient for me to add a few words to what the noble and learned Lord has said. As I read the amendment, its effect will be quite dramatic so far as concerns the Interpretation Act. Indeed, the only sections of that Act which would continue to apply to Acts of the Scottish parliament are Sections 15 to 18 and Section 20. I believe that that would be the effect of the amendments to Schedule 1, which seem to be a complete reversal of what was, and still is, in the schedule prior to the making of these amendments.
I would be able to understand this approach if the Minister could tell us that one of the first measures which would be introduced by the Scottish parliament was a fresh interpretation Act. While I share reservations as to whether that would be competent as regards the interpretation of measures in courts outside those in Scotland, at least it would indicate to us that the important parts of the Interpretation Act which one would need to use in order to interpret Scottish legislation would be available in the future when Scottish legislation is being interpreted.
An alternative approach might be to build some measure into this Bill which would provide equivalent measures with amendments suitable for the interpretation of Scottish enactments. In any event, there is a further point that troubles me which makes me suggest, with the greatest respect to the Minister, that it might be wise to take this amendment away and bring it back at Third Reading. I am not at all clear why reference has not been made to some of the other sections in the Interpretation Act which might be relevant to the kind of amendment which is being provided for here.
Sections 15 to 18 deal with the repeal of enactments by Acts of the Scottish parliament, and therefore the machinery which the Interpretation Act applies for these repeals is machinery which the Scottish parliament will need. Therefore it is quite right that these sections should apply to the Scottish parliament. Section 20 has a similar effect because it deals with references to other enactments. Again, it will be useful to the Scottish parliament to have the benefit of Section 20. However, I am not at all sure why no mention is made of Sections 22, 23, and possibly 26 and 27, which might also have a bearing on the way in which Scottish legislation might interact with other measures.
These are complicated matters and it is a matter of some regret that this measure has come forward at this stage in the Bill. The interaction between the Interpretation Act and the ability of the Scottish parliament to legislate effectively with the benefit of that measure is of such great importance that I suggest this amendment is worth having a further look at. In any event we need a much clearer explanation as to its effect.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, I add a further little worry which has occurred to me. As I understand it, and if the

257
view that has been expressed is correct, Section 5 gives the authority to Schedule 1, so how can amendments be made to Schedule 1 with any effect?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall try to clarify the intention, but because of the importance of this matter if there are outstanding difficulties I shall be happy to take the measure away. However, I shall proceed for the moment. The intention has always been that the Scottish parliament will make its own provisions with regard to the interpretation of Acts of a Scottish parliament. In the first instance the intention is to make transitional provision in applying the Interpretation Act 1978. The idea is to use the power to make transitional provision to apply the 1978 Act to the Acts of the Scottish parliament unless and until the Scottish parliament makes its own provision. If that is satisfactory at this stage, we can keep the amendment on that understanding. If my explanation is not satisfactory, I am content to take it away.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say a few words. I would be perfectly content with the assurance that the transition from the Interpretation Act—which quite obviously deals with measures of this Parliament—was provided for in the way described. I understand that there will have to be some measure which can then be used by the Scottish parliament for the interpretation of its measures. However, it is not simply that point which troubles me. I wish to be sure that the continuing provisions—some of which are in the amendment—for interaction between Acts of the Scottish parliament and Acts of this Parliament are all fully in place. I see some of them but I want to be quite sure that the entire battery of measures that is needed to provide for the interaction between measures of this Parliament and of the Scottish parliament is in place.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the Minister replies to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, this comes as something of a surprise to me in view of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in Committee on 14th July. He said:
"I see no reason for any difference between construing an Act of the Scottish parliament by the courts and an Act of the UK Parliament'—[Official Report, 14/7/98; col. 248.]
There may be an innocent explanation to this amendment and I fully accept that, possibly to his surprise, the Minister has been faced with a number of fairly searching questions for this time of day. What troubles me is that there appears to be somewhat of a departure from the approach that I understood the noble and learned Lord to advocate, one with which I fully sympathise; namely, that in construing Acts of the Scottish parliament and construing Acts of this Parliament, by and large a common approach should be taken.
When we bear in mind that it will be competent for the Scottish parliament to amend Acts of this Parliament, the idea that one has different rules of construction for different parts of an amended statute
258
depending on where they originated is somewhat mind-boggling. It may make a lot of money for lawyers but it should not commend itself either to politicians or, more importantly, to the electorate.
It may be sufficient if the Minister will undertake to write to those who have contributed to this debate within the course of the next couple of days so that, if it is necessary to return to this matter at Third Reading, that can be done. I do not disguise my concern that, technical though Amendment No. 226K was explained to be, it seems to open up something of a hornet's nest as regards the interpretation of legislation.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be acceptable if at this stage we kept with the amendments, and if I promised to write within the next day or two and we could return to this matter at Third Reading if there are issues outstanding. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 226L:
Page 99, line 14, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 15 and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 226M:
Page 99, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("(members") and insert—
("(1) The Insolvency Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) Anything directed to be done, or which may be done, to or by—

(a) the registrar of companies in Scotland by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), or

(b) the assistant registrar of friendly societies for Scotland by virtue of any of those provisions as applied (with or without modification) in relation to friendly societies, industrial and provident societies or building societies,

shall, or (as the case may be) may, also be done to or by the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
(3) Those provisions are: sections 53(1), 54(3), 61(6), 62(5) (so far as relating to the giving of notice), 67(1), 69(2), 84(3), 94(3), 106(3) and (5), 112(3), 130(1), 147(3), 170(2) and 172(8).
(4) Anything directed to be done to or by—

(a) the registrar of companies in Scotland by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (5), or

(b) the assistant registrar of friendly societies for Scotland by virtue of any of those provisions as applied (with or without modification) in relation to friendly societies, industrial and provident societies or building societies,

shall instead be done to or by the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
(5) Those provisions are: sections 89(3), 109(1), 171(5) and (6), 173(2)(a) and 192(1).
(6) In section 427").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to transfer certain devolved functions of the Registrar of Companies in Scotland and the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, who will be an office holder in the Scottish administration.
As a result of the amendment, functions relating to the devolved aspects of insolvency in Scotland will be concentrated in a single office holder appointed by and accountable to Scottish ministers. The Registrar of Companies and the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland will be left with their reserve functions and therefore accountable to the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. I trust that noble Lords will see the sense of this approach. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give some brief indication of the provisions in subsection (3)? There is a whole list of them and it is quite difficult to follow them. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord can at least lead us through the main ones so that we can fully understand what is to be devolved.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, there is a great deal of meat in this amendment and I do not pretend to have been able to get to grips with all of it. Perhaps I may raise a small point for the Minister to answer. In this House we have often debated when to use "shall" and when to use "may". But for the first time in my experience in this House I see the phrase,
"shall, or (as the case may be) may"
which seems to be browning the covey somewhat.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, Section 84 (3) refers to resolutions as to the winding up of a company which require to be forwarded to the registrar and recorded by him in accordance with Section 380 of the 1985 Act. Section 89(3) deals with a voluntary winding up, where there is to be a declaration of solvency to be delivered to the registrar within 15 days of the resolution.
Section 94(3) provides that, in a member's voluntary winding up, on completion the liquidator is required to make an account of the winding up, showing how it was conducted, and to present it to a general meeting of the company within a week after the meeting and to send a copy of the account to the registrar, along with a return of the holding of the meeting and its date.
Section 106(3) provides that, in a creditor's voluntary winding up, when the company's affairs are fully wound up the liquidator is to make up an account of the winding up, to be presented at a general meeting of the company and a meeting of creditors. A copy of the account is to be delivered to the registrar of companies within a week.
Section 109(1) provides that in a voluntary winding up the liquidator is to deliver to the registrar of companies within 14 days after his appointment the prescribed notice of the appointment.
Section 112(3) provides that a copy of an order staying the proceedings in a winding up must be forwarded forthwith by the company to the registrar.
Section 130(1) provides that on the making of a winding-up order a copy must be forwarded by the company to the registrar, who is required to enter it in the records relating to the company.
260
Section 147(3) provides that any order of the court assisting the proceedings in a winding up is to be forwarded forthwith by the company to the registrar of companies, who is required to enter it in the records.
There are a number of other provisions. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, could identify which particular provision he is concerned with.
With regard to the point made by the noble Viscount, I seek refuge in the draftsman on this occasion. I suspect that this is a drafting arrangement. I think that in this case the use of the words,
"shall, or (as the case may be) may",
arises from the start of the subsection, which says that,
"Anything directed to be done [shall be done], or which may be done [or (as the case may be) may be done]".
One can see the sense of the draftsman's approach on this occasion.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the Lord Advocate sits down, I wonder whether he could assist us by identifying which of the provisions referred to in subsection (3) are affected by the word "shall" and which by the word "may". As he began this helpful discussion as to what these sections involve, perhaps he could deal with Sections 53(1), 54(3), 61(6) and 62(5). I may be wrong, but I do not think he dealt with them in detail.
Lord Hardie: The noble and learned Lord will be well aware of the provisions in the statute and will know which ones contain "shall" and which contain "may". If he is unaware of those, I shall write to him in due course. Section 53, subsections (1) and (5) relate to the appointment of a receiver in the prescribed form, as the noble and learned Lord will remember, to be delivered to the registrar of companies within seven days of an execution for registration. On receipt of the relevant document and the requisite fee, the registrar has to enter the particulars of the appointment in the register of charges. Section 54, subsections (3) and (4) provide that, where the receiver is appointed by the court, the court's interlocutor is required to be delivered to the registrar for registration by or on behalf of the petitioner within seven days. Again, there is a question of a fee.
I do not know whether there are any further details that the noble and learned Lord wishes to have. I am happy to deal with any particular provision.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be happy to write to me in detail about the fees involved.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am sure that they are much more modest than the noble and learned Lord's fees.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 226N:
Page 100, line 31, after ("definitions),") insert—

("(a) in the definition of "the Crown", after "of" there is inserted "the Scottish Administration or of",M and

(b)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Interpretation]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 55, line 30, at end insert—
(""tribunal" means any tribunal in which legal proceedings may be brought").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Clause 119 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 57, leave out line 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 229A to 230:
Page 57, line 19, column 2, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 105(5A) and").
Page 58, line 16, at end insert—
("Scottish public authority with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part III of mixed functions or no reserved Schedule 5") functions
Page 58, line 21, at end insert—

("Tribunal

Section 118(1)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 121 [Transitional provisions etc.]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 230A:
Page 58, line 37, after ("53(2)") insert ("and (3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Commencement]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 230B:
Page 58, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("Sections 18 to 39, Parts II to V. sections 109 to 116 and section 117 (except so far as relating to paragraphs 9, 10, 17 and 21 of Schedule 8)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this, let us be frank, rather cryptic amendment is to bring the parts of the Scotland Bill which deal with elections into force immediately on Royal Assent. That is not to say that the elections themselves will take place immediately on Royal Assent. There will be a period of time between Royal Assent and the calling of the elections. It is just that this provision enables those aspects of the Bill dealing with elections to be brought into effect immediately after Royal Assent. Normally, provisions should not be brought into force less than two months after Royal Assent, which in this case would mean mid-January 1999. As the elections are to be held on 6th May 1999, this leaves little time for the detailed elections provisions under Clauses 11 and 14 to be put in place, not least because these are affirmative orders. The amendment therefore brings forward the commencement of the elections provisions allowing the orders to begin their parliamentary passage before Christmas. This, in turn, will ensure that the orders are in place well before the elections, which will be of advantage to electoral administrators and candidates alike. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is a desirable objective.
I should note that there is a small lacuna in the amendment, in that it would inadvertently commence amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 which have been
262
inserted by Amendment No. 226M, which we discussed earlier. We therefore intend to make the necessary correction at Third Reading.
This is the last amendment with which we will deal tonight. It may be of benefit to the House if I indicate briefly a number of areas, in addition to those signalled earlier in debate, in which we may bring forward amendments at Third Reading. These include improving the layout of Schedule 5, the reservation of data protection in Schedule 5, the definition of administrative law, further minor amendments to Schedule 4, the appointment of civil servants by Scottish Ministers, the extension of the protection in Clause 23 to cover former Ministers and civil servants, the Registers of Scotland Trading Fund, the drafting of Clause 48(5), and further amendments in connection with the use of the term "enactment". We shall also be reinstating Amendment No. 204A, which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, identified last night had been omitted from the Marshalled List because of a printing error. We are bringing it back. I hope that that is of assistance to the House. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for that foretaste of some of the amendments that the Government will bring forward for Third Reading. I wonder whether the noble Lord could try to ensure that we get these amendments as soon as possible and, it is to be hoped, before we leave London for the weekend. In this case, I do not necessarily mean that the Government should wait until Friday. Whereas some of us may be here on Friday, other noble Lords may not be. Even if we receive the amendments informally, those of us who have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill will be grateful.
As far as I could follow them, I am certain that we will be welcoming many, if not all, of them as responses to points that have been made during the 14 days we have spent on the Bill. One of the interesting aspects of the Bill as it has gone through the House is that many of the points made in debate have been taken on board by the Government and, I suspect, have also led to a rethinking by the Government on other parts of the Bill. We have seen a fair raft of amendments from the Government.
Perhaps the final point I should make regarding this amendment is that those of your Lordships who thought that we were about to escape the Scotland Bill next Monday forever have just been told that before Christmas we will have more happy hours looking at the many orders which will have to be brought forward in order to run the elections. With that pre-Christmas present, I am content with the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord please consider returning to the practice of not having Scottish business on a Monday?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia
  Agriculture Council, 19–20 October
  Agriculture Council, 19–20 October
  Salmon Imports
  Salmon Imports
  Department of Health: Cash Limits
  Department of Health: Cash Limits
  Telephone Calls to European Union
  Telephone Calls to European Union
  House of Lords: Visitor Survey
  House of Lords: Visitor Survey
  Unidroit Convention
  Unidroit Convention
  Satellite TV Transmissions: Disruption
  Satellite TV Transmissions: Disruption
  Family Policy
  Family Policy
  Mobile Phones
  Mobile Phones
  Office of Science and Technology
  Office of Science and Technology