Sitting of 6 July 1999

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 8 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Mental Health Services
    1. Mrs. Joan Humble: What improvements he proposes to make to the quality and provision of mental health services. [88237]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are determined to raise both the quality and provision of mental health services. We have already set that in motion by investing significant additional resources in this financial year, and for the next two years, amounting to £700 million, and we have made mental health a clear priority for both the national health service and social services. We have initiated a thorough review of the legislation to underpin the provision of care and treatment, and we are about to publish a national service framework to address unacceptable variations in service delivery.
    Mrs. Humble: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the additional resources to be made available for mental health? I welcome also yesterday's announcement of the Nye Bevan award for mental health services in Dewsbury. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, there are excellent mental health services in other parts of the country. In Blackpool, along the Fylde coast, there have been exciting developments in child and adolescent psychiatry. A new day centre has opened and new family support workers have been appointed.
    I wish to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the difficulties that my local community trust is having in recruiting and appointing a new consultant to deal
    804
    especially with child psychiatric problems. I am well aware that he has inherited from the previous Government a substantial shortfall in trained staff—
    Madam Speaker: Order. A question, please.
    Mrs. Humble: Can my hon. Friend offer me reassurances about the training and recruitment of staff, especially in child psychiatry, which is such an important area?
    Mr. Hutton: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend about that. I remind the House that the Government have committed £90 million over the next three years to improving the provision of child and adolescent mental health services, which have been neglected in the past and which can play an important role in improving mental health services. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to some of the problems in recruiting staff in a specialist area. She may be reassured to know, for example, that between 1997 and 1998, there has been a nearly 8 per cent. growth in the number of consultants in the psychiatry specialty group. The numbers in general psychiatry are expected to double from about 150 to 300. We are trying to address these problems. It is important that we succeed in doing so because these services are extremely important.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I think that the Minister will know how strongly I believe that additional priority should be given to mental health services. May I ask him again to look at how funding has affected the home counties? In Surrey, there is no money to recruit or employ people and there have been cuts across the board. At a time when policy soundbites are good, it is particularly dispiriting for those who are involved in the service not to have the wherewithal to embark on the necessary improvements.
    Will the Minister take forward the commitment that he gave in an Adjournment debate last week to ascertain what more he could do to help Cruse Bereavement Care? This is a day when prevention will be discussed. It seems that prevention in the area of mental health can be provided by assisting the voluntary organisations that help those undergoing bereavement. There could not be a better organisation than Cruse to do that.
    Mr. Hutton: I can reassure the right hon. Lady. She will know that I am meeting the chief executive of Cruse tomorrow to discuss her concerns and how the Government can better support the provision of bereavement services throughout the country. I remind the right hon. Lady that the £90 million to which I referred represents additional resources for child and adolescent mental health services, which will be distributed fairly throughout the country. I point out again to the right hon. Lady and to other Surrey Members, who raise these issues regularly with me, that both local authority social services and the national health service in Surrey have received real-terms increases in their allocations this year. At some point, the right hon. Lady might begin to acknowledge that fact.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: In Bolton, mental health providers are being used to train people who are working for the pilot new deal scheme for the disabled. Jointly with the local authority, specialist helpers

    805
    have been recruited to help people with mental health problems to get a job. Once they have obtained a job, the helpers are there to support them. Does my hon. Friend agree that joint working of this kind is the way forward for the benefit of our citizens?
    Mr. Hutton: I certainly do. My hon. Friend will probably be aware that there are initiatives in the north-west to try to provide better services for people with mental health problems to assist them in getting back into work and in retaining employment. We do not intend to let people with mental health problems slip through the net. We want to provide better services to support them in employment and to help those who fall out of employment.

    Waiting Times
    2. Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on waiting times from GP referral to in-patient admission in the South Staffordshire health authority area. [88238]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The Department has never collected data on patients' total waiting time from general practitioner referral to in-patient admission. However, I am pleased to say that during 1998–99, in-patient waiting lists in South Staffordshire fell by 2,233. Lengthy waits of over nine months fell by 7 per cent.
    Mr. Fabricant: It is not waiting lists but waiting times that count. I found out in January that patients hoping to go to the Good Hope hospital have to wait twice as long if they live in the South Staffordshire health authority area as people who live in Birmingham, for treatment for exactly the same clinical problem. I wrote to the Department of Health in January, and eventually got a reply in March from Baroness Hayman. She agreed that it was an anomaly and that it was wrong, and she stated that she had therefore asked her officials
    "at the West Midlands Regional Office of the NHS Executive to meet with the Health Authorities and Trust to see if there is scope for improving waiting times".
    Since then, I have heard nothing, despite writing. Surprise, surprise, I got a letter today—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We have had a very bad start to questions. These are really Adjournment debates. Will the hon. Gentleman put his question to the Minister now?
    Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    The letter today stated that there would be no change. My question is this: is it morally right that someone suffering from an illness who happens to live in one postcode area has to wait twice as long to go to the same hospital as those with exactly the same complaint who live in a different postcode area? Is that right or is it wrong?
    Mr. Denham: One of the things that we must tackle is the unacceptable variations in access to treatment and care, which were the legacy that we inherited from the fragmentation and divisiveness of the previous Government. May I say to the hon. Gentleman and
    806
    his constituent that in drawing a comparison with Birmingham, the hon. Gentleman is drawing a comparison with one of the five best performing health authorities in the country. Birmingham has the shortest waiting times for patient treatment and the shortest lists per head of population. It should be congratulated on that. The median waiting time for in-patient treatment at the Good Hope hospital is just under 12 weeks. For South Staffordshire, it is between two and three weeks longer than that.
    Dr. Liam Fox: When will the Minister produce the figures that matter to patients in South Staffordshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned, and publish the waiting times from referral by their GP to their actual treatment?
    Mr. Denham: The reason why this Government have not collected the figures from GP referral to in-patient admission is, I believe, the same reason why the previous Government did not do so: not all GP referrals end up with an in-patient admission, so that would not provide a meaningful statistic about the health service. I remember that under the previous Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member—I should have congratulated him on his new appointment—many, many people waited longer than 18 months for treatment. For nine months in a row, there have been no reports of people in the NHS having to wait for 18 months.
    Dr. Fox: The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) will have learned from the Minister what the true position is. The Government will not collect the figures because they know that they are creating waiting lists for waiting lists. When one adds the number of patients waiting to wait to the number of those actually waiting, one gets a much bigger number than the Government's fiddled figures. The Secretary of State promised to give us the figures back in September. The Minister is in charge of a health service in which junior doctors are betrayed, the British Medical Association says that morale is at an all-time low, complaints are up and confidence is down. The truth is that health is getting worse under Labour.
    Mr. Denham: That is simply not true. The hon. Gentleman makes claims about fiddled waiting list figures. He knows that the only change that this Government have made in the collection and publication of waiting list data is that we publish the information far more often than the previous Government did. As waiting lists come down—and they have come down—waiting times are coming down as well.

    Accident and Emergency Wards
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What progress has been made in reducing waiting times in accident and emergency wards in London hospitals in the past two years. [88239]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): More than £15 million is to be invested in A and E schemes across London hospitals for 26 accident and emergency departments. The money will help to ensure that long waits are tackled through the introduction of admission wards, special areas for

    807
    children, the appointment of more emergency nurse practitioners and new initiatives such as direct links with general practitioner surgeries.
    Dr. Cable: Is the Minister aware of the absolutely critical situation in south-west London, particularly at the West Middlesex and Kingston hospitals, which is manifested in large numbers of overnight stays and longer waits? Although we appreciate the programme of additional works that the Government are contemplating, will he consider an emergency programme designed to increase the number of beds in the hospitals so that the accident and emergency wards do not simply become annexes to the hospitals and chronically overcrowded as a result?
    Mr. Denham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that one of the A and E departments covered by the investment to which I have referred is at Kingston hospital, which will receive £2 million for accident and emergency redevelopment. That is, by some way, the largest sum for any London hospital. The way in which the accident and emergency money will be invested across London depends very much on what will make the biggest impact on the quality of service in each hospital. In four cases, X-ray facilities will be improved. In five cases, facilities such as medical assessment units or observation wards will be improved, which will reduce the waiting times for admission. In other cases, there will be additional treatment rooms or cubicles. We are taking the appropriate measures in each of the hospitals concerned to make the biggest possible impact on accident and emergency waiting times.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the Minister agree that matters will improve in London's accident and emergency departments only with the support and collaboration of the junior doctors who work in them round the clock? Is it not obvious from the proceedings of the British Medical Association conference this week that the Secretary of State has forfeited the confidence of junior and senior doctors? Would it not be in the best interests of the national health service in London if he were to let someone else rebuild that confidence?
    Mr. Denham: I am pleased to pay tribute to junior doctors and the role that they play in our hospitals; I met them recently and we had constructive discussions. I am as anxious as they are to ensure that improvements continue to be made in their working conditions and working hours, and in the other matters that affect the conditions of their rest periods. That is a promise that we are determined to see through. My right hon. Friend has led on it since he became Secretary of State and we shall continue to honour it.

    HIV Services
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What steps he plans to take to encourage commissioners of HIV services to agree longer-term contracts with the voluntary sector. [88240]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): We fully accept the importance of providing stability for voluntary sector providers of HIV services through longer-term rather than year-on-year contracts. Many authorities, especially in London and other cities, are working with consortiums to place three-year contracts with their voluntary sector providers. We welcome that. I have asked that this issue also be looked at particularly by the HIV-AIDS strategy steering group.
    Dr. Tonge: That is all very well, but I am sure that the Minister agrees that voluntary organisations have played a huge part in the containment of HIV in this country. They still have an important part to play, but many of them did not know their financial situation until well into the year and they simply cannot plan. According to the curiously named Home Office document, "Compact on Relations Between Government and the Voluntary Sector", it is
    "good practice to give voluntary organisations early and transparent information".
    The White Paper says that annual contracts are bad practice, so when will we have action instead of pronouncements?
    Ms Jowell: I pay tribute to the voluntary sector in the HIV-AIDS field; it makes a vital contribution to the care and support of people with AIDS and HIV. The HIV strategy document will be issued for consultation next spring, and we are determined to deal with the problems faced by the voluntary sector by replacing annual contracts with longer-term contracts to ensure that its work has the stability that is so important for the people whom it serves.

    Health Service Investment
    Mr. Keith Darvill: What the planned level of capital investment in the national health service is over the next three years. [88241]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): More than £8 billion of capital investment is planned for the national health service over the next three years. Since we won the election, work has begun on 17 major new hospital projects, and more will be announced shortly.
    Mr. Darvill: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The planned investment will go some way towards addressing the chronic lack of capital investment in our precious asset, the national health service. Does the investment to which he referred include the new PFI-funded hospital at Oldchurch Park, Romford, recommended in the Turnberg report? What a wonderful birthday present that would be for my constituents on the 51st anniversary of the national health service.
    Mr. Dobson: I do not want to anticipate any announcements that may be made tomorrow, but I think that my hon. Friend's constituency will be getting a birthday present.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Why do the public think that things in the NHS are not getting any better even after the Government

    809
    have been in office for two years? Many of the staff in the NHS think that things are getting worse. Is it because, for the first two years, there was no more investment than there was under the Tories? Or is it because the Government are going down the PFI route far more enthusiastically than the Tories ever did, selling off assets in the biggest privatisation in the history of the health service? In the words of the editor of this week's British Medical Journal, the Government are at risk of leaving the NHS as a rump service. Could that be the reason?
    Mr. Dobson: The editor of the British Medical Journal is talking just as much claptrap as the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman should be grateful for the amount of capital that the Government have put into the services in his constituency at Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals, where building works have already started on massive improvements in the services for the people whom he purports to represent. On top of that, we are building a new medical school.
    Mr. Richard Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, later today, representatives of the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust will be talking to the Birmingham group of Labour MPs about its plans and proposals for a new hospital in the south of Birmingham? Does he agree with me that, although the staff at the Queen Elizabeth and Selly Oak hospitals provide a first-class service, all too often they work in totally unsatisfactory conditions as a result of neglect during 18 years of Tory rule? There is a serious need to improve the condition of our hospital stock in south Birmingham, so it is important that the current consultation reaches a successful conclusion as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Dobson: I agree that it is a disgrace that dedicated professionals in many parts of the national health service are expected to work in deplorable conditions with unreliable equipment that no other professional group would tolerate for five minutes. These problems cannot be put right immediately, but since we got in, we have started on 17 major new hospital projects and more will be announced. We are putting billions of pounds into improving existing hospitals. This year, £350 million is already earmarked for improving equipment, because it is a disgrace that staff constantly have to use equipment that goes on the blink or breaks down because it is out of date. I am glad to say that we shall also be using more than £100 million from the national lottery to provide more reliable and up-to-date equipment for cancer diagnosis and treatment.
    Dr. Liam Fox: In assessing the funds available for capital investment in the next three years, what account has the Secretary of State taken of revenues generated under the Road Traffic (NHS) Charges Act 1999? Is it true that not a penny has so far been handed over? If it is not true, how much has been handed over?
    Mr. Dobson: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new job. He is the fourth shadow Secretary of State for Health that I have faced. Hereinafter we shall refer to him as Liam IV.
    810
    Pathetic sums of money were being raised under the arrangements that we inherited from the previous Tory Government. The new system has been in operation for just two months, so we have not yet received the first quarterly report on progress. As Tories ought to know by now, generally speaking, a quarter of a year involves three months.

    Dental Services
    Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement on the number of dental patients treated under the national health service each month. [88242]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): About 3 million people in England complete a course of dental treatment in the general dental service each month. That means that more than 3 million visit NHS dentists each month, because many will visit more than once during the month.
    Helen Jackson: Is my hon. Friend aware that dental practices in some areas—such as Stocksbridge, quite a large town in my constituency—have withdrawn the facility for adults to receive NHS dental treatment, and have told them to use a private contributory scheme? A filling costs £25, and an extraction £30. People are left with the choice between doing that and paying the £3 bus fare to Sheffield to obtain NHS treatment.
    Has my hon. Friend any plans to enhance the role and powers of health authorities, which are very concerned about the position, so that they can intervene and offer loyalty bonuses and other incentives to practices that continue to offer NHS treatment, and, perhaps, ensure that practices do not cause patients inconvenience of this kind?
    Mr. Denham: Although the number of NHS dentists has risen, as has the number of treatments carried out under the NHS, access to NHS dentistry is unsatisfactory in some parts of the country. I am aware of the problem in Stocksbridge. The Government have introduced two measures designed to enable health authorities to cope with the difficulties. The investing in dentistry scheme, which ran until April this year, will enable an extra 650,000 patients to register for NHS dental treatment, and the personal dental services schemes—of which there are many throughout the country—provide a more flexible way of allowing access to NHS dentistry. It is important for health authorities to take full advantage of those initiatives. Sheffield made no proposals under either scheme; I do not know why, but I urge my hon. Friend to encourage her health authority to make the best possible use of the Government's mechanisms to support NHS dentistry.
    Mr. James Gray: Our experience in North Wiltshire is very similar to that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). We had three NHS dentists when the Labour party came to power; all three have since gone out of business, and Chippenham, a prosperous town with a population of 30,000, has no NHS dentists at all.
    The Minister just suggested that the investing in dentistry scheme had ended in April. That contradicts a letter that I received from him recently in reply to an application by Dr. Hazlem, who is trying to set up a new

    811
    practice in Chippenham. We were told very recently that that letter was being considered, and that the Government might well provide Dr. Hazlem with the IID funds that he had requested. Is the Minister now changing his mind, and has the IID scheme been run down?
    Mr. Denham: The investing in dentistry scheme closed to new applications on 23 April, but a number of applications—including, I believe, that of the hon. Gentleman's constituent—are still being considered under that procedure. We are looking for the best ways to continue our support for NHS dentistry, and will publish an NHS dentistry strategy later this year.

    Cancer Summit
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What progress he has made in implementing the action plan agreed at the cancer summit meeting in May. [88243]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Work is under way to implement the action plan agreed at the Prime Minister's cancer summit in May. The Medical Research Council is bringing together major funders of cancer research to consider how research can be better co-ordinated. National standards and performance indicators are still being developed as part of the implementation of the Calman-Hine approach introduced by the previous Government. A director of the cancer action team will take up a post in July. We hope that, as a result of those measures, we shall ensure that the standards of diagnosis and treatment of cancer that currently apply in the best units apply in every part of the country.
    Dr. Gibson: The cancer summit at Downing street clearly threw down the gauntlet in regard to tackling and improving our dreadful cancer statistics. The all-party group on cancer has issued five policy pledges, which I have here. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Cancer Research Campaign, which today launched an anti-tobacco research and surveillance unit to chase and harry the tobacco giants as they try to flout the advertising laws? Will he ensure that no doctor has to stand in front of a patient ever again and say, "I cannot give you the drugs to cure and treat your cancer because the health authority refuses to pay for them"?
    Mr. Dobson: I generally welcome the actions of the Cancer Research Campaign—even, occasionally, when it asks for more money. I certainly welcome what it is doing in relation to tobacco. Every year, the tobacco industry has to recruit 120,000 people to make up for the 120,000 who are killed by following the makers' instructions on the packets in which the tobacco companies sell the cigarettes. They usually target that effort at children because most people start smoking when they are children. Anything that we can do to counter what they have been doing is to be welcomed. There is clear evidence that, almost 20 years ago, they were looking at ways of countering the possibility that tobacco advertising might be banned.
    Tobacco advertising will be banned here from December; we will be the first in Europe to ban it, of which we are proud. [Interruption.] Whatever the mutterings from the Conservative party, we were glad that we stopped
    812
    being part of the group that obstructed the introduction of an anti-tobacco advertising directive throughout Europe. We are glad that we have led the way in banning tobacco advertising, because tobacco smoking is the principal cause of the inequalities in health among adults in this country. Seventy per cent. of the deaths of working-class people, over and above what one would expect among middle-class people, are the result of smoking.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Is the Secretary of State's pledge to introduce a maximum two-week waiting time for breast cancer treatment due to be met on schedule? What representations has he received regarding the clinical necessity of such a policy?
    Mr. Dobson: I do not yet have the reports, but, so far as I know, we expect the target to be met in most places; I hope that it will be met in all places. Some clinicians have doubts about the target, but others have welcomed it. We believe that it is right and proper to set those targets, particularly because women are naturally extremely perturbed if they are referred by their general practitioner for urgent examination and diagnosis by a cancer specialist when it is suspected that they may have breast cancer. We were advised by the then chief medical officer that a two-week target was reasonable.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend again on his wisdom and intelligence in selecting the breast cancer service that is based at Royal Lancaster infirmary to be a national health service beacon? May I assure him that his judgment is sound? It is an excellent service. It will go from strength to strength, given the confidence that he and his Department have shown in it.
    Mr. Dobson: I always welcome the odd compliment, as we get so much abuse—although, on reflection, I have concluded that we get far more abuse in the newspapers than we ever do in the House of Commons. As my hon. Friend knows, I was pleased to be at the new unit in Lancaster, where there was a good partnership between the clinicians, other people from the NHS, social services and the Macmillan organisation to provide a better service, which backs up the extended service that is available nearby in Preston.
    Dr. Evan Harris: As vice-chairman of the all-party group on cancer, may I reassure the Secretary of State that none of the five sensible pledges for the comprehensive cancer strategy is described as an early pledge so Liberal Democrats hope that they be may implemented. But how can the Secretary of State implement any strategy on cancer without considering staffing? Is he aware that any expansion in the breast screening programme may be held up by a shortage of qualified radiologists, who are terrified to enter a sector where they are liable to be condemned by Ministers for errors in the service? Up to half of cytology screening units have lost their quality accreditation and his Department is still sending out redundancy notices to qualified, ready-to-be-consultant gynaecologists, when women are dying as a result of inadequate gynaecological cancer services.
    Mr. Dobson: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a doctor, but I noticed a quick shift in his question from radiology to obstetrics and gynaecology. Certainly I am very well aware that we do not have sufficient radiologists to do the work that we should all like to be done. [Interruption.] I cannot imagine why any Tory Member is yakking about that. When they were in office, not enough radiologists were taken on, trained and subsequently made consultants. We want not only to try to make maximum use of the radiologists available but to recruit and train more radiologists as soon as possible. As I said, in some cases, we want to use lottery money—in other cases, just plain NHS money—to improve diagnostic equipment and make it more reliable. That would be good for patients and staff.
    The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that all the cancer screening incidents in which things have gone wrong have not in any way been the responsibility of some of the individuals concerned. However, even some doctors have to take responsibility in those circumstances. If the independent panels that have been established to look into those matters criticise the doctors involved, I think that I am entitled to endorse that criticism.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The gimmickry of the Prime Minister's cancer summit brings no comfort to cancer sufferers denied access to modern cancer drugs such as Taxol and Tamoxifen. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, as a result of the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, further rationing of those drugs is prevented?
    Mr. Dobson: I welcome the hon. Lady to her job. If she had asked anyone who attended the Prime Minister's cancer summit, she would know that none of them thought that it was a gimmick, and that, afterwards, they all praised it. I would rather take my cue from them than from the Tory party. I confirm that Taxol is likely to be one of the highest-priority drugs for consideration by NICE. If the institute advises that it should be rolled out across the country, rolled out it will be.

    Teenage Pregnancy
    Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on the level of teenage conception and pregnancy in the South Humber health authority area. [88244]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): In 1997, the conception rate for under-20s in South Humber health authority area was 81 per 1,000, compared with an average for England of 61.9 per 1,000. South Humber has already identified prevention of teenage pregnancy as a local priority.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and warmly welcome the Government's recent initiatives on tackling teenage pregnancy. However, does she acknowledge that emergency contraception plays a vital role in tackling unwanted pregnancy and in reducing abortion rates among young women? To that end, will she seriously consider making emergency contraception more widely available—as has been called for by Cosmopolitan magazine and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service? The harsh reality is that, for young women who have
    814
    unprotected sex on a Friday or Saturday night, it is nigh on impossible to get to their doctor within 72 hours to get that prescription.
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and her praise of the social exclusion unit's action plan to tackle teenage pregnancy. For a combination of reasons—such as low expectations, ignorance and the mixed messages on sex sent to our young people—the United Kingdom has Europe's highest teenage pregnancy rate. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one reason why our teenage pregnancy rate is so high is the low rate of contraception use compared with that in other European countries. About 50 per cent. of young people use contraception the first time that they have sex. One of the intentions of the social exclusion unit action plan will be to ensure better access to contraception and to counselling about contraception, including emergency contraception.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister consider that the best treatment for the condition to which the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has drawn attention is education and self-discipline, or does she consider that it might be treated by adding something to the water in south Humber? If she favours the former, why does her Department retain a fondness for adding something to the water to treat other conditions?
    Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman's comments explain why the rate of teenage pregnancy under the Conservatives remained high—they believed that it had something to do with the water.

    Bowel Cancer
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What investment his Department is making in services to combat bowel cancer. [88245]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): To help prevent bowel cancer, £750,000 has been made available this year for pilot studies relating to diet and colorectal cancer and £1.5 million per annum over three years is funding colorectal cancer screening pilots. Since 1998, an additional £20 million has been invested in additional work force, equipment and audit processes to speed access to diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer and to reduce waiting times.
    Dr. Naysmith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Bristol beating bowel cancer campaign, launched earlier this year? It has two main aims: first, to raise £1.5 million for research into bowel cancer, some of which will be spent at the world-class laboratories at Bristol university headed by Professor Chris Paraskeva; and secondly, and perhaps more important, to raise the awareness of bowel cancer among the general population.
    Bowel cancer is one of those cancers that is susceptible to treatment if caught early. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention also to the fact that recent research suggests that, following treatment, the outcome can depend heavily on the affluence or poverty of the groups from which patients are drawn? Will he assure me that he will supply the resources and has a strategy to deal with that problem?
    Mr. Dobson: I welcome the activities of the BBBC campaign in Bristol, which is obviously doing good work

    815
    and is exactly the sort of thing that we want to encourage. It sounds to me that it makes better use of its money than the BBC. The statement I shall make a little later today will emphasise the extent to which we want cancer to be combated by early identification and early treatment, particularly those cancers where early treatment means that people can recover entirely. That is very much to be welcomed, and I will do my best to sustain such initiatives.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that irritable bowel syndrome in children is a serious problem? What resources are the Government devoting to that? Does he agree that one method of combating bowel complaints is a restrictive diet? Are the Government looking at ways in which such diets can be employed to reduce the incidence of conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome?
    Mr. Dobson: I try to be honest, and I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about what the Government are doing about irritable bowel syndrome in children. I shall write to him as soon as I find out. Diet has a major impact on that complaint and on all sorts of bowel conditions, including cancer.

    Clinical Treatment
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What steps he is taking to achieve greater geographic evenness of clinical treatment in the health service. [88246]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): We have introduced a number of measures to avoid the problem of the postcode providing unequal access to treatment in the NHS, which we inherited from the previous Government. One major development is the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which seemed to be endorsed for the first time by those on the Tory Front Bench today. It is there to provide guidance to doctors in every part of the country on the latest drugs and treatments.
    Mr. Boswell: I am sure that the Secretary of State would allow a measure of autonomy to local health authorities and primary care groups in setting their local strategies and that it would be most inappropriate if he, as a politician, were to tell doctors what to do or what to prescribe. Would he nevertheless concede that, especially in relation to complex or expensive treatments, such as the prescription of beta interferon for multiple sclerosis, we really cannot accept for a moment longer than is necessary the continuing tyranny of prescription by postcode, and that people expect not merely more words about that but some effective action, whether from NICE or from himself, to ensure that it is ended as soon as possible?
    Mr. Dobson: We will shortly hold consultations about the use of beta interferon, which will ultimately be considered by NICE, but, in fairness even to the previous Government, there are disputes in some parts of the country between clinicians about the appropriateness of the use of beta interferon and I do not want to poke my nose in if I can possibly avoid it.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that one of the most effective
    816
    ways of ensuring the even geographic spread of services is to ensure that resources are spread equally around the country. Is he aware that Leicestershire health authority is still below its weighted capitation fee, and will he ensure that, over the coming years, as the new money feeds into the national health service, Leicestershire makes up the gap between the 97 per cent. that it currently receives and the 100 per cent. that we believe it deserves?
    Mr. Dobson: It is our intention to move all authorities near to their established norm, and that will certainly apply in Leicestershire as well as everywhere else.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the moves to spread excellence around, but does he agree that treatment cannot be given if there is still ambiguity about diagnosis? Is it not time to concentrate more on the treatment of ME or chronic fatigue syndrome, which medical people in some parts of the country deny is a disease?
    Mr. Dobson: This is one of those difficult matters on which there are almost savage disagreements between medical professionals not only about the possible treatment of the condition but about whether it even exists. Once again, that is best resolved by the people who at least in theory know what they are talking about, although if there are two diametrically opposed sides, one of them must be wrong. It is better for them to try to thrash these things out than for me to try to lay down the law. Secretaries of State should keep their powder dry and interfere over the availability of particular drugs only in extreme circumstances.

    Testicular Cancer
    Jane Griffiths: What measures he is taking to encourage men to examine themselves to assist early diagnosis of testicular cancer; and if he will make a statement. [88248]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are committed to improving cancer services and we fund a number of publications emphasising the importance of a healthy life style, and giving advice on recognition of symptoms of illness, including testicular cancer. The NHS home health care guide, published in 1998, encourages men to be aware of any unusual changes and to discuss them with their doctors at an early stage. From 2000, all those with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their GP requesting an urgent appointment. Referral guidelines to help GPs to identify early symptoms of cancer are being developed to assist in the early diagnosis of all cancers.
    Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lives of many women have been saved by their having been encouraged over the years to do breast self-examination and that, because the lives of men with testicular cancer—the incidence of which is doubling every 20 years—can also be saved if the diagnosis is early, men should be encouraged to examine themselves without embarrassment?
    Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree. My hon. Friend will probably be aware that many of our leaflets have been

    817
    focused on younger men and that testicular cancer is the commonest cancer in men aged between 20 and 34, with about 1,000 new cases being registered each year. I am sure that she will agree that the consensus is that promoting testicular awareness is the most effective way of tackling the problem.

    NHS Dentistry
    Charlotte Atkins: What initiatives his Department is pursuing to increase the availability of NHS dentistry. [88250]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): We have already taken action to improve the availability of NHS dentistry through the investing in dentistry and the personal dental services initiatives. We are currently considering options about how best to use available resources in the future to improve the availability of NHS dentistry further. As I said earlier, we shall publish a dental strategy later this year.
    Charlotte Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Labour Government came to power, no NHS dentist in my constituency was accepting new NHS patients? Since then, new NHS dental practices have opened in Leek and Werrington, but more must be done if we are to safeguard the dental health of our population. I welcome the initiative on an NHS dental strategy, but will my hon. Friend assure me that new and innovative ways will be studied to spread access to NHS dentistry not only to inner-city areas but to rural constituencies such as mine?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. In north Staffordshire, eight investing in dentistry bids have been approved since the Government came to power, of which my hon. Friend mentioned two. They should give a further 23,000 patients in the area the opportunity to access NHS dental care.
    My hon. Friend is also right to say that, in developing the dental strategy, we shall need to study a range of mechanisms to ensure that people can access NHS dentistry. I agree with my hon. Friend that the problem is not always greatest in inner-city areas, where the task will be to persuade more of the population to register with the dentists who are available. We will need to come up with proposals that fit a wide variety of circumstances across the country.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister will know that there has been a large drop in the number of people registered with NHS dentists since the Government came to power. A dental strategy must be based on people having regular check-ups, which people are not having because they are not registered with NHS dentists. What is the Minister going to do about that?
    Mr. Denham: There was a drop in the number of registrations because the registration period was shortened. The people who did not re-register were those who did not visit their dentists regularly in that period. As I said earlier, the number of NHS dentists is greater than two years ago, as is the number of treatments carried out under NHS dentistry. However, we are not complacent: as I have acknowledged several times this afternoon,
    818
    access to NHS dentistry is unacceptably difficult in some parts of the country. We have taken many more measures to tackle that problem than the previous Government, but I am sure that we shall need to do more.

    GP Funding
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to review the funding arrangements for GPs; and if he will make a statement. [88251]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): We have established the equity in primary care working group, whose membership includes representatives from the general practices committee of the British Medical Association, health authorities, the medical practices committee and the NHS executive. Its task is to consider the equitable distribution of work force and resources in general practice. I expect to receive its recommendations shortly.
    Mr. Mullin: In so far as I understand the funding arrangements for GPs, they are ring-fenced and cannot be used to employ GPs on a salaried basis, for example. One effect of that is that places such as Sunderland—which has difficulty attracting its full quota of GPs—effectively subsidise places such as Buckinghamshire. Does my hon. Friend consider that to be satisfactory? If not, will something be done about it?
    Mr. Denham: I personally have nothing at all against Buckinghamshire, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. It is not possible simply to take money notionally allocated to pay a GP under the general medical services budget and reallocate it to a different use. However, health authorities can use the personal medical pilot scheme to create positions for salaried doctors, as well as to vary, by agreement, the contractual arrangements with GPs. I know that Sunderland is keen to use that mechanism to deal with the shortage of GPs.
    It is also worth stating that recruitment difficulties are not the only problem, including in Sunderland. Some GPs with large lists are reluctant to advertise for partners, for example. We need to address a range of matters with health authorities if we are to tackle the problems that my hon. Friend raises.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Might not the Minister also have referred to low rates of recruitment into general practice from among medical students? Is he satisfied with the number who go on to train as GPs, and if he is not, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Denham: I am pleased that the latest national GP recruitment figures are encouraging. A 7.7 per cent. increase in GP registrars shows that many medical students see general practice as an important and fulfilling career. We shall train more medical students, and we announced nearly 800 additional places last week. I am confident that many students will go into general practice as they see our reforms putting GPs and nurses in the driving seat in the new NHS.

    Private Health Care
    Miss Melanie Johnson: What plans he has to introduce new regulations covering private health care. [88252]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): On 15 June we published a consultation document, "Regulating Private and Voluntary Healthcare", in which we have proposed a new body with tough powers to regulate private hospitals and to replace the archaic system that currently treats private hospitals as nursing homes.
    Miss Johnson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and the consultation, which builds on work done by people such as my constituent Caroline Buckley, who lost her mother tragically under private health care, and the many bereaved and troubled relatives concerned by the state of the private health care industry. Who does my right hon. Friend believe should foot the bill for the regulation of private health care? Should it be the NHS, as the Opposition believe, or should the industry foot the bill itself?
    Mr. Dobson: We propose that the private health care industry should pay the costs of its regulation, and I can safely say that we have the Treasury's wholehearted support.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State consider my eight-year-old constituent, Laura Giddings, who lost her leg in the Planet Hollywood explosion and who, as I have said before, has been forced to turn to the private sector to obtain a suitable artificial limb? In drawing up new regulations for the private sector, will he consider applying to artificial limbs the criteria applied to wheelchairs so that someone who has to go to the private sector for a suitable appliance will receive the money that would have been spent on a less suitable appliance by the NHS?
    Mr. Dobson: I express sympathy for the little girl and her family. The family have met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, and I am prepared to consider any arrangement that would facilitate the little girl's being able to get about as well as humanity can manage now that inhumanity has deprived her of her leg.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: Has my right hon. Friend been able to study the work of Dr. John Yates at Birmingham university, which proves that areas of the country with the highest number of private beds also seem to have the longest NHS waiting lists? Has he had a chance to consider that matter, and if so, what action are the Government taking?
    Mr. Dobson: Yes, I have and the Select Committee on Health, which is chaired by my hon. Friend, is studying
    820
    that and other matters related to the regulation of the private sector. I look forward to receiving its report and considering it along with the other representations that we receive in response to our consultation document.

    Alzheimer's Disease
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: What assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of Burford hospital on the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in west Oxfordshire. [88253]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State instructed officials at the south-east regional office of the NHS executive to facilitate further discussions about the proposals to reconfigure community services in Oxfordshire. While no decisions have yet been taken, should the Secretary of State decide to support the health authority's decision on the reconfiguration, the authority is committed to consider the relocation of the specialist Alzheimer's disease service that is provided at Burford community hospital.
    Mr. Woodward: The Minister will be aware that this is national Alzheimer's awareness week. He will also be aware that the Secretary of State has now had nearly an entire year to consider the future of Burford community hospital. The Royal College of Nursing report on Alzheimer's found that the Burford unit was top of 75 units throughout the country in the pioneering work that it did. The report went on to say that if we are to take Alzheimer's work seriously,
    "it is vital that the parent service continues at its present location."
    Will the Minister take that report seriously and will he finally make a decision about Burford and allow my 750 constituents who rely on the facilities of that hospital to know that they have a secure future?
    Mr. Hutton: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we certainly take Alzheimer's disease seriously. In fact, as he will be aware, the publication of the national carers' strategy, which will help significantly the carers of people with the disease, has been widely welcomed. He will also probably be aware that, next year, the new national service framework for the NHS will be for older people. We are looking within the context of that framework to define new service models and national standards for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. I am sure that he will welcome that.
    I am afraid that I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman any of the assurances that he is seeking about the future of the hospital in his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still considering those proposals in great detail, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want him to do. A decision will be made as soon as possible.

Public Health
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The new White Paper which I am presenting to the House today is called "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", and that is exactly what it is about. It spells out how we want to save lives by stopping people becoming ill in the first place.
We aim to save 300,000 lives by 2010 by reducing the death rate from cancer in people under 75 by at least one fifth; by reducing the death rate from coronary heart disease and stroke in people under 75 by at least two fifths; by reducing the death rate from accidents by one fifth; and by reducing the death rate from suicide by one fifth. Those are ambitious targets, which should mean that we become a healthier nation. They are bigger reductions than we suggested in the Green Paper—and unlike the Green Paper, those tough targets now apply not only to people under 65, but to people under 75.
Those targets are backed by action. On cancer, it is action against smoking, action to improve diet, action to improve screening uptake and quality, action to modernise cancer scanners and equipment, and action to improve treatment. On heart disease and strokes, again there will be action on smoking and diet and also action on blood pressure and exercise, action to cut heart attacks and action to improve rehabilitation.
However, that is only part of the story. We are not only setting tougher targets than the previous Government: we are explicitly aiming to do something quite different. Poor people are ill more often and die sooner, so we are going to tackle the inequalities in health, which grew under the previous Government.
Our policies are designed to improve most of all the health of the least healthy. The national health service has a big part to play, but our strategy requires a three-way partnership between the whole Government, local communities, families and individuals. None can succeed without the others. We reject the idea that individuals are powerless victims of their fate, but we also reject the Tory idea that individuals are entirely to blame for their own poor health.
We need to use all the means at our disposal to make it possible for everyone to lead a healthier life. Unemployment, low wages, poor housing, crime and disorder, lack of education, and environmental pollution all make people ill. The Government are taking action to tackle them. The windfall levy, opposed by both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, provides jobs and training for young people; and 400,000 more people are now in work than when we were elected. Low pay is a health hazard, so we shall improve the health of more than 2 million people and their families through our introduction of a national minimum wage. This autumn, those families and many others will be further helped by the working families tax credit. Many thousands more will benefit from having a decent home to live in as a result of our increased investment in new and better homes for people who are badly housed at present. Improved educational standards are providing economic opportunity and pathways out of social exclusion.
The Government will play their part, but so too must communities. In some areas, whole neighbourhoods are unhealthy because of poverty, pollution, crime and
822
disorder. We must target effort on those neighbourhoods. The most deprived areas are being helped by the extra effort and extra funding that flows from regeneration schemes, from health and education action zones, from lottery funds going into healthy living centres, from the replacement of substandard general practitioner premises, from the sure start programme for children, from the healthy schools project, and from our £96 million public health development fund.
We want to work with community organisations, local councils and health bodies to ensure that those programmes are delivered on the ground. Every health authority will have to draw up and implement a health improvement programme that identifies and meets the particular health and health care needs of its area. That is because priorities differ in different parts of the country, with different individuals and groups having different problems—for example, respiratory disease in areas of heavy industry, or formerly of heavy industry, or the higher incidence of heart disease or cancer among certain ethnic groups. Local councils, businesses and voluntary organisations will all be involved in developing and implementing those plans.
Fluoridation illustrates the new approach. The White Paper makes it clear that we will conduct an independent expert review of the safety and benefits of fluoridation. If that shows that fluoridation is beneficial, local authorities will be given new powers to require water companies to fluoridate where there is local support for doing so.
We also propose to strengthen the public health professions and to develop extended roles for health visitors, community and school nurses, and midwives. The new primary care groups will enable GPs and practice nurses to draw upon their unique relationship with patients to help to promote better health. Many of the groups are already doing that.
We want action by Government and action by communities, but that cannot be the end of the story. Individuals and families must play their part—for example, on smoking, which is the biggest single cause of avoidable death and of inequalities in health in this country. We have a twin-track strategy to stop the tobacco companies recruiting new smokers and to help existing smokers to give up the habit. Unlike the Tories, we accept the overwhelming evidence that tobacco advertising helps to get children addicted, so the Government intend to play their part by banning advertising from December. However, we also accept that individuals need help to give up smoking, which is why we are making free nicotine replacement therapy available to poor smokers who want to give up.
That is a recognition of the fact that up to now most health promotion strategies have actually widened the health gap, because the better-off have taken more notice than the worst-off. We need to develop strategies that have the most impact on the least healthy. That is one reason why the White Paper announces our decision to replace the Health Education Authority with a new hard-hitting Health Development Agency, with a much bigger role in working out and delivering the approaches that will work best.
Individuals and families can help one another. That is why we are launching a health skills programme that will give young people first-aid skills and health information; that is why we are launching our expert patients

823
programme to help people with chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes better to manage their conditions. That will be good for the NHS and good for patients, as fewer complications mean better health and less demand on GPs and hospitals, with resources used to tackle the highest priorities.
The White Paper sets out long-term plans for improving the health of the nation and reducing inequalities in health. They really are long-term plans: their full benefits will show up only in a decade or more. That is the time scale involved, but it is no reason for delay. It is all the more reason for getting on with it: 300,000 lives saved, 300,000 reasons for action.
Fifty-one years ago this week, the national health service, which Nye Bevan founded, came into operation. We all benefit from the far-sightedness of that Labour Government, whose action cut inequalities in access to health care. By itself, that action could not reduce inequalities in health, but common justice requires that we do so.
Conservative Members who represent areas where people are comfortably off and pretty healthy should recognise that ours is a simple but difficult aim. We want to help to make sure that the standard of health of the people they represent in Surrey or Sutton Coldfield is shared by the people we represent in Barnsley or Bethnal Green. That is what we mean when we say that we want to end the divisions that mar our society and instead create a genuine one nation. I believe that that is what all decent people want, wherever they live and whatever their own state of health. That is why I commend the White Paper to the House.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Liam Fox: Usually, farewell performances get a better cheer than that. The Opposition would welcome any genuine measures to improve the health of the people of the United Kingdom, but we deserved better than the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
There are some aspects of the White Paper that we welcome. Since the publication of the Green Paper, the Secretary of State has changed the targets, but I am sorry that he has not widened them. For example, the expert patients programme he outlined for asthma and diabetes is welcome, but it is not a substitute for targets, which we wanted. Of course we need to send positive health messages to the population—lose weight, eat sensibly, exercise more and, as it says in "Ten Tips For Better Health":
"Manage stress by … talking things through … Practise safer sex"
and
"follow the Highway Code."
Those are important messages for the public, but the White Paper is heavy on gimmicks and short on substance.
Let me give one example. The section on defibrillators says:
"members of the public can use them as soon as it is clear that they are needed"
in, for example, supermarkets, railway stations and airports. How are members of the public to know when a defibrillator is needed? How will they be trained? What
824
will any indemnity consist of—will the Government provide blanket indemnity? If the Government are truly concerned, it would be better to spend the money on improving ambulance response times.
If, as the Secretary of State said, cancer scanners are to be modernised, are more staff to be recruited to operate them and interpret the results? There is currently a shortage of both radiographers and radiologists. At a time when fully trained obstetricians and gynaecologists are being laid off, how does that give comfort to women suffering from cervical or uterine cancer? The reality does not match the rhetoric. If exercise is to be encouraged, why has sport been removed from the national curriculum for primary schools? Does the right hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that suicide rates are the best way to measure the prevalence of mental illness, and on what basis has he arrived at that judgment?
If the White Paper is big on rhetoric, it is short on facing up to the big issues. The new approach was well illustrated by the Secretary of State's remarks about fluoridation: if it is shown that fluoridation is beneficial and there is local support for it, local authorities will be given powers in that respect—but only after there has been an independent expert review. Information on fluoridation is pouring out of the Department of Health, but the Government refuse to make a decision because somebody, somewhere, might not like it. That is a cowardly and pathetic approach to public health.
Rather offensively, the Secretary of State suggested that the Conservatives had said that individuals were responsible for their own ill-health. No Conservative Member has ever suggested such a thing. However, the Government cannot solve all the nation's health problems; the right hon. Gentleman was correct to say that there must be a partnership. He said that there must be a three-way partnership between the whole of Government, local communities, families and individuals—four parties, not three. There was no mention of the medical profession, which seemed to be noticeably lacking from what he had to say—perhaps because he has alienated almost all its members in recent times.
Perhaps the worst part of the statement came at the end, with the Secretary of State's class warfare rhetoric. As a result of Conservative economic policies and his party's very large majority, many of his Back Benchers represent the constituencies that he says are very affluent and therefore need less money. His ugly soundbites will offend many inside and outside both the House and the medical profession, as well as the natural decency of many people who care about those less fortunate than themselves. Is he saying that there is massive inequality in the allocation of money in the health service on a geographical basis? Will there be a transfer of resources from the Prime Minister's beloved middle England, or is the rhetoric merely aimed at those voting for a London mayor?
Despite laudable aims, better health can be achieved only with a health care system that is working well. Faced with a system in which morale is at an all-time low, junior doctors are being betrayed, complaints against the NHS are up and patients are waiting to go on waiting lists, we have heard nothing but complacency. Health is getting worse under Labour. Although the Secretary of State is

825
excelling at soundbites and photo opportunities, he has failed in his primary duty to put patients before his party politics.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman speaks a little quicker than his predecessor, but he does not talk much more sense. The first target of his mockery was the Government's chief medical officer. I would rather stick by that distinguished doctor more than the one who has just been speaking.
In talking about people dying, the hon. Gentleman apparently upbraided me for choosing the measure of suicides. As a doctor, he ought to know that, if suicides are successful, they involve people dying. If we can reduce the number of suicides, we will reduce the number of deaths. That seems to be a reasonable proposition.
The hon. Gentleman complained that we are not getting on with fluoridation. My understanding is that the data at present available in the Department of Health are rather out of date. We want an up-to-date assessment. I have never for one minute made any secret of my view that fluoridation works and should be introduced, but in fairness to those who have what they see as legitimate doubts, it is only right and proper that we have an independent review in which people may put their point of view and we may come to sensible conclusions.
On the rest of it, it was very interesting that the hon. Gentleman never seemed to recognise that ill health is caused by unemployment, poverty, low pay, crime and disorder—that soared under the Conservative party—or poor housing. We are addressing all those matters. We are improving the NHS so that it can make a bigger and better contribution. The point that I was trying to make was that all the Government and all the country must be involved.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is class war for me to suggest that I would like the people whom I represent to be as healthy as those in the constituencies of my Tory predecessors, he believes in a strange version of class war. Most decent people in his constituency, or in the Surrey constituency of one of my predecessors, would probably agree that it is a good idea for us all to be as healthy as one another, and to achieve that by raising, not lowering, standards.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that for the previous Administration, public health was politically inconvenient—for the reasons that he has set out—and that as a consequence they sidelined, for example, the crucial Black report, on which we should have acted in the early 1980s and which would have delivered so much in public health to the generations who are being born today? Did they not also sideline the public health function?
I want to pick up one point on which my right hon. Friend knows I feel strongly. One thing lacking from what he said today is the restoration of the public health function to the political mainstream in local government, where it used to be, alongside housing, social services, education and environmental health. Will he consider that point, which is crucial to achieving the objectives that he has rightly set out today?
Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend's point about the previous Government refusing to address health
826
inequalities. Not only that—they banned the use of those words in the Department of Health, so that officials were forced to refer to variations in health because the Conservatives practised inequality but were not willing to preach it.
We appointed Sir Donald Acheson, who had been one of the previous Government's chief medical officers, to produce a report. His excellent report on various sources of inequality in health put forward many sensible propositions on how we should go about reducing those inequalities, and I am glad to say that we are getting on with that.
As my hon. Friend knows, I sympathise with his view about the disappearance of the post of medical officer of health from local government—but when we consulted, in opposition, on whether that post should be restored, local government had little enthusiasm for the idea. That is one of the reasons why we placed in the Health Act 1999 a duty on health authorities to draw up a health improvement programme to identify the health care needs of their areas. That must be done through co-operation and consultation with local government and voluntary organisations. I hope that the report and that approach will eventually have the status that the chief medical officer's report had in times gone by.
Mr. Simon Hughes: We very much welcome the White Paper as far as it goes, but why is it much more timid than it was originally billed to be? Are the Government yet committed to putting more resources from our national wealth into national health? Are they committed to putting more resources into public health, or will those resources come from the money allocated to the NHS? What indication is there that there will be, for example, a great programme to make sure that people do not live in badly insulated, damp flats and that local government has the money to deal with that?
Why were there 21 targets under the previous Government, but only four targets now? Why is there no target to reduce smoking? Why is there no target to reduce traffic? Above all, why is there no target to reduce health inequality, which is meant to be at the centre of the whole policy?
Will all Government policies be audited? If so, will we be given a guarantee that there will not, for example, be policies to take away benefits from single mothers, to reduce help to asylum seekers or to prevent pensions from increasing in line with national wealth, none of which can be great for health equalisation?
Did I understand the Secretary of State to say that the Health Education Authority—the one body that might be able to stand up and speak independently about what the Government are or are not doing—is to go? We want a body that can tell the Government when they are not meeting their targets and hold the Government to account. If the Government are tough on themselves, they might deliver; but if they are weak on themselves, they will let the rest of us down.
Mr. Dobson: It sticks in the gullet to listen to a Liberal Democrat say that the Government are not putting money into measures that combat ill-health, when his party voted against imposing the windfall levy on the fat-cat utilities. That money has been invested in providing jobs and

827
training for young people—and as the hon. Gentleman should know, the only group whose mortality and morbidity figures were increasing was young, unemployed men. We are reducing those figures, and we are doing so with money that the hon. Gentleman did not want to collect, so he cannot complain about the way in which we are spending it.
We are putting £96 million into the public health development fund.
Mr. Hughes: Is it new money?
Mr. Dobson: It is new money. It is money that was not previously intended for that purpose, so it must be new. We are putting £5 billion into building new houses and improving old houses. Much of that money is intended to make sure that houses are well insulated, and it will concentrated on families who are poor and old people who are poor. That is more money that we are spending.
Mr. Hughes: Is it new money?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman talks about new money as though there were something different about it. It is money. It gets houses built and improved; it gets jobs for young people; and it gets all sorts of other improvements.
When talking about health, we must remember that the Tories wanted to spend only £500 million a year extra. We want to reduce inequalities, but it is sensible to measure them in particular localities. It is necessary to be a statistical freak to obtain any significant run of figures about reducing health inequalities in less than about a decade.
The hon. Gentleman should know, having burbled on about pensions, that they have increased faster than wage inflation.
Mr. Kevin Barron: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members and by many of those who have worked in the medical profession for many years. Does he agree that the rant about the national health service from the Opposition Front Bench shows little understanding of public health? If economic and social environments lead to ill-health in certain regions and if getting rid of it is a war, it is a war that should have been fought many years ago.
Mr. Dobson: When it comes to fighting a war against poverty or one against ill health among the poor, the Tory party would only qualify for white feathers.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Is it not extraordinary that the Health Secretary can come to the House to make a statement about his future policy towards public health and spare virtually not a word for the future of the medical profession? Rather than inventing entirely spurious party political differences between the Labour party and the Tory party, should he not have devoted himself more seriously to his statutory responsibilities for the national health service on the day after Dr. Bogle accused the Government of achieving total alienation from the medical profession? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the speeches that he used to make
828
in opposition about how morale in the health service had reached an all-time low? That is what he and his hon. Friends used to say. Has he not used his two years in the Department of Health to prove himself wrong?
Mr. Dobson: No.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have just about got rid of the two years of Tory spending plans, albeit that he secured a little extra money for health? We are now moving into an era where my right hon. Friend will be able to spend £21 billion over the next three years, which is about 10 times as much as the Liberals wanted and more than twice what the Tories wanted. Does he accept my opinion that he must ensure that not a penny of that money is wasted? Come the general election, when some people will be prattling on about the euro and all that crap, we should be talking about saving people's lives.
Mr. Dobson: I say to my good and hon. Friend that I hope that by the time of the next general election there will be some signs of improvement in people's health. However, we can only measure those signs locally, not nationally.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I applaud the strategy, unpopular as it often is, and difficult as it is to win battles with colleagues in delivering it. However, I ask him to look again at some of his comments. Why did his party vote against the new GP contract? It provided bonus pay for GPs in deprived areas; it paid them for the first time to screen new patients; and it gave them additional resources for hitting targets on immunisation and cancer screening. There are few practical steps that could do more to raise standards in poor areas.
Secondly, I applaud the reappearance of mental health as a target, but regret that a more sophisticated target has not been found than suicide figures. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the effect of NHS Direct, which is starving of resources Samaritans and Saneline, which offer a practical service for people with mental health problems?
Finally, is it the right hon. Gentleman's policy to make the sick healthy by making the healthy sick? Mr. Roger Humphreys was admitted to the Royal Surrey hospital at 2.30 on Sunday. He was not found a bed on the ward until Monday night. He is 90, and he happens to live in a healthy area. People in that area feel that the Government's policy is to starve them of resources.
Mr. Dobson: We are not starving any area of resources.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Yes, you are.
Mr. Dobson: The craw can wait. Every part of the country is getting more money in real terms this year than last year, and that is an increase by anyone's standards.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) on some of the things that she did when she was Secretary of State, but not all that many. We are devoting more resources to mental health now

829
than have ever been devoted in the past, and we are paying great attention to that aspect. It is fairly significant that of the Nye Bevan awards that were awarded yesterday, three were for mental health projects. The overall winner—the Nye of Nyes—was also for a mental health project, because we believe that in the past mental health has not had the attention that it deserves.
It is rather foolish of the right hon. Lady to start attacking NHS Direct, which is a good service. It has worked well. When I announced its extension, it was welcomed from the Tory Front Bench, which is a fairly novel experience for me, at least. NHS Direct provides a first-class service and offers help to people with physical and mental health problems. It is not draining resources from anyone. It is providing a 24-hour nurse-led service in 40 per cent. of the country now; it will cover 60 per cent. of the country by December; and it will probably cover the whole country by this time next year. When an independent survey of satisfaction was carried out, 97 per cent. of the people contacted were satisfied.
Mr. John Gunnell: How will my right hon. Friend judge public opinion on fluoridation in a particular area? My family, who were brought up in New York, still benefit from the fluoridated water that they used there. I hope that we will introduce fluoridation and give the right instructions.
Mr. Dobson: Our proposal, subject to the outcome of the independent review, is that the law should be changed so that local councils conduct the process of consultation, because they have a democratic legitimacy that the local health service does not have in that respect. We would then have to sort out the form that the consultation would take in order to meet the requirements, whatever they were. Once that consultation had been carried out, and if there was a local majority, the water company serving that area would be obliged to fluoridate.
Dr. Peter Brand: I very much welcome the consultation on social inequality in the report, but I am extremely worried about the loss of the national targets. They seem to have been shoved off into some never-never land of local targets. When the Green Paper was issued, the Minister gave an undertaking that he would place the local targets, in amalgamated form, in the Library, so that we could see whether they were being met through local endeavours.
Primary care groups have been working to health improvement programmes—and no doubt setting targets—for the past two months, yet we have not seen any Government figures to indicate what targets are being set, let alone what they are trying to achieve. When will we have a statement on these matters?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though the "The Health of the Nation" project succeeded, but it did not. It failed. It did not make the progress that it should have done. It is our view, and that of a substantial number of people who could be described as practitioners of public health—although I accept that it is not a universal view—that it is better to have a series of local targets and
830
to monitor progress. The health improvement programmes will include targets, they will be monitored by the NHS regions, and therefore they will be monitored nationally—
Dr. Brand: Will the targets be published?
Mr. Dobson: Yes, the targets will certainly be published. Everything is published. The health improvement programmes themselves are published and the progress reports will have to be published. That brings pressure to bear on those on whom it should be brought to bear—the local people who are supposed to be doing the job.
Ms Diane Abbott: My right hon. Friend said earlier that mental health is a much-neglected area of public health. Does he agree that the mental health of black and ethnic minority people is an even more neglected area, even though a disproportionate number of black people are diagnosed as schizophrenic or are in the mental health system?
For three years, successive Health Ministers have told me that the Department is collecting figures nationally. For three years, successive Health Ministers have told me that they still do not have figures that they can make publicly available. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that his Department does what it says it has been doing for the past three years—collect figures on the number of black and ethnic minority people in the mental health system so that strategies can be developed to give the whole community the service it deserves?
Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, I am determined to make sure that every individual and group in the country receives the proper, targeted attention they deserve, but, as she knows, one of the problems is that there are disputes about whether some black people are being diagnosed in what might be described as a racist way as suffering from mental illness, or a particular form of it, when that is not the case. We are wrestling to get statistics on which we can genuinely rely, rather than publishing statistics that we believe to be unsatisfactory and possibly misleading.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Where does the thinking behind the White Paper take the Department's contribution to the debate within the Government on the future of housing benefit?
Mr. Dobson: We are involved in all debates and all discussions within Government on housing policy generally, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. They include all aspects of housing policy, including benefits. We are involved, and we have to try to make sure that people have homes that are safe, secure and healthy at rents that they can afford.
Mr. James Wray: Does my right hon. Friend believe that including fluoridation in the White Paper will set alarm bells ringing all over the United Kingdom? Is he aware of the moral, medical and legal aspects of fluoridation? Does he know that fluoridation breaches the Medicines Act 1968, the Water Act 1945 and the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956? No one in the medical or dental professions decided that fluoridation was good for people's health; that decision

831
was made by a researcher appointed by an aluminium smelting company, who decided that, because dumping its waste was costly and because that waste was attracted to teeth and bones, water should be fluoridated. That is why people get skeletal fluorosis, dental fluorosis and chronic fluorine poisoning.
For the past 20 years, the medical and dental professions have been divided equally on fluoridation of public water supplies. I hope that, following the independent review and in order to stop one holy war in which I shall certainly play a great part, we do not fluoridate water and do not breach the civil liberties of individual citizens of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Dobson: It is certainly the case that there are divisions within the medical and other related professions over the merits or otherwise of fluoridation, but it would probably be an exaggeration to say that they are evenly divided. In so far as I have looked at the most modern evidence—one of the problems is that quite a lot of the evidence is not modern—I am reasonably convinced that the benefits exceed any risks. We should consider the health of children of poor families in Birmingham and in big cities where there is not fluoridation. There is a danger that some people may be putting their principles above a great deal of pain and unpleasantness for a large number of children.
Mr. David Curry: Where will the dividing line be between the Health Development Agency and the Food Standards Agency in matters of nutrition? What are the implications of the statement for the Government's review of local authority standard spending assessments?
Mr. Dobson: We have made it clear that the Food Standards Agency will have some responsibility for nutrition. That is also being made clear by my colleagues on the Committee considering the Bill. The primary responsibility for nutrition will remain with the Department of Health, where it properly lies, as part of our overall programme to improve public health. We did not think that it was right to separate nutrition, as some people have suggested. Quite a few people thought that the Food Standards Agency should take on a substantial part of the Department of Health's role and virtually the whole function of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that that role should be recreated at arm's length. We did not think that that was a sensible approach.
Mr. David Lock: I welcome the White Paper. When is the review likely to be published? I invite my right hon. Friend to take this opportunity to congratulate the water companies—through Water UK—on their responsible attitude towards the discretion that was given to them under the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985. It proved to be hopeless in practice. The water companies, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association did not want that provision, and the Government have said that they will remove it.
Mr. Dobson: We intend to publish a report next April. I hope that it will be then, but these matters tend to drag on, as my hon. Friend knows. The water industry wants the law to be clarified. As for most organisations, a little clarity is a great help.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the importance of exercise to the health of the nation, what discussions
832
prior to the publication of the White Paper did the Secretary of State have with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with specific regard to the reduction in the time that is devoted in primary schools to physical education in general, and to the abolition of the compulsory requirement for team games to be played competitively after the age of 14? Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman believes in leading by example to show the importance of exercise and fitness—he appears to be shaking his head at that suggestion—will he take up my challenge to take me on at a game of better than five sets in lawn tennis on the assumption that I shall readily give him a 30:love start in every game?
Mr. Dobson: Apparently, the hon. Gentleman is so talented that, but for the fact that he was unable to find the time, he would have won the Wimbledon championship. One advantage of my girth is that no one ever accuses me of being part of the nanny state.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport was involved in our discussions. In fact, when the hon. Gentleman complains that sport has been eliminated from schools, he is criticising the Government who eliminated it.
Mr. John Austin: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I remember the days of the old medical officer of health. I welcome the statement, which has elevated public health on the political agenda, and begins to transform a national illness service into a national health service. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Minister for Public Health on the attention they have paid to the problems of osteoporotic fractures and the possibility of prevention. I welcome the national guidelines.
In his statement, my right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of local decision making. What attempts will be made to ensure that those important national guidelines, which will reduce the cost to the Exchequer and to the health service, as well as the cost in human suffering, are implemented locally? On his commitment to action and his reference to smoking, given that most Departments, local authorities and private employers have policies on smoking in the workplace, when will the House be dragged not into the second half of the 20th century, but into the new millennium?
Mr. Dobson: The House of Commons Commission and the House itself are responsible for what happens here, so I am cleared of all responsibility. Like everyone else, I just have my one vote.
As I said earlier, I have some sympathy with the view that it was a sad change when the role of the medical officer of health disappeared from local government, and the task was taken on by people in the third and fourth tiers of a health authority as a part-time job, when they could get around to it. By changing the law in the Health Act 1999, we have made the production and implementation of a health improvement programme part of the core of the national health service. I hope that that will elevate the function in a way in which it has not been elevated for a long time.
I pay tribute to the National Osteoporosis Society for the developments to which my hon. Friend referred.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement was a classic of

833
its genre? A similar statement led a former Leader of the Opposition to observe that parts of it were true and parts of it were trite, but that, unfortunately, what was true was trite and what was not trite was not true.
Let us take an example: the question of fluoridation of our public water supplies. All the research has been done, and all the evidence has been amassed. What is needed is a decision whether to insist that our public water supplies are fluoridated, or that they are not—or to leave it to someone else to make a decision. No further research is needed.
Mr. Dobson: I have considered the matter carefully, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health. We are both in favour of fluoridation, but we recognise that a substantial amount of the research that has been done, and is in the literature, is now pretty old. We would like a review to consider the up-to-date position.
We live in a democracy. A substantial number of people do not share my views on putting fluoride in water, so I think that I—and all the rest of us—have an obligation at least to deal with any legitimate concerns expressed by those people. If we are left with plain prejudice against fluoridation, we can assess that at the end of the process; but I feel that we owe it to everyone to try to get a group with sufficient authority, status and independence to carry all sensible people with them.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order
4.18 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today, hon. Members on both sides of the House received a three-page critique from the Communication Workers Union on the Post Office White Paper. Given that the document has yet to be presented to the House of Commons, could you use your good offices with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and not just to encourage him to bring the White Paper to the House very quickly? In the past fortnight, the Secretary of State has made four major announcements, none of them on the Floor of the House. The House would welcome an opportunity to hear from him at first hand, and to question him.
Madam Speaker: As the House knows, I feel strongly that important Government decisions should be made known to the House before being communicated to anyone outside. On the basis of the papers that the hon. Lady has given me—I am grateful to her for letting me see them—I am by no means convinced that any such impropriety has occurred in this case. As for the hon. Lady's request for statements to be made from the Government Front Bench, it is for Ministers to inform me when they are ready to do so.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a now shy Scot, may I ask, in regard to a reserved matter, whether by any chance the Secretary of State for Health asked for an opportunity to answer question 36, on a United Kingdom matter—namely, the policy on retention of samples of smallpox? This is an urgent matter, in which the United Kingdom could play a major part. It would be a terrible thing, which we would rue greatly, if smallpox samples were destroyed without any being kept. Did you have any such request from the Secretary of State?
Madam Speaker: No, certainly not. Question 36 would have been dealt with had we progressed more speedily. It is very difficult for us to reach question 36, but I have to say that I am very disappointed, not just today but every day, with the lack of progress that is made at Question Time. I should like us to make better progress. I doubt that we could have reached that question, but we might have made a better stab at it if we had made better progress.

Property Letting Agents (Client Money Segregation)
4.20 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the segregation of client monies collected by letting agents, to be held in designated client money accounts.
My Bill is to require the segregation of client money—rent and deposits from tenants—that is collected by letting agents, to be held in separate designated client money accounts. I was amazed to discover from a constituency case that that is not already the law. The position is entirely analogous to that of lawyers, stockbrokers and fund managers handling client money.
The case involved a very decent constituent who was looking after the interests of some elderly neighbours who were visiting family elsewhere. The constituent helped that couple to arrange the letting of their house. She diligently searched out a letting agent who had the Association of Residential Letting Agents cover.. The letting agent went bust in 1995, since when my constituent has been unable to recover the £1,000 owing under the ARLA bonding arrangements. Digging into the case, I discovered that part of the reason for the failure to recover is because there is no simple, clear law requiring the segregation of client money.
The Estate Agents Act 1979 set up a requirement for deposits for buying houses to be segregated when estate agents deal with deposits; the regulations to that were set out in 1981. Letting agents are regulated under the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953. That created three offences, but did not lay down a requirement to hold deposits in segregated client accounts. There was a Government consultation on the Act in 1993. In 1994, there was a parliamentary question. The then Government felt that, in principle at least, the ARLA arrangements should suffice.
The reason why ARLA has not paid out in that constituency case—it can happen quite often—is that the insurance bonding requires clear fraud to have occurred. Police rarely prosecute when letting agents go bust. A letting agent spending a client's money merely on the employment of staff is not sufficient to constitute fraud. Therefore, the ARLA bonding arrangements often do not work.
In 1998, ARLA approached the Minister for Local Government and Housing with proposals for a clear law requiring the segregation of client money into client
836
accounts, but nothing has resulted from that. Again, it is crucial to crystallise the legal situation. The National Association of Estate Agents is particularly keen that the proposal should become law. Similarly, the Southern Private Landlords Association is keen for that to happen. Citizens advice bureaux point out the huge increase in the number of private tenants—it is up 600,000 and still rising—and to problems over recovery of deposits. They claim that there are unreasonable withholdings of some 50 per cent. of deposits. Therefore, all that is wanted is a simple law to benefit both tenants and landlords.
In October 1998, the Minister for Local Government and Housing called on landlords and agents to set up some form of pilot scheme. Candidly, it is a straightforward issue, not a pilot scheme matter. It is not even a complicated regulatory matter. Clear law, as with analogous situations, is what is wanted.
In the past two years, as the market has increased, there has been a massive increase in the number of letting agents. Analogous to that increase was the increase, in the late 1980s, in the number of estate agents. Currently, however, the lettings market is satiated, and it is often quite difficult to let property. In the next two years, it is likely that many letting agencies will fail, just as many estate agencies failed in 1990–92.
I therefore urge Ministers to deal with the matter in a timely fashion, before many innocent people—including some of my constituents—are damaged because current arrangements cannot operate efficiently without clear law on the matter. We need only simple legislation—which should be passed now—requiring segregated accounts, and arrangements analogous to those established by ARLA, stipulating that letting agents may take money from client accounts only in accordance with letting agreements, such as to cover their own bills, as specified.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howard Flight, Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Graham Brady, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Andrew Tyrie, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Christopher Fraser and Mrs. Marion Roe.

Property Letting Agents (Client Money Segregation)
  PROPERTY LETTING AGENTS (CLIENT MONEY SEGREGATION)
  Mr. Howard Flight accordingly presented a Bill to require the segregation of client monies collected by letting agents, to be held in designated client money accounts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 132].
Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  Not amended in the Committee and as amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Finance Bill
    Clause 2

      RATES OF DUTY AND REBATE ON HYDROCARBON OIL
      4.27 pm
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 1, line 24, leave out '£0.5288', and insert '£0.499'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in page 1, line 26, leave out '£0.4721', and insert '£0.4355'.
      No. 42, in page 2, line 2, leave out '£0.5021', and insert '£0.4557'.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The amendments seek to bring the massive increase in road fuel taxes back into line with the retail price index. Since the general election, the Government have increased the rate of annual increase in road fuel tax—the so-called escalator—from 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation to 6 per cent. above the rate of inflation. Additionally, they have sneaked in an extra Budget, and a further increase. Moreover, they have loaded further increases on to some fuels, above what one might have assumed to be the 6 per cent. limit.
      Diesel fuel has been singled out. This year, VAT on diesel has been increased not by 6 per cent., but, in cash terms, by almost 12 per cent. That increase, in a single year, is simply staggering. It is a tremendous and enduring burden for all those driving diesel cars and, most particularly, for the road haulage industry, which relies almost entirely on diesel fuel.
      The Government have replaced the environmental justification for fuel taxation—which does exist at lower levels and for more moderate increases—by a crude tax and cash grab. It is part of the relentless increase in business and personal taxation that we have seen in the past three Budgets. Annually, fuel duties now net a staggering £25 billion, and that is rising steeply.
      The Government have ceased even to attempt to justify that huge annual tax escalator on environmental grounds. In the Budget debates, we asked Ministers how they justified the increase on grounds of global warming, or otherwise, but they simply backed away from the issue entirely. I am not surprised, because the Government's own publication on climate change shows that this is a ridiculously expensive and inefficient way of achieving moderate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Compared with other reductions which are attainable in the domestic sector and other business sectors, this is not the right way to go about reducing carbon dioxide. The same reductions could be achieved at a fraction of the cost.
      Most remarkably, the Government seem entirely unaware of the scale of the increases that they have put through. The Chief Secretary told the House on 21 April:
      838
      "The truth is that the price of a litre of diesel has risen by 7p since the general election."—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329. c. 929.]
      It was immediately pointed out that the Automobile Association had calculated that the increase in diesel prices since the election was not 7p, but more than 13p a litre—nearly twice what the Chief Secretary had admitted to.
      The figure was checked by "Energy Trends", an official index of the energy sector, and the House of Commons Library helpfully confirmed that the figure of 13p a litre was correct. The Library confirmed also that it had no idea how the Chief Secretary had calculated his figure.
      We took this matter up with the Chief Secretary, but he failed or refused to admit his error, until a parliamentary answer from the ever-helpful Economic Secretary referred to the correct figure and the right source. It is now confirmed by the Treasury that the price of diesel rose between the election and that April date by 13p a litre.
      In a sense, it does not matter that it took so long for the Government to admit the truth, because everyone else knew the truth. Motorists, particularly rural motorists, all knew the truth. Ministers in their Government cars may be insulated from the increases. They do not have to fill up their own tanks, and they are becoming increasingly out of touch with the needs of motorists, particularly those in isolated areas. Now, about 85 per cent. of the cost of fuel is represented by taxation. A forecourt or petrol station is now a massive tax office for the Government.
      It is not just the private motorist who knows the truth and must bear the daily burden—the road haulage industry knows it. The industry warned the Government before the Budget. Its representatives gave the Government the facts and figures, explained their case with great patience and showed the Government that the industry would be made uncompetitive in European terms by the annual increase. Their case was dismissed and entirely ignored by the Government.
      We now have the most expensive diesel in Europe, with a cost that is far higher than our continental neighbours. There is no way that the haulage industry can avoid this tax. Lorries do not drive around for fun, and there is no way in which they can avoid using diesel or avoid the tax. The haulage industry either has to absorb this extra tax burden, or pass it on. The burden is enormous. Nearly a third of the costs of running a heavy goods vehicle is represented by fuel costs. If a company has to absorb those costs, it could be put out of business—or certainly be made uncompetitive. If it passes on the costs, that raises the price of all goods which must be transported by road.
      Yet the Government say that they are in favour of industrial competitiveness. They have had seminars and meetings to lecture industry about the benefits of American-style management, competition and productivity. If that is their message, they could start by giving us American fuel tax levels.
      Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman making a pledge that the Conservative party

      839
      manifesto for the next general election will include the aim to work towards reducing fuel duty to American levels?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am making the point that if the Government are so keen on American business practices they should start introducing some American-style costs. The European Union has to put up with the spectacle of the Prime Minister telling it to adopt American business regulation, or the lack of it, while at the same time he is converging on European costs or, as in the case of fuel duties, increasing them above European levels. As usual with him, it is very much a case of, Do as "I say, not as I do". Our pledge to the British people is to get off the fuel escalator, which is damaging and uncompetitive.
      It is crass hypocrisy for the Government to talk about competitiveness and productivity while undermining them through their tax policies. It is the economics of the madhouse. There was a time when the Labour party knew something about industry, but these days very few Labour Back Benchers know anything about manufacturing. I do not think that a single Treasury Minister has ever had hands-on experience of that sector, so perhaps we should not be surprised at Ministers' not understanding the case put to them by the haulage industry, but that does not entirely excuse them.
      The Government are penalising the industry not only by higher fuel taxes but by higher vehicle excise duty. Anyone can understand that raising British vehicle excise duty to make it not only the highest, but almost twice as high as the next highest in Europe, is tantamount to delivering a body blow to the industry.
      For the 40-tonne articulated lorry—the workhorse of international haulage—our hauliers have to pay £5,750 a year. The figure for France is £486; for Italy, £634; and for the Netherlands, £670. The duty that the Government have imposed on the industry, in addition to the fuel escalator, is staggeringly higher.
      The forum with which the industry was fobbed off at the time of the Budget has met only once, and despite what the Government said, there is no independent study on which we can rely to give an accurate comparison of costs here and on the continent.
      It is wrong to say that no one will benefit from the Government's road tax policy, however: foreign hauliers certainly will. About 1 million foreign lorries will visit the United Kingdom this year and their operators cannot believe their luck. They are puzzled, amazed and in many ways delighted at the spectacle of a United Kingdom Government who are signed up to a code of conduct on unfair tax competition but create unfair competition against one of their own industries. They have created and are widening a gap that renders the British road haulage industry uncompetitive in Europe.
      Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in describing the Government's policies on these matters as "crackpot, cock-eyed and ridiculous" on 19 March 1999, the president of the Freight Transport Association, Mr. Lawrence Christensen, might conceivably have been guilty of understatement?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. The gentleman concerned was in fact being rather restrained: he is a great
      840
      deal ruder about the Government in private. I am sure that he will return to the subject next year if the Government persist with this lunatic tax policy, which is rendering an important British industry uncompetitive in the way that I have described.
      I said that several people and sectors will benefit from the policy. I mentioned foreign hauliers, but we must not overlook foreign Treasuries. The Treasuries of France and Belgium, in particular, are massive beneficiaries, as British lorries go overseas to fill up with foreign diesel. When they make trips abroad, drivers leave the United Kingdom with empty tanks and fill up on the continent. Before they return to this country, they make sure that they fill up at foreign ports. There are five haulage firms of significant size in my constituency, one of which is Frampton's. Mr. Frampton tells me that more than half his diesel is now purchased abroad. That is a huge and continuing drain on the British Exchequer, but the Government either are unaware of it, or do not care about it.
      Another group to benefit from the policy are the smugglers in Northern Ireland. The Province has a land border with another EU member state, so smugglers do not have to take a trip by ferry or the channel tunnel to reach it: they need only drive across the border and fill up their tanks. The association representing petrol retailers has estimated that the Government lose about £100 million a year through the smuggling of diesel and other fuels across that land border.
      The Inland Revenue has not produced an estimate of the amount lost through that smuggling. I have asked the Government to make a stab at an estimate and to do something about what is a real problem, but to no effect. Given that much of the smuggling is done by paramilitaries, it is odd that the Government's tax policy should put illegal funds in their hands.
      It has been reported that the Government are having second thoughts about the fuel escalator. Trailing changes of policy in the press instead of announcing them to the House is not unusual for the Government, but I hope that the Economic Secretary, when she replies to the debate, will confirm that the Government have changed their mind. That would be welcome, but it would be too late for many haulage firms. However, the House would have something to celebrate if the Government were to repent, even at this late stage.
      Another fiasco is developing for next year—the possibility of a climate change tax. That threatens to do to the rest of industry what the fuel tax escalator has done to the haulage industry. Perhaps the Government have decided to attack only one sector of industry at a time, and will drop the fuel escalator to concentrate damage, through the climate change tax, on the rest of manufacturing industry.
      The House would benefit from an explanation of the Government's intentions. One supposed virtue of the tax escalator has always been that it gives industry some warning of changes to duties and that car manufacturers and others can plan design and production. If the Government are having a rethink, as reported in the press, it should be made explicit and clear.
      In anticipation of the Government's belated change of heart, we have tabled amendments to this year's Finance Bill to end the fuel tax escalator. The destruction of the haulage industry and the campaign against the private

      841
      motorist—carried out under a bogus environmental justification—have gone on too long. The amendments would end that process, and I invite the House to support them.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I support the amendment, and I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said about the way in which the Government have introduced their road fuel duty policy and its perverse effect on the environment and competitiveness.
      Like my right hon. Friend, I seek from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury a clear statement of the Government's policy but I think that matters are even worse than he suggested. There is press speculation, presumably stimulated by loose talk in the Treasury, that the Government are rethinking their unpopular policy, but the Economic Secretary, at Treasury questions on 13 May, implied not that the policy was being rethought but that the Government intended to pursue it until 2010 if they were re-elected often enough. The price of unleaded petrol would then reach £6.90 a gallon, and diesel would be more than £7. Is that the Government's policy? Are we on an escalator from which there is no exit for a further 11 years if the electorate continue to elect the Government? Or should we believe the press speculation?
      The Economic Secretary's first duty as a tax Minister is to set out clearly the Government's policy. The policy as last expounded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a commitment to the 6 per cent. ratchet—is misguided. It sits badly, to put it no stronger, with the implication that the Government want to reduce the tax burden, an impression that various Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, create, and that was the reason for the income tax rate cut on Budget day. The Government's rhetoric is about low tax, but they are piling on tax by stealth as fast as they dare in parts of the economy that they hope the public will not recognise or in ways that the public will tolerate without too much noise.
      The Government's approach to taxation of petrol and diesel is a perfect example of stealth tax. The tax is deniable, and it need not be justified year after year because it has been pre-announced. The Government clothe themselves in the garments of tax cutting, but they have made a clear commitment to increasing the burden of taxation paid year after year by a section of the community. That is objectionable.
      Mr. Leslie: As the right hon. Gentleman is talking of matters deniable, can he deny that he was in the Cabinet when the fuel duty escalator was his Government's policy? How does he reconcile the previous Government's view with his statements today?
      Mr. Dorrell: I find no difficulty in reconciling the two things. To be on an escalator is not to deny the possibility of getting off. We announced a series of tax measures, but, in the present circumstances, we believe that the process has gone far enough, and I have no difficulty whatever in saying so. Presumably, the person who has gently speculated to the press that the Government may rethink the proposal equally finds no such difficulty.
      842
      My first objection to the Government's policy is that it relentlessly increases taxation on identified sections of the community. Secondly, it reveals a deep-seated prejudice against car ownership that runs right through the Government. I am not opposed to public transport, but I am vehemently against those who oppose in principle the development of private transport.
      The motor car has been a huge source of wealth creation for those who build and sell cars and a huge source of freedom for those whose horizons have been widened by its flexibility. Surely the challenge to policy makers is not to dress the motor car up as a public enemy, but, through tax and regulation, to create circumstances that make it a good neighbour.
      I do not understand how relentless increases in the tax on fuel redeem the obligation that rests on the Government. It is a form of intellectual slovenliness on the part of Ministers to think, "We can pander to a prejudice against the car" and that it is somehow a cost-free option. Ministers owe it to the House to be more direct and analytical and to discharge their responsibilities more seriously.
      The third and perhaps the most immediate reason why I object to the Government's policy on road fuel duties is the reason that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary emphasised in his remarks—the effect that the policy is having on the competitiveness of the British road haulage industry and of wider British industry as well. In that connection, I should probably declare an interest as a director and shareholder in a manufacturing business. The manufacturing sector perked up during my right hon. Friend's speech. It is true that all manufacturing businesses rely, at least to some degree, on the haulage sector, and I therefore have an indirect interest in the issue.
      The tax policies that the Government are pursuing mean that every British road haulier is at a gradually increasing disadvantage compared with continental competitors. Year after year, the Government are creating a set of circumstances in which there is an increasing incentive for British hauliers to tank up and, in some cases, to register their vehicles overseas. Continental hauliers increasingly have the opportunity to undercut their British counterparts on journeys that involve transport between one British destination and another.
      The British road haulage industry is being crucified by the Government's hostility to road transport and the use of the road vehicle is a key part of the British economy. Beyond that, it is not merely the road haulage industry but all those parts of British industry that rely on the transport of goods that are affected. In a modern economy, the link between one part of the supply chain and another is a key cost element in the build-up of total costs that is charged to the eventual consumer.
      When the Government increase the cost of haulage between one plant and another within the United Kingdom, they put up not only the cost to British consumers but the price that the producer has to charge in Britain and abroad to compete against foreign competitors. It is not merely the competitiveness of the road haulage industry that is being undermined. The policy is an important source of lack of competitiveness throughout British industry and the Government are solely responsible. Therefore, it is incumbent on Ministers to explain to the House what greater good is being achieved

      843
      by that relentless and increasing burden on not only the road haulage industry but the whole fabric of British industry.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Surely the answer to the question, "What is being achieved?" is that the Government can add taxes by subterfuge. If they tax through the Inland Revenue, the voter feels it. By doing it this way, they have achieved tax increases by stealth.
      Mr. Dorrell: That is why I said earlier that I object to the policy as it is an increase in the tax burden that allows the Government, year by year, to deny that it is a tax increase brought about by the Budget, as they did in this year's Red Book. In a narrow technical sense, they are right. It was not a tax increase brought about by the Budget, because it was previously announced. However, it means that the tables in the Red Book are misleading, if they are intended to show a change in the tax burden from one tax year to another.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend think that, on 23 January 1995, when the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), now the Paymaster General, complained in the Finance Bill Committee that 75 per cent. of the cost of a gallon of petrol or of diesel was accounted for by tax, it would have been helpful if she had explained that her intention, on becoming a Minister, was to increase the percentage to 85?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes his own point; it is a good one, and might be developed if, in response to the debate, the Economic Secretary were to set out clearly the Government's long-term intention for the escalator. The 85 per cent. to which my hon. Friend refers applies only at present. How much further is the policy to be pursued before we reach Ministers' objective?
      Before I conclude my remarks, I want to mention the broader impact of the Euro-argument—to use that shorthand. We discussed that issue in Standing Committee, to the great merriment of Labour Members, who felt that those of us who favour active and positive involvement in Europe would find it difficult to engage in the debate. However, the issue clearly illustrates the principle of tax competition that should underlie our tax policy—indeed, it would be difficult to think of a better illustration. What is at stake is the use of the tax system to seek competitive advantage for this country vis-a-vis our continental neighbours.
      The Government are busy making Britain uncompetitive, while a competition is taking place to which they are not responding. I believe in tax competition and that is why I think the Government should examine what their competitors elsewhere in Europe are doing; they should respond to that competitive pressure—it should apply to Governments just as it applies to everyone else in the economy.
      One of the great benefits of an open liberal economy is that Governments—like every other agent—should be responsive, and should be subject to competitive pressure. The Government are answerable to a competitive marketplace, but they are not responding to the pressures exerted by that marketplace. Until they respond, our economy and those who work in it will carry a
      844
      heavier and heavier burden; they will pay for the Government's inflexibility with their jobs and their living standards.
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I shall speak about the broad principles of the escalator. Yesterday, the Liberal Democrats supported several Conservative amendments. The amendments were well made and well argued; we agreed with them on their merits. However, these amendments are opportunistic and cynical in the extreme. I fully intend to support the Government on the principle of the escalator. Some genuine problems have been raised—such as the international competitiveness of the road haulage industry—to which genuine solutions were proposed in Committee and during our debates in this place. I should be interested to know how far the discussions on the Brit disc proposal have advanced.
      Before I get into the meat of the subject, perhaps I can tempt Ministers to tell us more about the press reports—especially the story by Messrs Brown and Grice in The Independent. I always read Messrs Brown and Grice, because they seem to have several days' advance notice of Treasury thinking—especially the Chancellor's thinking. By reading their column, one has been able to follow the debate on economic and monetary union several days ahead of public pronouncement. Their suggestions are more than interesting. They seem to suggest that the Government are considering withdrawing the escalator—by which I think they mean the petrol rather than the diesel escalator—and replacing it, in its environmental impact, by a series of congestion charges to be levied by local authorities. That might represent a considerable advance in policy, but I do not know that for sure, because I have not seen the details. I can see that such a policy has both positive and negative implications, but let us first think a little about the positive aspects.
      5 pm
      Such a regime would be far more targeted than the escalator. If the rumours are true, levies would fall most heavily on areas where congestion is worst. Instead of farmers or rural families in Caithness and Sutherland having to pay much higher petrol duty, the levies would fall most heavily on congested cities, which is where most pollution is generated and where there are extra social costs resulting from congestion. Therefore, the policy would appear to be sensible.
      Another positive aspect would be that the Government had adopted an approach of decentralisation, as local authorities, especially the new mayors, would be able to make their own judgments. The reports also appear to suggest, although we do not know the details, that the Government are now committed fully to the principle of hypothecating revenue from taxation on transport. Yields from the congestion taxes would be fed back into either reduced vehicle excise duty or improved public transport.
      All those would be positive developments, but we cannot have an intelligent debate until we know the details of the proposals. It could be—I suspect that it is—that the Chancellor is trailing a backdown from the whole principle of environmental taxation generally. We have already seen that trend in the abandonment of the policy of shifting from gas to coal, and the proposals might herald a continuation of it. Even if we get the information a little later than Brown and Grice, we would like to hear more from Ministers about where their thinking is leading.

      845
      Let me address a few comments to the Conservatives. My belief that their amendments are rather opportunistic is based on two reasons. First, there are the revenue implications of their proposal. As I understand it, the escalator is worth roughly £1.5 billion a year, which is a substantial sum. It is incumbent on those who attack the escalator and so break the cross-party consensus on its use to explain clearly and precisely how else that sum can be funded.
      Secondly, and following on from that point, if the Conservatives want to lead opinion away from the concept of the escalator—which they promoted in office, with the support of the Liberal Democrats and the then Labour Opposition—do they intend to embrace the new philosophy, which the Government appear to be considering, of having road user charges? Support for the use of congestion taxes would seem to be compatible with the Conservatives' overall philosophy. Right-wing think tanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Social Market Foundation have long argued that such measures are the right way to deal with the problem, so will the Conservatives support their use? If would be helpful to all parties if we knew that, in London, controversial new taxes to deal with the problem would command all-party support.
      If the Conservatives are leading us away from the escalator, what alternatives do they propose? To make that point slightly more general, if we do not have an escalator, how is the problem of pollution to be dealt with? There are two options, of which the first is to do nothing.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments with great interest. Can he explain how congestion taxes would affect freight drivers, who have to be in the centre of towns rather than in the highlands of Scotland because that is where their customers are and where they have to deliver goods to shops and factories? How would the introduction of congestion charges help them, as opposed to removing the absurdly high escalator on diesel fuel?
      Dr. Cable: That is a good question. However, since we do not know whether the Chancellor's new thinking focuses on petrol duty, the diesel escalator, or both, I cannot answer it. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the road haulage sector faces a set of problems that are completely different from that facing urban commuters, against whom congestion charging is primarily directed. We need to know where the Government's new thinking is leading.
      To return to my basic theme, my justification for the escalator is twofold. First, it is a market-friendly way of changing policy. It sends a signal to consumers—whether road hauliers or motorists—and to industry that they should change their behaviour. It is a price signal; it is an economically efficient way of changing behaviour.
      The other basic reason why the escalators—whether on road haulage or motorists—are justified is the simple "polluter pays" principle. Pollution is generated, particularly by road haulage. Most of the studies that I have seen suggest that the road haulage industry pays nothing like the social costs of its activities, which are extremely great, both in damage to the carriageway
      846
      system, especially by very heavy lorries, and in emissions, particularly of black smoke. I think that the industry accounts for about 40 per cent. of that particularly lethal emission. Social costs will not be covered unless there is a proper system of environmental taxation, which the escalator provides.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that the escalator was a sensible, market-friendly way of seeking to change behaviour. Does he accept that, in order for it to be such a mechanism, it is necessary for consumers to be able to choose from other products—if I may use the word broadly—that are capable of being purchased in the market? If, however, there is no credible alternative, as the Paymaster General poignantly observed on 23 January 1995 in saying that most motorists in rural areas were dependent on their cars, surely the hon. Gentleman's point about the market does not apply.
      Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is of course exactly right: there must be an alternative. That is why I am hoping that the principle of hypothecation will emerge from new Government thinking and revenues will be returned to improve public transport, which I think meets his point. Of course, some money that goes to the Treasury comes back in order to improve provision, but the sums that have recently been allocated to rural public transport are derisory in relation to the revenue raised from it.
      The other question to which the hon. Gentleman's remarks give rise is, this if we do not have a market mechanism such as taxation or congestion charges, what else can we do to change behaviour? One may do absolutely nothing, which may be what will happen. I do not know whether the Opposition are advocating merely letting taxes stagnate and trend motoring rise above the predicted rate, allowing all the pollution and greater congestion to flow from it. There is a laissez-faire solution: let us just see what happens. I hope that that would be unacceptable to most of us on environmental and broader social grounds.
      Another approach is to use not the market but regulation. Instead of imposing higher taxes, we could force the motor industry to improve the standards of cars. In many respects, that is happening, and it could happen much more. I came to this House from the energy industry, in which we spent much time thinking about the future of the so-called supercar—cars built from very light materials, with much improved battery systems, fly-wheels and better engines. Enormous improvements could be made to reduce emissions and meet environmental objectives. Through regulation, the industry could be forced to advance production of such models. Of course, there is potentially a very large cost for such regulation, for which somebody must pay—probably not the industry, since it will pass the cost on to consumers.
      If we want to achieve environmental objectives, we must do so either through market signals, which are taxation or congestion charges, or through regulation, for which someone must pay—or we do absolutely nothing. If the consensus between the three parties is to be broken, it is incumbent on all of us to make it absolutely clear which of those choices we will follow.
      Mr. John Swinney: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made an interesting

      847
      contribution to the debate, as he did the last time that we discussed this issue on the Floor of the House in April. I am somewhat surprised and perplexed by the reasoning behind his intention to support the Government because, in April, the Liberal Democrats voted against clause 2 stand part.
      When I sit in my constituency surgery, I am often aware—I suspect that I am not alone in this—that I never know what is coming when the next person steps through the door. However, when fuel taxation is being debated in the House, one knows what is coming next. In the short time for which I have been a Member, the issue has come before the House three times, in the three Budget rounds since the 1997 election. However, it is important that we consider it again today.
      The difficulty in such a debate—on this point, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Twickenham—is that there is a slight whiff of hypocrisy about much of what is said by Conservative Members, because they invented the fuel duty escalator and applied it with vigour during their time in office. They managed to teach this Government another important trick—to tax by stealth. All the arguments that the Government use to hide behind a claim that they are lowering direct taxation while they increase indirect taxation, of which the fuel duty escalator is a strong and powerful example, were taught to them by the previous Conservative Government and their predecessors, so we need no lessons from Conservative Members on the ability to tax by stealth.
      None of that, however, invalidates the substantial points that have been made. First, the fuel duty escalator represents a serious competitive impediment to many aspects of working life in this country, whether in the haulage sector or the sectors of the economy that particularly concern rural communities. Secondly, the increase in indirect and hidden taxation has a uniform and punishing effect on some of those who are least able to pay that taxation. It has already been said that we have the highest fuel prices in Europe. On current estimates, we shall be paying something like £4.30 for a gallon of petrol by the end of this Parliament if the Government continue with their plans.
      Over the past few weeks, I have had the benefit of being on the campaign trail, where I have been very assiduous, in the Scottish parliamentary and European elections. I made many visits to individual companies, not only in my constituency, but in central Scotland, the south of Scotland and the highlands, and almost all the discussions that I had with them related to the increasing impediments to competitiveness caused by the increases in the fuel duty escalator. For example, a paper manufacturing company has found that its distribution costs have substantially escalated, and companies in the textiles sector are finding it difficult to get their products to market. There is a direct impact on companies' competitiveness and their ability to secure stable levels of employment.
      In a debate in the House in late April, I gave the example of a company in my constituency which is emerging from difficult times. As a result of the fuel duty proposal, it faces an increase of about £10,000 in its annual costs, which is a serious burden for such a company when its employees are working very hard to improve its fortunes. That is the sharp end of the Government's proposals.
      848
      Another perspective that I want to bring to the debate is that of rural communities. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of the fuel duty escalator on rural communities, particularly those that I represent. I should perhaps declare an interest because, over the summer, I shall embark on an extensive tour of my constituency which will involve lots of driving, so I should record that a lot of petrol will be put into the vehicles that I shall use.
      It is important to consider the impact of the fuel duty escalator on rural communities. It has a direct impact on people who have no public transport alternative and who must own a car to go about their daily business, but I particularly want to draw to the attention of the House the impact that the fuel duty escalator has on public services.
      In an area such as the one that I represent, key workers who are delivering public services—for example, home-care workers, those delivering education services and those providing health care services—are disproportionately affected by the level of fuel duty increases that we have experienced. Those increases are consequently disproportionately affecting the ability of public services to be effectively delivered and distributed in key rural areas of our community. This flows through into the prices of goods and services within the private sector and, inevitably, affects the weaker within our society. All those issues have been rather glibly thrown aside by the attachment to the fuel duty escalator that the Government have continued to display.
      5.15 pm
      One of the central issues raised by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Twickenham, is the status of the Government's intention in this policy area. During the days before our previous debate on this subject, which took place on 27 April, it was suggested that the Government were going cool on the fuel duty escalator. That was before some of the substantial outbreaks of anger in the road haulage sector that we have experienced. The national transport forum has been thrown to that sector to address its concerns. The Government suggested then that they were going cold on the question of the escalator and we have heard little about it until the outbreak of the most recent speculation on the subject. The House deserves an explanation from the Government of where they stand.
      It is apparent from earlier discussions that are recorded in the Official Report that the Chief Secretary has made it clear that the contents of the Red Book reflect the insistence on the application of the escalator for the remainder of the Parliament. That remains a central part of the Government's argument. We require clarification from the Economic Secretary this evening.
      One of the Labour candidates in the Scottish parliamentary elections—this is someone who will be known to those who run the Labour party in Scotland because he was the candidate for the Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency, which I am delighted to say was retained by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on 6 May—said that the application of the fuel duty escalator in rural areas was a poll tax on wheels, affecting people unfairly and unjustly in rural areas and having no relationship to ability to pay. All the damning criticisms that were made of the poll tax

      849
      are equally valid when made of the poll tax on wheels that the Labour candidate for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale thought was so iniquitous.
      Mr. Bercow: To the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, is the individual concerned still a member of the official list of prospective Labour party candidates?
      Mr. Swinney: That is a pretty select list and I imagine that it is difficult to get on to it. I would not venture to go anywhere near the selection process that goes on there. I advise the hon. Gentleman that he should steer well clear of the issues that bear on access to the Labour party candidates' list in Scotland. It is a secret sect if ever there was one.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Swinney: I must give way to someone who is—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) is so generous, I must tell him that this fascinating mini-argument that has crept into the debate is out of order.
      Mr. Swinney: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for taking the House along an inappropriate road, if I might use that pun.
      I give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm).
      Mr. Chisholm: Did the hon. Gentleman read the comment of a leading environmentalist that appears in a Scottish newspaper this morning? He says that for the Scottish National party to oppose both fuel duty increases and road user charges is the worst sort of populism and the worst sort of rubbish. What is the hon. Gentleman proposing for the environment? How can he justify the fact that SNP Members of the European Parliament are seeking to join the European Federation of Green Parties, which supports all those taxes and far more?
      Mr. Swinney: If I were to talk about surrounding issues the European Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me further out of order than I was earlier.
      It is important that we put in place a credible alternative that will change people's behaviour, and that has not been offered by the Government in support for the rural transport fund or by investment in public transport infrastructure. It is important also that the Government respond constructively and positively to the genuine difficulties that are now being faced by rural communities in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. Nothing has been said by the Government that addresses those difficulties. The sooner we hear an answer from the Government, the better the position will be for the rural communities that are suffering disproportionately as a result of this unfair taxation.
      Mr. Loughton: I support the amendments moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells
      850
      (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am concerned with the issues of green taxation, achieving Kyoto targets and so forth. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has appeared before our Committee many times, knows our commitment to those matters. In the next week, we shall publish a report on energy efficiency, which touches on many of the subjects that we are debating today.
      The measure that the amendments seek to ameliorate has nothing to do with energy efficiency and environmental conservation. The crux of the matter is the absurdity of accelerating the fuel duty escalator and then trying to dress that up as an environmental gain. In our many debates on the subject, we never hear from the Government any mention of the change in the cabotage rules that came in last July, which has completely altered the game for the freight industry in Europe and the United Kingdom.
      As from last July, there is no environmental gain whatever to be had from jacking up diesel fuel duties in this country. That can only result in British lorry drivers, driving British lorries on British roads and emitting British fumes, being replaced by Belgian, French and German lorry drivers, driving Belgian, French and German lorries on British roads and emitting Belgian, French and German emissions from their lorries. Moreover, those emissions tend to be a rather poorer grade, because of the lower standards of maintenance of those lorries and the poorer quality of the fuel sold on the continent. It is utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.
      The Government cannot continue to refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. My right hon. Friend said that there were about 1 million lorries from Europe travelling on British roads this year. For the past three or four years, there have been 100,000 extra lorry trips a year from the continent.
      I recently visited lorry drivers up in Lincolnshire. One has only to visit ports around the Humber to see the collapse in the roll on/roll off business. In the old days, foreign lorries would deposit the sealed containers at continental ports, to be brought over to the UK on ferries and picked up by British tractor vehicles and carried on to their final destination. Now continental lorries take the containers all the way through to their final destination, such is the economy of scale.
      The British lorry drivers who would normally charge £1 per mile for the journey find that they are competing with continental lorry drivers who are quoting just 60p per mile for such journeys. British lorry drivers cannot compete with such a gap in margins, and no reduction in margins is being achieved by their end customers. The British lorry drivers are suffering at every point.
      Eurostar is offering cheap fares for cab drivers to take their tractor vehicles over to the continent to fill up with petrol. There are also special ferry charters taking lorry drivers over to the continent just to fill up. A cheap rate overnight on a Sunday of less than £20 per metre is economically very attractive. To fill up a 1,200 litre tractor unit can save more than £600, which is well above the cost of the fares. In addition, extra lorry-miles are being created on British roads by those tractor vehicles being driven to the ports to be taken to the continent. That is utterly absurd.
      What is the net effect? An enormous net loss in revenue to the UK Treasury and a net increase in revenue for the Belgian, French and German Exchequer, as well as the

      851
      Irish situation, about which we have heard. That of course means less money for the Treasury, which supposedly will hypothecate in respect of more environmentally friendly measures to encourage greater use of liquified petroleum gas to help this country to achieve its Kyoto targets, which we all want to be met.
      As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, the Economic Secretary constantly gets her figures wrong, and, at long last, the admission was squeezed out of her that the price of diesel fuel has increased by 13p per litre since the election. However, there still seems to be no sign of the Government acknowledging the reality of what is going on. As one of my hon. Friends has said, at Treasury questions on 13 May, she envisaged the fuel escalator continuing for a further 10 years. As if to add insult to injury, on 24 June, at the next Treasury questions, those freight drivers who wanted an end to the escalator, which we were advocating, were accused of being extremist. They were called extremist for wanting to preserve their industry and their jobs and for wanting British trucks to continue to carry British goods on British roads rather than lose out to European competitors.
      Even if we put on one side all the other additional costs that the freight industry has been facing, such as the selective increases in vehicle excise duty, and the fact that new tyres will cost about £278 per axle on an 18-tyre vehicle—
      Mr. Andrew Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the midst of painting a picture of doom and gloom. Can he tell us the level of penetration of the British market by foreign lorries?
      Mr. Loughton: I have already given the figures. There has been an increase of 100,000 lorry trips a year over the past three to four years. Those are the Treasury's figures. If only one Treasury Minister would stand on a motorway and carry out a survey—[Interruption.] To be generous, a Minister could stand at the side of a motorway.
      Treasury Ministers should visit a service station on a major motorway and count up the number of foreign-flagged vehicles in the car park; then they would have to admit the truth. I cannot see why they cannot carry out some basic research. If they did, they would see that the number of foreign vehicles carrying freight on our roads has increased disproportionately.
      These measures also hit the smaller operators—owner-operators in particular—disproportionately, because 85 per cent. of goods vehicles in this country operate in fleets of 10 vehicles or fewer. The cost of fuel constitutes at least 40 per cent. of the overall operating costs of such operators. Things would have been even worse had it not been for the weakness in the oil price over the past year to 18 months, although that advantage is disappearing very quickly. With yesterday's news that the oil price has returned to more than $18 a barrel, it will not be long before the small element in the cost of a gallon of fuel that represents the product itself is pushed up. The overall price of fuel will increase even more, let alone the tax on top of it.
      Whenever we mention those matters and the real factors that are affecting many lorry drivers in this country, the Minister starts talking about special tax concessions for cleaner lorries, for installing catalytic converters and everything else. She should try driving a
      852
      38-tonne lorry fuelled by liquified petroleum gas. She might find that the tanker required to fuel it rather bigger than the vehicle itself was, and that a large amount of fuel to be dragged along behind it. Will she start to explore the economics of catalytic converters, which cost more than £2,500 to fit, although the tax break which is supposed to encourage drivers to fit them is very much less than that? They are guaranteed for 12 months only and account for a significant drop in the fuel economy of a vehicle, yet again threatening drivers' margins.
      We debated road fuel gases last night and it was interesting that the Economic Secretary claimed that Government had broadened the differential between the duties on liquified petroleum gas and on hydrocarbon fuels. She said that it was important that the gap between the duty on those two fuels had been widened, because that would encourage more people to use LPG. Of course that gap will widen if the rate for diesel fuel is jacked up at the upper end. It is absurd.
      5.30 pm
      Unless the Government accept the amendments at the last minute, the proposed measures will result in an overall loss in revenue to the Treasury without any concomitant reductions in CO2 emissions from freight traffic. Business will go to continental lorry drivers at the expense of British jobs, and UK companies will either relocate their fleets or part of their fleets to the continent or flag out to continental operators. British companies are already doing that. Indeed, firms are springing up on the back of the advice given to British lorry drivers on how to take advantage of flagging out or relocating to the continent.
      As the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) said, the rural community is affected, and especially community bus services in the countryside. Some months ago, the Economic Secretary talked out a private Member's Bill that would have exempted community buses from bus fuel duty. They currently have no exemption, and pay 100 per cent. of the excise duty charged on diesel fuel. I thought that we were trying to promote such bus services yet, they, along with the commercial freight drivers, will be one of the biggest victims of the proposed increase in excise duty. Those services are often run by charities and volunteers. The disabled, who rely wholly on their cars and disabled bus and taxi services in the country and town alike, will also be victims.
      The Government must wake up to reality. The amendments send a clear signal that enough is enough. We need a drastic reversal of policy. It may have been appropriate five or six years ago, but it is now time to get off the escalator. If not, the measures will be self-defeating in terms of revenue raised and environmental gain. It is about time that this madness stopped.
      Mr. Robert Syms: I intend to make a brief contribution.
      I support amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. The fuel escalator raises £25 billion. It raises so much money because it is a regressive form of taxation. When designing a tax system, one should take into account not only how to raise revenue, but how to make that fair. The effect of these tax measures will be substantially different in each constituency.

      853
      In large rural areas the car is a necessity. People have to use it to maintain their quality of life—to take the children to school, to go to hospital, to go to church and to do all the basic things. In many urban areas, especially London, there are transport alternatives, but for constituents who live in villages out in the wilds of England, Wales and Scotland there is no alternative to the car. This tax will be determined more by people's postcode than by their choice of transport. It is unlikely to affect wealthier people, but it will hit poorer people in rural areas.
      I was a rural county councillor. One should not presume that because people live in pretty villages they have high disposable incomes and are well off. Many people who live in villages struggle to bring up a family and keep a home together. The imposition of fuel duty year on year makes that very difficult. The Government's taxation policies are driving poorer people out of rural areas: that is happening more now than in the past 20 or 30 years. That is a pity, because many villages will end up with unbalanced communities.
      I welcome the amendments. At least they have given rise to a debate, and at least they take into account the fact that a policy that is sane when it relates to one year can become insane when it is implemented year after year, and when it impacts on only certain people in certain constituencies. Some of those people may not have the largest incomes, or, indeed, the largest cars; they simply need to use the car to do basic things.
      As one who represents a port, and a port that is used by road hauliers, I am very aware of the burden that the clause imposes on the road haulage industry. Road hauliers carry the vast majority of the goods that appear in our shops and supermarkets. There is no such thing as a painless tax increase, and at some point people must pay for the amount that the Government are raising—in this instance, £25 billion. The cost must be paid either by consumers through higher prices, or by road hauliers, who must try to contain their costs. They may be able to squeeze efficiency for one or two years, but that will become increasingly difficult after a period of several years, when fuel prices are constantly rising.
      The road haulage industry is very competitive. Most hauliers survive on small margins. It is a problem if they have to jack up prices every year in such a competitive industry: many businesses are likely to go bust as a result, and many drivers are likely to lose their jobs. Continental hauliers have an impact on Britain. Many have 100-gallon tanks, which they fill up on the other side of the channel. They come here and unload, and look for business. Because they bought their fuel on the other side of the channel and they do not have to fill their tanks here, they can undercut British road hauliers.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out, hauliers are not only contributing a great deal in fuel tax; they are contributing a great deal in vehicle excise duty. The more road hauliers go out of business on this side of the channel, the less revenue the Treasury will receive. We should take account of what happens across the channel, and I think that the amendments are at least a step in the right direction.
      854
      The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) described our policy as opportunistic, but I do not consider it opportunistic to stand up for country dwellers who need cars. I do not consider it opportunistic to stand up for road hauliers who carry the goods that we all want to buy, and who provide a good service for this country—efficiently, we hope—but on whom the Government's policy will impose a considerable burden.
      I hope that the Economic Secretary will make clear where the Government see their policy going. I believe that, if we continue in this way, anger will erupt, people will go out of business, jobs will be lost, and people who are struggling to remain in rural villages in which they may have been born and grown up will be forced into urban areas.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I support the amendments.
      I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who drew attention to the small margins on which the haulage industry is based. I wish to stress the plight of the industry in south-west Hampshire. I believe that the relationship between the environment and haulage mileage is entirely different there: indeed, its impact may be perverse in comparison with that in the rest of the country.
      The difficulty is that, in south-west Hampshire, the need for haulage services is concentrated along the A31—which is in effect an extension of the M3 and M27 motorway network—down the Southampton waterside, particularly in Totton and the oil-refining area of Fawley, and along the southern strip, where population growth and the growth of enterprise are greatest.
      It will no doubt have occurred to some people that the New forest lies bang in the centre of the localities to which I have drawn attention. It is the policy of Hampshire county council—many of my constituents would say that it is properly so—to prevent hauliers from travelling through the New forest. Therefore, any haulage firm that wishes to pick up business, for example, in Ringwood or on the waterside, but which is located along the southern strip must make a considerable detour, entailing much more mileage. They feel that they have made their contribution to the environment by travelling more miles than would ordinarily be the case were they not restricted by the county council's environmental policy. Now they find themselves penalised disproportionately by the escalator that has been imposed on them.
      Equally, the greater mileage that hauliers are required to travel has had an effect on many of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will be aware of the complaints of his constituents in Highcliffe and Walkford about lorries that would otherwise have travelled through Lyndhurst and Burley, but which make a large detour to avoid the New forest. His constituents, and my constituents in Sopley and along the A31, would undoubtedly welcome the extra revenue that such taxes might yield if it were invested in the road network to provide them with relief from the additional haulage traffic to which they are subjected. The legitimacy of the tax is completely undermined, however, because the prospect of bypasses, particularly around Lyndhurst, and of noise abatement measures along the A31 to allay the misery of many of the local residents, has receded.

      855
      It is precisely because of the current tax's perverse effects, and its disproportionate effect on my constituents, that I am in favour of the amendments.
      Mr. Michael Jack: First, I apologise to you, and to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being here at the start of the debate. I was following it in another part of the Palace estate and heard some of the arguments.
      If I were in the Government's position and faced with a nice little earner that would yield nearly £1.7 billion extra year on year, I would sit on the Treasury Bench, try not to catch the eye of Opposition Members, and try not to look embarrassed or in any way discomfited that so much additional money was being lifted yet again from motorists.
      It is almost as though the Government were trying to outdo the previous Government's efforts in their tax approach. They have looked at the escalator and thought, "That is a good idea. Let's double it. Let's really go for it," but, as always, the shoe has begun to pinch tightly. Let us look at the real-world effect of the fuel duty escalator. At one of my local garages, the price was 58p a litre before the last Budget; now, 69p or 70p is the norm. At a modest consumption of 10 gallons a week, the citizen is now paying about £225 a year more for his fuel.
      I ask the Economic Secretary, if she is to reply to the debate, whether she will initiate a study of the escalator's distributional effects. For all the reasons that other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, many of our constituents find it impossible to adjust their motoring habits overnight. They are not financially able to buy the latest and most fuel-efficient cars to overcome the effect of extra fuel duty. They are perhaps wedded to an older and less efficient car, which may be a necessity—perhaps even a tool of the trade—for them. None the less, the Government seem disinclined to measure the regressive effect of the tax, particularly on those who are at the lower end of the salary or wage spectrum.
      5.45 pm
      Will Ministers therefore conduct an exercise examining the tax's full impact? If they continue operating the escalator as they have been, many low-income people will be very adversely affected—which perhaps should, if there is still a vestige of socialism among Labour Members, touch their conscience. I do not think that many people drive many frivolous miles. Most people use their cars of necessity, particularly in rural areas, about which hon. Members have already spoken.
      Although the oil price may drop to $10 a barrel, the Government ensure that motorists do not receive the decrease's full benefit. I appreciate that there is a relationship between fuel price and fuel use, but, if the Government want to achieve their environmental objectives, other levers should be used rather than simply hiding behind the fuel escalator. What will happen as the oil price increases? I presume that Ministers will be happy to let motorists not only feel the full force of the fuel duty escalator but bear the full weight of any oil price increase.
      Ministers cannot have their cake and eat it. Yesterday we debated the implications of vehicle excise duties and future applications—perhaps to be announced in the next Budget—of the graduated scale, which is the Government's big idea to meet their Kyoto targets. However, to achieve
      856
      the same targets, they want also to use the fuel duty escalator. Why do we need two economic measures to achieve the same target, when one will do?
      The Government are using a very negative and blunt instrument to try to achieve their environmental targets, but they have also committed themselves to a different instrument. They should not have two bites at the same cherry. In trying to achieve their environmental targets, Ministers have taken a lazy approach to taxation. If they want to raise more money to meet the targets, they could do so in other ways—but they are frightened rigid of taxing anything else. Therefore, with a blunt instrument, they are going for the same old "winners", which is having a seriously regressive effect on lower-income groups. Ministers owe it to us to undertake a study to examine the policy's real impact.
      I take modest comfort from thinking that Ministers may support amendment No. 40, as press reports state that the Chancellor is getting cold feet on the issue. However, I suppose that, being a Scot, he would rather have the money than show even a little generosity to hard-pressed motorists, many of whom are suffering from the Government's anti-road, anti-car policies. Motorists are stuck in traffic jams, spending even more money on fuel and adding to the Government's coffers. I suppose that that is the new stationary method of raising taxes.
      The Government need very carefully to consider this sphere of taxation. I think that a report on the escalator's impact on individuals, compared with its impact on the environment, would help greatly to clarify Government policy.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I do not know whether the Economic Secretary is a fan of George Gershwin, but, judging by her previous statements on the escalator, I should not be surprised to see her standing at the Dispatch Box singing, "I'll build a stairway to paradise". Nevertheless, as we have heard in the debate, the truth is that the Government are building a treadmill to ruin for businesses across the United Kingdom.
      We heard from the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) how the previous Conservative Government's success in attracting funding for Scotland's infrastructure—thereby revitalising so many of its regions—is now being undermined by the ever-increasing cost of getting products made in Scotland to their markets. That is the extent of the damage being done by this serious increase in taxation.
      Mr. Swinney: The electorate's conclusions about the great success of the Conservative Administration were shown on 1 May 1997, when the Conservatives failed to win any seat within Scotland. Perhaps that little piece of information will be a part of the hon. Gentleman's recollections about Scottish politics.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: We well know that the Conservative party bequeathed to the country, including Scotland, a golden economic legacy. There were other reasons why we lost that election, but the reasons for the legacy will be the reasons why we will win power again.
      If the Government increase taxation without a thought-through strategy, they will hurt business and destroy jobs, and the tax increases will become self-defeating. That is the stage we are reaching with the so-called fuel escalator.

      857
      In my part of the country, people do not have a choice to whether or when to use their cars. They are busy people who have to get to work and who have to use the transport that is available and—as in many other parts of the country—that means the motor car. It is no good telling them to put all their freight on rail. They need to use the road transport network which has been built up over so many years.
      I was struck by the way in which in a recent exchange with me, the Minister for Transport patted herself on the back for having announced a £5 million noise reduction fund—£5 million across the country to reduce noise is a paltry sum when the Government, as a result of their increments in taxation on the motorist, are raising an extra £12 billion from motorists during this Parliament.
      If the Government were to use a modest increase in road duty to improve our road network by imaginative noise reduction measures, better surfaces or schemes to encourage road traffic to use main roads—and not to disrupt the lives of many people by driving heavy lorries through villages—at least some benefit would flow back to our constituents who are paying these high costs. The Government do not intend to do that. The reason why the Conservative party is opposed to high taxation in principle is that Governments who increase tax simply tend to hoard the money, and do not have the imagination to put it to good use. That is why we need to stop the increases in road fuel taxes. We need to stop and think before we use these extra taxes simply to force businesses into ruin. Any money must be put to good use for the real transport needs of our country.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): This has been a lively and interesting debate—albeit one perhaps inevitably, has gone over familiar ground. It might help if I reminded the House of the origins of the fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1993. It was set initially at 3 per cent., but raised in the same year to 5 per cent. With the exception of some references in one or two speeches from Conservative Members, one would never have thought so.
      The escalator was inherited by us, confirmed by us and increased to 6 per cent. in 1997. The fuel duty escalator was right when the Conservative Government introduced it—I am prepared on this occasion to give them the credit for it, even though they have since abandoned the policy—and it is still right today.
      Mr. Dorrell: Will the Economic Secretary complete that statement of policy? For how long will it be right?
      Ms Hewitt: As we said in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" the escalator will be applied in future Budgets. Our environmental assessment is that if the road fuel duty escalator is continued until 2002, it will, by 2010, save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon—an extremely significant contribution towards our Kyoto targets.
      Mr. Jack: Will the Economic Secretary give me an undertaking that she will publish the details of how that calculation was arrived at?
      Ms Hewitt: The calculation was based on the models used by the Treasury and the Department of the
      858
      Environment, Transport and the Regions. We referred to that in the environmental impact assessment table in the Budget documentation. There is nothing further that I can add. However, if any further technical details will assist the right hon. Gentleman, I will let him have them.
      The reduction in greenhouse gases was for the Conservative party and is for this Government the first and continuing justification for the fuel duty escalator. However, there is a second justification—the contribution that the fuel duty escalator makes, by constraining the growth in demand for road transport that would otherwise take place, to improving local air quality and thus people's health.
      Last night, Conservative Members posed as the friends of health and the opponents of air pollution. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) moved amendments on road fuel gases, and referred to the problems of
      "fine particulates PM10s, which have a demonstrated link with respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and to oxides of nitrogen, which can damage the lungs and play a part in summer smog episodes. These emissions currently result from the use of petrol engines".—[Official Report, 5 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 770.]
      The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. He referred later to benzine emissions from petrol, which cause health risks.
      Let me remind the House of those health risks and the contribution to them from the emissions from cars and lorries. In 1996, airborne particulates in urban areas brought forward more than 8,000 deaths, and either caused or brought forward more than 10,000 hospital admissions for respiratory diseases. Road transport is one of the major sources of those particulates. Across the country, road transport contributes about a quarter of the total emissions of particulates. In London, where the problem is most severe, nearly 80 per cent. of those particulates—about which the right hon. Member for Fylde was so concerned last night—come from road transport.
      Road transport is responsible for nearly half the emissions of nitrogen oxide. In London, where the problem is at its worst, it accounts for nearly three quarters of emissions.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: By how much has traffic been reduced in London since the Government increased the amount of the escalator?
      Ms Hewitt: The escalator has ensured that the demand for petrol, and therefore the emissions from petrol and diesel-powered engines, has reduced by 0.1 per cent. compared with a year ago, and is somewhat lower than it was more than 10 years ago. Compared with the scenarios that we could have anticipated in the absence of the escalator, that is an important constraint upon the increase in road transport and pollution.
      Opposition Members were concerned last night about people's health. Today, they are concerned only about people driving cars and lorries. It is worth remembering that particulates from diesel engines are responsible for a large number of those premature deaths and hospital admissions for bronchial and respiratory diseases.
      I remind the House of the remarks of the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said—quite rightly—that hon. Members who sought to support the Kyoto targets

      859
      and to show concern for people's health and the impact on health of road transport-generated pollution, and who simultaneously opposed the fuel duty escalator, were sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy.
      6 pm
      Several hon. Members spoke about the road haulage industry. I commend the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who rightly referred to several studies that strongly suggest that the road haulage industry is contributing considerably less than the total cost of the social and environmental penalties that it imposes on this country. Of course, the industry's competitiveness is taken into account when the Government set diesel duty rates and vehicle excise duty, but the duty on diesel also reflects valid environmental and health concerns which I would have hoped by Conservative Members were shared.
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have often stressed that, in considering the industry's competitiveness, we must take into account not only our fuel duty and VED, but our total package of business costs. Thanks to the Government, we now have the lowest rate of corporation tax of any major European Union country. Our non-wage labour costs are generally lower than those in our competitor countries. The small companies rate of corporation tax was cut to 20 per cent. in the Budget and a 10 per cent. rate was introduced for the smallest companies.
      We have cut VED for the cleanest lorries by £1,000, and in response to a request from the industry we have made it easier for vehicles to change their licence category to become eligible for the lowest possible rate of VED to suit the loads that they bear.
      In response to the industry's concerns, we set up the road haulage forum, which will meet again under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport later this month. At the request of right hon. and hon. Members, we are considering the specific question of the Euro vignette scheme, although I stress again that the scope for such a scheme is severely constrained by a European directive to which the previous Government committed us.
      There is considerable evidence of overcapacity in the haulage industry. A third of total mileage is run empty and the supermarkets have achieved enormous improvements in fuel efficiency and loadage, which shows that we are giving the industry absolutely the right incentive, partly through the road fuel duty escalator, to ensure that it makes much more efficient use of its fuel.
      A recent study by the energy efficiency best practice programme shows that only a third of commercial fleet managers know how much they spend on fuel and only a third have active policies to improve fuel efficiency. The escalator should go some way towards the extremely necessary goal of improving that record.
      One damaging effect of the amendments is that they would reduce the duty incentive for clean ultra-low sulphur diesel to just over 2p a litre. We have seen clearly that the trade needed the 3p differential that we introduced in the March Budget, as it enables ultra-low sulphur diesel to be offered at the same pump price as conventional diesel. In February, clean diesel was only 41 per cent. of the diesel market; by June, that had already increased to 96 per cent. We have put in place the right duty
      860
      differential and ensured that virtually all diesel now sold in this country is environmentally friendly. That has been a resounding success, and the amendments would go back on our promise to the oil industry to maintain the differential.
      The amendments would backdate the reduction in rates to Budget day on 9 March, which would necessitate our repaying about £300 million to the oil industry. I am not sure that the Opposition have begun to think about how that could be administered or how one could insist that the reduction was passed back to the motorists on whom the increase was imposed.
      As we have come to expect from the Conservatives, their refusal to abide by the policy that they rightly adopted in government and their opportunistic decision to abandon it, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, mean that there is a black hole of about £5 billion in their spending plans.
      Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) will tell us how he proposes to fill that hole and whether he believes that the resultant cuts should fall on the health service, on schools or on some other part of public spending. I hope that he will tell us how he would achieve the Kyoto and other greenhouse gas targets and the improvements in people's health, of which many Conservative Members have spoken, in the absence of this highly effective and well-justified policy. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment unless, as I hope, the right hon. Gentleman decides to withdraw it.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The facts of the issue are not seriously in dispute. The road fuel duty escalator is now well past the point at which it had an environmental justification and is doing severe damage to the private motorist and the road haulage industry. It is part of the Government's totally unnecessary war on the private motorist and it is making an important industry uncompetitive in Europe.
      The Government first chose to deny those facts and they now choose to ignore them. We do not ignore them and we will now vote to reverse the damage by supporting the amendment, which would cut the escalator back to the rate of the retail prices index.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 355.

      Division No. 224]

      [6.8 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bums, Simon

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clappison, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Bercow, John

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Collins, Tim

      Blunt, Crispin

      Colvin, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Gran, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing VV)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltempdce)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan, Alan

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      861

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      May, Mrs Teresa

      Evens, Nigel

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Faber, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fabricant, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Flight, Howard

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Page, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paice, James

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Prior, David

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Randall, John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gale, Roger

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gamier, Edward

      Robertson, Lauerence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gibb, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ruffley, David

      Gary, James

      St Audyn, Nick

      Green, Damian

      Shepherd, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      Spring, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heald, Oliver

      Steen, Anthony

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Streeter, Gary

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Swayne, Desmond

      Horam, John

      Swinney, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Iain (Esher & Walton)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Jenkin, Bemard

      Tylor, Sir Teddy

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Townend, John

      Key, Robert

      Tredinnick, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Trend, Michael

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Viggers, Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Wardle, Charles

      Letwin, Oliver

      Wells, Bowen

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Livsey, Richard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Whittingdale, John

      Lloyd, Elfyn

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Loughton, Tim

      Willetts, David

      Luff, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Woodward, Shaun

      Madel, Sir David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Malins, Humfrey

      Maples, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mates, Michael

      Mrs, Jacqui Lait and

      Maude, Rt Hon Franics

      Mrs, Eleanor Laing.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Adams, Mrs Irene Paisley N)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Ainger, Nick

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bennett, Andreew F

      Alexander, Douglas

      Benton, Joe

      Allan, Richard

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Allen, Graham

      Berry, Roger

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Best, Harold

      Ashton, Joe

      Betts, Clive

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blackman, Liz

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Austin, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Baker, Norman

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bames, Harry

      Brake, Tom

      Barron, Kevin

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Battle, John

      Breed, Colin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Beard, Nigel

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Browne, Desmond

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      862

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Burden, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Burgon, Colin

      Burstow, Paul

      Galloway, George

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gapes, Mike

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Cann, Jamie

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godsiff, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chaytor, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gorrie, Donald

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bndgend)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbndge)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Clelland, David

      Gunnell, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hain, Peter

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coleman, lain

      Colman, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hancock, Mike

      Corbett, Robin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hanson, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Cousins, Jim

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Harvey, Nick

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cummings, John

      Healey, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hesford, Stephen

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Darvill, Keith

      Hill, Keith

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Hoey, Kate

      Dawson, Hilton

      Home Robertson, John

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hope, Phil

      Denham, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Doran, Frank

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dowd, Jim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Drew, David

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Hurst, Alan

      Edwards, Huw

      Hutton, John

      Efford, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Ennis, Jeff

      Illsley, Eric

      Etherington, Bill

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Fisher, Mark

      Jamieson, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Flint, Caroline

      Jenkins, Brian

      Flynn, Paul

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Follett, Barbara

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      863

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pearson, Ian

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pendry, Tom

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keetch, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Pike, Peter L

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Purchase, Ken

      Laxton, Bob

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Lepper, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Radice, Giles

      Levitt, Tom

      Rapson, Syd

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Linton, Martin

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lock, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Love, Andrew

      Rowlands, Ted

      McAllion, John

      Roy, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      McCabe, Steve

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Salter, Martin

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McNamara, Kevin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McNulty, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      MacShane, Denis

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Merron, Gillian

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Spellar, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mitchell, Austin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stevenson, George

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morley, Elliot

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mullin, Chris

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stunell, Andrew

      Oaten, Mark

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      864

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      White, Brian

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Todd, Mark

      Wills, Michael

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Wilson, Brian

      Trickett, Jon

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE

      Winterton,Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wise,Audrey

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Wood Mike

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wray, James

      Vaz, Keith

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watts, David

      Jane Kennedy and

      Webb, Steve

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 40
    MEANING OF CONDITIONAL INTERESTS IN SHARES
    Dr. Cable: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 21, line 4, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
    '(7) The amendments made by this section shall be deemed always to have had effect'.
    This technical matter was pursued at length in Committee, but I should like to take it a little further. It arises from a measure against tax avoidance that was designed to stop people converting remuneration into shares, thereby exempting themselves from higher rates of income tax. That measure fell on a particular class of companies—unquoted companies that frequently pay employees or directors in shares that must be transferred when the employee or director leaves the company.
    That presented a problem for those people, who would have to pay taxes at higher rates on valid and welcome forms of employee share ownership because of the attempt to clamp down on tax avoidance. The Finance Act 1998 attempted to address the problem by exempting people when the arrangement was built into the company's articles of association. However, it is clear from discussions with the Inland Revenue that the exemption was too narrowly drawn. Many people were caught out who had acquired shares as a result of employee contracts, or because they worked for a subsidiary—unlike the fat cats who work for main companies.
    Clause 40 is designed to narrow further the range of the anti-avoidance measure, and is generally welcome as it allows exemptions to be extended to people who work for subsidiary companies. However, the exemption is limited to people who bought shares after Royal Assent was granted to last year's Finance Act. It still catches a substantial number of people innocently involved in employee share ownership schemes who purchased their shares long ago.
    The amendment would therefore apply the anti-avoidance measure retrospectively. Little revenue is involved, though if the sum is more substantial, the Treasury should give us some figures. The amendment cannot conceivably be construed as doing anything to encourage tax avoidance as it applies to decisions already taken. It is a reasonable technical suggestion to widen the scope of the exemption already accepted in principle by

    865
    the Government in a way that will meet the concerns of those who are trying to promote employee share ownership in a specific category of companies.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Clause 40 and the Liberal Democrat amendment are the fruits of excessive zeal in anti-avoidance measures, the complication of which has resulted in mistakes by the Government. The amendment is broadly correct, as the administration of clause 40 would be a nightmare for the Inland Revenue during the year in which an unfair tax rule existed, but it sets a precedent with which we are uncomfortable by making tax matters retrospective, even though it favours individuals. However, we cannot see how clause 40 will operate smoothly without it, unless the Revenue acts as if it had been included in the Bill.
    Where companies pay individuals in shares subject to later forfeiture—which creates a difficulty in valuing the benefit and the income tax that arises—special rules apply. When the original provisions were drafted in 1988, cases in which an employee dismissed for misconduct had to sell the shares at a discount were not included, but those cases were included in the special rules last year. Those people are in a tax situation different from the deliberately advantageous situation in which shares become forfeit in order to avoid charges to income tax. The tidying up of parts of last year's Act made the mistake of including a charge to income tax that no reasonable person would have considered.
    We are glad that the Government are correcting that error in clause 40. However, do they intend the Revenue to be lumbered with the unintended law for a year, or will the Revenue operate as if the mistake had not happened, even if the amendment is not accepted?
    Mr. Fabricant: I, too, support the amendment and welcome clause 40. The clause is a small demonstration of the Government's so-called commitment to a stakeholding society, although they are also attacking fat cats and claiming that anyone who enjoys the fruits of the company for which he or she works is a fat cat. There is a fundamental inconsistency there.
    It is wholly wrong that clause 40 should become operational from a particular future date. It should be backdated. It should, indeed, have gone further. When in Opposition, Government Members criticised our Finance Acts, claiming that share and profit participation schemes were not lawful, and that profit schemes were being abused. There were instances of that, for example, one at Nottingham university, which was quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). A shell company was set up and people were paid through dividends rather than wages.
    6.30 pm
    Assurances were given before the last general election to companies such as the John Lewis Partnership, which I do not think any hon. Member would accuse of operating a scheme to make use of a tax loophole and which has suffered as a consequence. Everyone who works for the John Lewis Partnership is designated as a partner. At the end of the year, instead of a dividend being declared, a proportion of salary is declared as a bonus,
    866
    which is distributed among all the workers. If that is not a good example of a stakeholding society, I do not know what is.
    I clearly remember during debates on the Finance Bill before the last general election Labour Members pledging that if a Labour Government were elected they would restore tax-exempt status to profit-sharing schemes such as that operated by the John Lewis Partnership, which is a bona fide scheme. Now, two years into a Labour Government, what do we see? The stakeholding society is merely another spin. There has been no deed and the Government have not attempted to reinstate that profit-sharing scheme. That is another empty promise—another promise unfulfilled and another group of people who feel betrayed as a consequence.
    Will the Minister, who was not in the House prior to the general election, look through the Hansard of our debates on that Finance Bill, see the promises that were made and undertake on her word of honour that bona fide profit-sharing schemes will be reinstated as tax exempt? There is no logic in introducing clause 40 into the Bill without introducing the sort of scheme that I just mentioned.
    The Labour Government claim that they are no longer against fat cats. They hope that fat cats will vote for them. They claim that they want a stakeholding society. Yet when companies generate the very conditions that provide such a society, the Government, either through their inaction or action, work against them. That is hypocrisy, betrayal and spin of the worst kind.
    Ms Hewitt: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the commitment made in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, both to introduce new tax regulations for employee share ownership schemes, which will make it the most generously tax relieved form of employee share ownership in this country and to introduce a new enterprise management incentive, which is directed particularly towards new and start-up companies. We are more than fulfilling our pledge to promote stakeholding by employees.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Hewitt: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would rather deal with the amendments to clause 40. It is fair to say that he strayed somewhat wide of those.
    As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, clause 40 adds two new cases to the categories of shares that are specifically excluded from the special tax rules that were introduced in the Finance Act 1998. Those excluded cases are, instead, taxed in line with general tax rules. The amendment would make the change retrospective to last year.
    A similar amendment was tabled in Committee and was spoken to by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I asked him to withdraw it on the ground that it would be wrong to present an unexpected tax bill to some employees. He agreed to do so on the basis of my statement to the Committee, which he described as "full, frank and helpful". I always seek to be full, frank and helpful.
    My concern at that time was that making the changes retrospective, while it would be beneficial for the majority, might result in some employees receiving a

    867
    larger tax bill. That is because the value of shares can go down as well as up. If an employee had been awarded shares since 17 March 1998 that were subject to a risk of forfeiture that could not last for more than 5 years and the shares had fallen in value, the tax charge would, in the absence of retrospective exemption, be on a lower value than would be the case under general tax rules.
    In most cases, however, the opposite would apply: the shares would have increased in value and the employee would be better off with retrospection. Because of the possible risk that a few people might be worse off, it seemed better on balance not to make the clause retrospective.
    The debate in Committee was helpful and since then several advisers have shown us examples of cases where ordinary employees will be disadvantaged unfairly by the absence of retrospection. In one case, the directors of a company were offered shares subject to the risk of forfeiture in February 1998, before the special rules in section 140A apply. Any subsequent increase in the value of those shares will therefore be taxed as a capital gain.
    However, similar shares were awarded to all the employees of the company in April 1998. Those fall within the special rules of section 140A with the result that when they sell their shares the employees will have to pay income tax on any subsequent increase in their value. For most employees that will mean a real cost as the annual capital gains tax exemption would normally cover their gain.
    Therefore, the employees end up being treated far more harshly than the directors of the company who acquired their shares a month earlier. If the employees were awarded the same shares after Royal Assent, they would be covered by the exemption provided by clause 40 and would be treated the same as the directors. Therefore, employees who were awarded shares between 17 March 1998 and when this Bill is enacted would be treated more harshly than any employees receiving exactly the same shares both before and after those dates. We have also reached the conclusion that many of those affected will simply not be aware that they are in that unfortunate position.
    Therefore, like the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), I think that on this occasion there is a convincing argument that we should set aside our normal concerns about retrospective legislation and the problems to which it can give rise. I am therefore happy that we should adopt the common-sense solution which is clearly fairer to most employees. I am grateful to hon. Members and those advisers who have brought those cases to our attention and I am happy to accept the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 45

      PROVISION AND SUPPORT OF BUS SERVICES
      Ms Hewitt: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 24, line 21, leave out 'large'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 12.
      Ms Hewitt: These amendments deal with the minimum seating capacity for the works bus exemption and related
      868
      matters. We had an extremely helpful debate on the subject in Committee and hon. Members raised various matters there on which I promised to reflect further. I have done so and these amendments are a consequence of that further consideration—further proof that this Government do listen and respond.
      Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would reduce the minimum seating capacity requirement for the works bus exemption from 17 to 12. Several of the amendments moved in Committee sought to reduce our initial figure of 17. As I explained in Committee, the reason for a high seating test is simply to prevent the exemption being siphoned off, notably to family companies where husband and wife directors provide themselves with a large family vehicle, via the company, to take the two of them to and from work. There are tens of thousands of such companies. Such vehicles would normally be classed as cars and it is not the aim of the clause to change that in any way.
      The provision removes the tax charge where a works bus is used to transport employees between home and work; it is part of our green transport package. However, in order to avoid potential abuse, the bus in question needs to be clearly distinguishable from a car, so the minimum seating requirement needs to be large enough to act as a deterrent against using a larger vehicle to attract a tax break. A fine balance has to be struck between avoiding a perverse incentive on the one hand, and, on the other, meeting the aims of the many employers who genuinely want to provide a bus service that will get a significant number of employees out of their own cars and on to buses.
      Since the Committee stage, I have considered whether the 17-seat requirement could be reduced for works buses, and whether we could dispense with any seating capacity requirement for the public bus service exemption. As hon. Members will see from other amendments, we have indeed entirely removed the seating requirement for the public bus exemption. For the works bus, we felt able to come down significantly—by almost one third—to a minimum seating capacity of 12, which, I think, was the figure proposed in Committee by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).
      That does not reduce the minimum quite as far as was proposed in some of the amendments tabled in Committee. However, there would be a real danger of opening the way to avoidance, if a figure lower than 12 were adopted. None the less, the amendment, taken with the other relaxations that we have introduced, will go a very long way towards meeting the points that were made in Committee, and in representations to us.
      Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 deal with concerns expressed in Committee that the wording of the conditions about qualifying journeys in a works bus was too restrictive, and that some specific relaxation should also be introduced to enable children of employees to travel on the works bus without prejudicing the exemption. As I explained in Committee, the original wording would already have permitted some non-qualifying journeys, but concern was expressed in Committee about the use of the word "only" in relation to the qualifying conditions. The amendments retain the main thrust of the exemption—to exempt employees on their home-to-work journey from any tax on that benefit—but we have now expressed that, in amendment No. 5, in a main-use test for home-to-work journeys. We have removed the references to "substantial compliance" and to "only" about which some hon.

      869
      Members were concerned. I hope that makes it clear that, provided the main-use test is met, a certain amount of other use of the service can take place without the exemption being lost—that is the key point.
      As regards children, within the main-use test provided by amendment No. 5, amendment No. 6 includes a specific reference to allowing the children of employees to use the bus. However, that does not involve any restriction of the opportunity for a limited amount of other non-home-to-work travel by individuals without the exemption being lost. Together, the amendments introduce a simpler and, I hope, more user-friendly concept of main use.
      As I have pointed out, amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 12 remove any seating requirement for the public transport service subsidy, because the avoidance risk in respect of husband and wife directors, to which I referred, does not really apply to a public passenger transport service. We have decided that we can dispense with any minimum seating test.
      Amendment No. 10 responds to an issue that was brought to my attention in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey). He wanted to cater for situations in which, for example, bodies with particular experience in the transport sector, such as passenger transport executives, provide an intermediary service—brokering the necessary payment and transport arrangements with transport companies—on behalf of one or more employers. The amendment introduces a relaxation to the road service bus subsidy exemption, by removing the requirement that the subsidy, or other support, for the bus service must be provided directly to the operator of the service.
      Finally, amendment No. 11 arises from the consideration that I promised to give to an amendment proposed in Committee by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). The issue is whether the condition in clause 45—that the service must be substantially used for commuting journeys only—is necessary in relation to the exemption for employer subsidies to public transport services.
      As I said in my reply to the Committee, under the transport subsidy exemption, employees have to pay the same fare as other passengers. In those circumstances, there is no need to be concerned about the number of occasions, in addition to the ordinary commuting journey, on which the employee otherwise uses the service. In reconsidering the matter, we see no further risk in making the change proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I am happy to introduce an amendment to remove entirely the requirement for employees to use the public bus service substantially for home-to-work journeys.
      The amendments simplify and improve the package of measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget to give significant support to the growing number of employers who are introducing green transport schemes and, hence, providing an incentive to other employers to follow that example. I commend the amendments to the House.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Flight: After I was privileged to be elected as the representative of the citizens of Arundel and South Downs, the first business that I visited was a mushroom
      870
      farm employing about 500 people. The business was in a rural area and many of the employees did shift work. They went through various business issues with me, and two major political points arose. The first was the subsidisation by the EU of mushroom farmers in Ireland, but the second was the advice from the Revenue that the bus service provided for the workers would be taxed as a benefit in kind to the recipients. In view of the hassle of assessing what the benefit in kind might be, it was felt that the company should stop providing the service.
      I wrote to the Treasury once or twice, before the present Economic Secretary was appointed. The responses that I received were not particularly encouraging, but the point of my preamble is to explain why I am delighted that the Government have introduced these measures. They are obviously common sense, if we want to cut down the use of cars in rural areas. The benefit in kind aspect is minimal, while the benefit to the rest of the community is substantial.
      My main comment is on amendment No. 6. It struck me that there could be occasional use by children, but not by spouses. I understand the explanation given by the Economic Secretary as to the purpose of that limitation, but it struck me that that might not be adhered to in practice. It might present a problem, if one spouse and the children—for whatever reason—needed a lift to the workplace of the other spouse.
      Secondly, such works buses could occasionally provide valuable help in rural communities, by giving a lift to old age pensioners; I am sure that, if there were space on the bus, such people could board it. I trust that such practical anomalies would not undermine the tax advantages of the whole scheme.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend obviously knows his constituency remarkably well. Out of interest—I do not seek to score political points—and given the problems that the company might encounter, or the hassle to which he refers, are there other public service buses to carry out the service?
      Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The bus services are not adequate; it would be a nightmare for many of those individuals to get to work. There are substantial time gaps in the existing services, and many of the staff would have to stop working for the company. Others would have to travel by car, scooter or other forms of transport. The example that I have given is a high-employment rural industry that is currently prospering and it is a wholly suitable beneficiary of the Government's proposals. There must be many other such cases, especially in rural areas, where labour-intensive employment is sought.
      The rest of the amendments strike me as being fairly sensible, if occasionally slightly over-defined. We understand the underlying principle of avoiding exploitation of the concession by family companies, but if a 17-seat minimum is too high for the purposes of defining a bus, 12 seats is well in excess of the number found in a car. However, if a company were to use some form of dormobile, it is debatable whether 12 seats really means 12 seats. Amendment No. 12 appears to remove the definition of how the number of seats is counted, and I assume that that is done to permit a degree of practical flexibility in the matter.

      871
      However, the essential point is that the amendments are welcome. It is good news that the Government have modified their original proposals to make them as practical and user friendly as possible. I trust that the general enforcement guidelines issued to the Revenue will reflect common sense.
      Mr. John Healey: I welcome the amendments, which make a good clause much better. I particularly welcome amendment No. 10, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for responding so positively to my representations in Committee. Amendment No. 10 removes the restriction whereby tax relief is payable only on subsidies from an employer paid directly to a bus operator for services provided exclusively to employees of that company. Ensuring that that tax exemption may also apply to subsidies paid via a passenger transport authority will strengthen the hand of PTAs to broker new bus services that serve more than one employer.
      That is especially relevant to an area such as Rotherham, which I represent. Over two decades, we witnessed the destruction of the coal industry and severe damage done to our engineering, manufacturing and steel base by two deep recessions. The borough contains areas such as the lower Don valley and the Dearne valley which are now regeneration areas; they are strong on inward investment, but weak on public transport. Earlier this month, I met the recruitment manager of Ventura, which is a call centre that is currently investing in the Dearne valley and seeking to recruit about 4,000 employees during the next two years. She told me that the company had identified 200 unemployed people in the Dearne valley to whom it could not offer jobs because they did not have a car and so could not get to work. Good transport has a role to play in job regeneration.
      The clause, as amended, will allow PTAs and employers to play their part in achieving the aim that the Government have set for the clause, which is the encouragement of greener transport means.
      Dr. Cable: I should like to express my support for the measure and, in the process, thank the Economic Secretary for her response to representations on the previous clause. I was so gobsmacked that the Government had listened carefully to the criticisms, talked to the practitioners and responded sympathetically that I did not rise as quickly and as graciously as I should have done to express my appreciation. That was a positive development.
      The season of good will appears to be upon us—we are being showered with presents and concessions. The current group of amendments is especially welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked the Government to examine the definition of a bus. He asked Ministers to consider size—specifically, 12 seats—as a means of introducing greater flexibility; and to consider intermediate means of transport that fall between the full-sized bus and the car. I am glad that the Treasury has considered those matters and has acted positively. I unreservedly welcome this positive development.
      Mr. John Horam: I, too, welcome the amendments and I shall join my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in making favourable comments about them.
      872
      The measure before us is part of the Treasury's transformation into a much greener Department than it has hitherto been. I recall the Minister in Committee making a good case for actions taken in the Budget, and I recognise the amendment as part of that effort. Anything that encourages green transport plans is wholly welcome. As the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) said, they help in his part of the world, and they certainly help in rural areas. Jobs can depend on transport planning.
      May I enter one caveat—or one encouragement, to put it more mildly? The Minister is not only the Economic Secretary but the Green Minister in the Treasury, so she may have noticed that the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am Chairman, published a report this week in which we pointed out that, Department by Department, the Government were not setting an especially good example in developing Green transport plans. When the Economic Secretary attends the next Green Ministers' meeting, will she make a favourable report on the reception given to the amendments by the House of Commons in this debate, and encourage Green Ministers in other Departments to follow her excellent example?
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 24, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
      "bus' means a road passenger vehicle with a seating capacity of 12 or more; and'.
      No. 5, in page 24, line 33, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 34 and insert 'following conditions—

      (a) the service must be available generally to employees of the employer (or each employer) concerned;

      (b) the main use of the service must be for qualifying journeys by those employees.'.

      No. 6, in page 24, line 36, leave out from 'the' to end of line 40 and insert
      'condition that the service must be used only by the employees for whom it is provided or their children.
      For this purpose 'children' includes stepchildren and illegitimate children but does not include children aged 18 or over.'.
      No. 7, in page 25, line 14, leave out 'bus' and insert 'road'.
      No. 8, in page 25, line 18, leave out 'bus' and insert 'road'.
      No. 9, in page 25, line 20, leave out
      'with a seating capacity of 17 or more'.
      No. 10, in page 25, leave out lines 29 and 30.
      No. 11, in page 25, leave out lines 37 to 39.
      No. 12, in page 25, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 26.—[Mr. Clelland.]

    Clause 47

      CYCLES AND CYCLIST'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT
      Ms Hewitt: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 27, line 1, leave out from 'to' to end of line 3 and insert
      'the condition that the employee must use the cycle or safety equipment mainly for qualifying journeys.'.
      While the House is in a happy mood of consensus on environmental objectives—which was far less obvious in our earlier debate on the fuel duty escalator—let us turn to

      873
      amendment No. 13, which again simplifies the provisions relating to tax relief for cycling, which is another part of our green transport package.
      The amendment replaces the requirement that the tax exemption is available only if there is
      "substantial compliance with the condition that the employee must use the cycle or safety equipment only for qualifying journeys"
      with the condition that the equipment is used "mainly" for qualifying—that is, home-to-work—journeys. In other words, it does for bicycles what the previous group of amendments did for works buses. As I explained in Committee, there is no intention to withdraw the relief if the employee also uses the bike for private or leisure use. Provided that the bike is mainly used for the commuting journey, the tax exemption will remain. Of course, employers will not be expected to check up on their employees' other cycling journeys.
      In Committee, concern was expressed—notably by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who has since been translated into the Trappist position of Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition—about the apparently restrictive nature of the "substantial compliance … only" wording. Similar concern was expressed about the works bus exemption in clause 45. In the light of our amendments to clause 45, we thought that it would be helpful and welcome if we made a similar change to clause 47, to replace the "substantial compliance … only" formulation with a main-use test. That is what amendment No. 13 would achieve.
      On the subject of green transport plans in general, I emphasise that Her Majesty's Treasury does, indeed, have a green transport plan. It encourages employees to use bikes and buses to get to work, and the proof of its success is demonstrated by the number of bike parks used within the Treasury building.
      I commend the amendment to the House, in the certainty that it, too, will meet with an unreserved welcome.
      7 pm
      Mr. Flight: I support the amendment and, indeed, clause 47. As has been pointed out, the amendment applies similar common sense and fairness to cycling as the previous amendments did to bus transport. I cannot resist commenting that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) could not have spoken on this amendment without declaring an interest as a regular cyclist.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend think that it is rather shocking that, on such an important green issue, not a single Liberal Democrat is present?
      Mr. Flight: They have clearly got on their bikes.
      Interestingly, this measure will be used mostly in towns, whereas those that apply to buses will be most used in rural areas. It will be interesting to note to what extent the provision encourages bicycle transport in towns, because it amounts to a considerable tax perk. Companies will be able—as a result of the amendment, without too many strings attached—to give people
      874
      bicycles on which to travel to work and to use privately. That may lead to a substantial increase in cycle transport in cities.
      Not having looked up the definition of a cycle, I wonder whether the measure will be wholly limited to pedal-driven vehicles, or whether it will cover any degree of petrol usage, as might pertain to the French velocette. I suspect that the former will be the case. We support the amendment and the clause, and are grateful to the Government for introducing it.
      Mr. Healey: I, too, welcome the amendment. It improves a clause that is already innovative and an important departure from the past. The amendment loosens and improves the definition for tax-exemption purposes of what counts as bicycle use. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be aware that the all-party cycling group, which is so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), has pressed this point. I believe that it will very much welcome the amendment, which represents a more realistic reflection of the way in which people use bicycles, and will do much to encourage more people to take advantage of the tax break.
      I spent 10 years working in London without ever using the tube. I went everywhere on an old, sit-up-and-beg, single-speed boneshaker with rod brakes, which was worth a tenner, and would therefore not have benefited from the tax relief on capital cost under the clause. I used that bicycle for many non-standard work journeys—from C to D to E to F throughout central London—rather than just for the A to B, home-to-work journey every day. Will such use be covered by the provision as amended?
      I shall leave my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) in Committee. If the measure is to have the intended impact, people must know about it. I urge my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and her colleagues in government to give serious thought to promoting this important and innovative tax change.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise not as a dissenting voice in the harmony across the Chamber, but merely to solicit some information.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was, as ever, gracious in the way in which he responded to the Economic Secretary, but he did not ask the question which I thought he was about to ask. I am aware that some pedal bicycles are fitted with a small auxiliary petrol engine, which can be incorporated into the pedal power of the cycle when an adverse gradient is encountered. I do not know whether such a mechanism automatically switches on or whether the rider must activate it.
      Mr. Healey rose—
      Mr. Winterton: I am very happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who knows far more about these things than I.
      Mr. Healey: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He is referring to what in France is called the velosolex, to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred. It is activated with a lever and a clip. When one wants to lower the engine on to the wheel, one does so manually.
      Mr. Winterton: It is at times like this that the House is at its most informative and helpful. I thought that my

      875
      hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, whose knowledge on matters financial I respect, was about to ask whether such a pedal cycle would be included under the amendment. I hope that the Economic Secretary is listening; as ever in this House, I am trying to be helpful. Is the hon. Lady listening?
      Ms Hewitt: Yes.
      Mr. Winterton: Can the hon. Lady give me an answer to the question whether such cycles will be covered under the amendment which she so articulately and courteously moved? I see that those in the Box have quickly provided the answer—at least I hope they have.
      Ms Hewitt: I must confess that I had not anticipated a debate about the meaning of the word bicycle, but clearly I should have done so. Perhaps it would assist if I drew attention to section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in which a cycle is defined as
      "a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle".
      Therefore, I must disappoint the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on the issue of velocettes or whatever. A bicycle that is powered by a motor would not qualify under the definition in the 1988 Act. Should the single market in power-driven bicycles take off, this is no doubt a matter to which we will return in a future Finance Bill debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) raised the question of non-standard journeys. Perhaps I can reassure him that, so long as the journey or any combination or element of it is related to work, the benefit from the cycle will not be taxable and the exemption will indeed apply. My hon. Friend also rightly raised the issue of publicising the tax exemptions that we are giving to green transport plans. We shall certainly be working with green organisations and cycling bodies particularly, as well as with employers' and employees' organisations, to ensure that people receive full information and are encouraged to take advantage of the exemptions.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred in our earlier debates to the flourishing mushroom factory in his constituency. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that we hope that as a result of this package, green transport plans will also mushroom.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 61

      RELEVANT DISCOUNTED SECURITIES
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 35, line 27, leave out 'sub-paragraph (2)' and insert
      'the following provisions of this paragraph'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 16 to 24.
      Mrs. Roche: Clause 61 is designed to prevent avoidance of tax through an artificial scheme that exploits a feature of the definition of a discounted security. The effect is that a discount on a security which should be taxed as income over the lifetime of the security is charged only as capital gains tax and only when the security is disposed of or redeemed. The clause changes the definition of a discounted security so that it will no longer be possible to use that device.
      The Government received a number of representations expressing concern that the clause went too far and would catch securities for which any discount that arises is small in absolute terms and obtainable only in the case of an event that is outside the control of the parties to the security. We listened carefully to the industry and examined the representations. As I said in Committee, we recognise that clause 61 might catch some securities where it would not be appropriate to do so.
      We therefore published, during the Bill's passage through the House, draft amendments for consultation, and we have received comments from practitioners. The amendments before the House are slightly different from those published in draft form and take into account our considerations following the representations that we received.
      The amendments would target the clause more closely on the objectionable transactions. They deal with the concerns expressed about the current version of the clause, without reopening the possibility of the avoidance at which the clause is aimed. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Flight: The amendment, which we welcome, is yet another example of the result of over-zealous but somewhat sloppy initial attempts to introduce tax avoidance measures. The original proposals aimed to close a loophole through which bonds had been issued which offered a redemption premium in place of interest payments, and which had previously escaped the relevant discount securities regime. However, the proposals went much further and would trigger what is known as the Spens clause.
      I should declare an interest at this point. I have some knowledge of bonds because I ran an investment management business for 25 years. There are unit trusts holding some £12 billion of bonds which, under the original proposals, could have found that their capital gains were assessed under income tax rules, and that would have affected hundreds of thousands of small investors.
      As the Financial Secretary pointed out, the amendments serve—as was the original intent—to exempt from the anti-avoidance measure the Spens clause arrangements where redemption premiums can be paid at the issuer's option, in circumstances in which the owner can have no influence over that, except in cases of connected companies.
      Various learned tax lawyers and the financial services industry generally take the view that the amendments reflect the Government's original intention. We therefore welcome them. However, although it can be difficult initially to focus anti-avoidance measures so that they will not cause injustices way beyond their intended effects, we should like to think that in future there will be a greater effort to get such measures right first time.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I thank Ministers on the Treasury Bench for finally getting their act together on this complicated issue. Why are they prepared to go to such lengths to make sure that these anti-avoidance provisions are sufficiently finely honed to deal with the mischief about which the Government were originally concerned, when last night, in the case of the sale of trust interests for capital gains tax purposes, they introduced a very crude anti-avoidance measure? It was so ill-thought-out—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to dwell on what happened last night—we have moved on.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: No, I do not mean to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we need to know why the Government are now making such an effort while in that case they were prepared to breach the terms of their own code for fiscal stability by not adhering to the cardinal principle of tax neutrality.
      Mrs. Roche: It always pains me considerably to break the mood of consensus and all-party support, but I must do so. As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) knows, because this is an anti-avoidance measure and substantial amounts of taxpayers' money are at stake, it would not have been appropriate to issue draft clauses for consultation before the measure came into effect. However, because this Government listen and develop our policies properly, the Finance Bill process allowed us to consult on the details of the measures and to make improvements.
      In the gentlest way possible, I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) that the amendments and the clause complete yet more unfinished business left to us by the previous Conservative Administration. They will know and appreciate that we have had to deal with the deficiency of definition in the Finance Act 1996.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Roche: No. I say to the hon. Gentleman exactly what I said to him in Committee: in 1996, 200 amendments on this matter were tabled two days before the debate in the House, and the Conservative Government had to vote down a clause. I have great pleasure in commending the amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 35, line 32, leave out 'that is capable of and insert
      'of which there may be a'.
      No. 17, in page 35, leave out lines 37 to 42 and insert—
      '(1A) The occasions that are to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether a security is a relevant discounted security by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall not include any of the following occasions on which it may be redeemed, that is to say—

      (a) any occasion not falling within sub-paragraph (1C) below on which there may be a redemption otherwise than at the option of the person who holds the security;

      878

      (b) in a case where a redemption may occur as a result of the exercise of an option that is exercisable—

      (i) only on the occurrence of an event adversely affecting the holder, or

      (ii) only on the occurrence of a default by any person,

      any occasion on which that option is unlikely (judged as at the time of the security's issue) to be exercisable;

      but nothing in this sub-paragraph shall require an occasion on which a security may be redeemed to be disregarded by reason only that it is or may be an occasion that coincides with an occasion mentioned in this sub-paragraph.
      (1B) In sub-paragraph (1A) above 'event adversely affecting the holder', in relation to a security, means an event which (judged as at the time of the security's issue) is such that, if it occurred and there were no provision for redemption, the interests of the person holding the security at the time of the event would be likely to be adversely affected.
      (1C) An occasion on which there may be a redemption of a security falls within this sub-paragraph if—

      (a) the security is a security issued to a person connected with the issuer; or

      (b) the obtaining of a tax advantage by any person is the main benefit, or one of the main benefits, that might have been expected to accrue from the provision in accordance with which it may be redeemed on that occasion.

      (1D) In sub-paragraph (1C) above 'tax advantage' has the meaning given by section 709(1) of the Taxes Act 1988.
      (1E) Subject to sub-paragraph (1F) below, where a security which is not a relevant discounted security but which would have been such a security if it had been issued to a person connected with the issuer—

      (a) is acquired by a person who is so connected, or

      (b) is held by a person who becomes so connected,

      this Schedule shall have effect, in relation to times falling at or after the time of the acquisition or, as the case may be, the time when that person became so connected, as if the security were a relevant discounted security.
      (1F) Where a security which—

      (a) is a relevant discounted security, but

      (b) would not be such a security but for sub-paragraph (1C)(a) or (1E) above,

      is acquired by a person who is not connected with the issuer, this Schedule shall have effect, in relation to that person, as if the security ceased to be a relevant discounted security at the time of the acquisition.".'.
      No. 18, in page 35, line 42, at end insert—
      '() After sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
      "(2A) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2)(c) above shall prevent a security that would have been a relevant discounted security if it had been issued to a person connected with the issuer from being treated as a relevant discounted security by virtue of sub-paragraph (1E) above.
      (2B) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2)(f) above shall prevent a security from being treated as a relevant discounted security by virtue of sub-paragraph (1C)(a) or (1E) above.".'.
      No. 19, in page 35, line 43, at end insert—
      '(2A) After sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
      "(7) Section 839 of the Taxes Act 1988 (connected persons) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.
      (8) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1C), (1E), (IF) or (2A) above whether a person is or becomes connected with the issuer, no account shall be taken of—

      (a) the security mentioned in that sub-paragraph; or

      (b) any security issued under the same prospectus as that security."

      (2B) In paragraph 10 of that Schedule (issue of securities in separate tranches), after sub-paragraph (3) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(4) For the purpose of determining whether a security held by a person who is not connected with the issuer is a relevant discounted security by virtue of this paragraph, a security which—

      (a) is a relevant discounted security, but

      (b) would not be such a security but for paragraph 3(1C)(a) or (1E) above,

      shall be assumed not to be a security falling within sub-paragraph (1)(b) above."
      (2C) In paragraph 13 of that Schedule (excluded indexed securities), after sub-paragraph (8) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(9) In this paragraph references to redemption, in relation to a security, do not include references to redemption of the security on any such occasion as, by reason of subparagraph (1A) of paragraph 3 above, is not to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the security is a relevant discounted security by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) of that paragraph."
      (2D) In section 92 of that Act, after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(7) Where an asset representing a creditor relationship of a company—

      (a) ceases at any time to be an asset to which this section applies, but

      (b) does not cease at that time to represent a creditor relationship of that company,

      the company shall be deemed for the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 and this Chapter to have disposed of the asset immediately before that time for the relevant consideration, and to have re-acquired it immediately after that time for the relevant consideration.
      (8) Any deemed disposal and re-acquisition under subsection (7) above shall be treated for the purposes of that Act of 1992 as a transaction in the case of which—

      (a) sections 127 to 130 of that Act would apply, apart from the provisions of section 116 of that Act, by virtue of any provision of Chapter II of Part IV of that Act;

      (b) the asset in question represents both the original shares and the new holding for the purposes of those sections;

      (c) the market value of the asset at the time of the transaction is an amount equal to the relevant consideration.

      (9) Subject to subsection (10) below, in subsections (7) and (8) above 'the relevant consideration', in relation to an asset, means the amount that would have been taken, in accordance with the relevant accounting method, to be the value of the asset at the time of its deemed disposal if that method had been applied to the asset for tax purposes at all times until then.
      (10) Subsection (5) above shall not apply in the case of a deemed disposal and re-acquisition under subsection (7) above; but the amount of the relevant consideration in such a case shall be treated for the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 as reduced by so much (if any) of the amount mentioned in subsection (9) above as is referable to interest which—

      (a) is not paid or payable to the company before the time of the deemed disposal; but

      880

      (b) is interest falling to be brought into account under subsections (2) and (3) above as having accrued before that time.

      (11) In subsection (9) above 'the relevant accounting method', in relation to an asset representing a creditor relationship of a company, means the accounting method which, for the accounting period of that company in which the deemed re-acquisition takes place, is used as respects that asset and the part of that accounting period beginning with the deemed re-acquisition.".'.
      No. 20, in page 35, line 44, leave out 'and (2)' and insert 'to (2D)'.
      No. 21, in page 36, line 3, leave out 'and (2)' and insert 'to (2D)'.
      No. 22, in page 36, line 12, leave out 'and (2)' and insert 'to (2D)'.
      No. 23, in page 36, line 20, leave out 'and (2)' and insert 'to (2D)'.
      No. 24, in page 36, line 25, leave out 'and (2)' and insert 'to (2D)'.—[Mr. Hanson.]

    Clause 122

      ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION: TAXES AND DUTIES
      Mr. Francis Maude: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 90, line 6, after '122.', insert '(1)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 32, in page 90, line 10, at end insert—
      '(2) The said Commissioners shall make a report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not later than 31st December 1999 on the exercise of their functions and on the amount and timing of the expenditure incurred in respect of subsection (1), and such report shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament within a period of one calendar month.
      (3) The Commissioners shall make further reports at intervals of six months, which shall similarly be submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and laid before the Commons House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Maude: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary, who is now departing the Chamber, for breaking our spirit of consensus, because that saves me the effort of doing so in this debate. That spirit could not last for ever.
      We move the amendments because we regard the clause as profoundly unsatisfactory. The principle that we seek to serve through the amendments is a clear one. It is to ensure proper accountability by the Government in all of their spending. Nowhere is that need clearer than where the Government have pledged to spend an unspecified quantity of taxpayers' money in pursuit of British membership of the single currency, or the euro. That is the proposal that is contained within clause 122. It empowers the Commissioners of the Revenue and of Customs and Excise to spend money to prepare systems in advance of any political decision by the House or apparently even by the Government, let alone by the people, to join the euro and to scrap the pound. Systems can be prepared well before there is any question of there being a referendum, when people will have the choice whether they want to scrap the pound to join the euro.
      When there is uncontroversial legislation, Departments will often spend some money in advance of a formal decision being taken by the House. However, there is no

      881
      comparison between that traditional arrangement and the device that is being proposed in clause 122. Quite simply, the clause allows any amount of public money to be spent in advance of a decision following a national referendum, let alone of Britain actually joining the single currency.
      Mr. Healey: How much would the right hon. Gentleman regard it as acceptable for the Inland Revenue to spend before a national referendum?
      Mr. Maude: Questions about how much it is acceptable to spend should not be addressed to me. The Opposition have repeatedly asked what sums of taxpayers' money the clause allows the Government to spend. It is a blank cheque because no amount is specified. No estimate has been put before the House. The hon. Gentleman would do better to intervene when the Economic Secretary rises to reply, to ask her how much taxpayers' money she is proposing to shell out on this project without the people having had any chance to adjudicate on whether they want it to be implemented.
      As the Government's turmoil over the single currency in the past month shows, the result of any referendum is no foregone conclusion, although that is what the clause is designed to try to achieve. The Government's natural inclinations show through in a measure that is oblivious to public opinion and wasteful of public money and that cocks a snook at democracy. I suppose that it is the natural solution for a Government who hope that the state can steamroller its way through public opposition into a project which few people in Britain seem to want. As the Prime Minister was forced to admit recently, hardly anyone in the country wants the project.
      Above all, we see a pretty cowardly attempt to encourage businesses to do the dirty work of persuading people to want to scrap the pound. In what is no more than a charade now, the Government hide behind the five economic tests that they set out nearly two years ago and delay the day when they must make a public decision. The experts are more and more doubtful whether those tests mean anything. Mr. Buiter of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee has said:
      "Except through a fluke, the UK will not join EMU at a time when the business cycles … are synchronised."
      The requirement or condition that the British economy should be synchronised or converged cyclically with the continental economies is a fundamental condition for Britain joining the euro. Yet here we have a Government-appointed expert saying that that will not happen.
      The Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Mervyn King, recently commented:
      "You would probably need 200 to 300 years of data. You will never arrive at a point when you will be confident that the cycles have converged."
      I am referring to experts who have been appointed by the Government. They make it obvious that any decision to join the single currency that is taken by the Government will not be based on certain economic conditions being fulfilled. On the most important one of all—cyclical convergence of the economies—the Government's experts at the Bank of England say that, effectively, that will never be met. That is the clearest sign that, if they
      882
      find themselves in the position to do this, the Government will fudge the conditions and move ahead anyway, which is what they want to do. That is why the Government are apparently willing to start spending money on preparations for Britain to join the euro. They wish to soften up the electorate now while maintaining that there is an economic tripwire in relation to the conditions. That tripwire does not exist.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Audit Office audits the accounts on an annual basis? What is more, the appropriation accounts focus specifically on areas where there might be difficulties of change. Therefore, the amendment is completely redundant. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any particular reason why the expenditure that we are discussing, which will be transparently reported by the NAO in two sets of accounts, should be the subject of yet another layer of bureaucracy and extra costs for his own party political reasons?
      Mr. Maude: If that is all the case, that is a powerful reason for the Government, if they are genuine in their desire to be open about these matters, to accept the amendments. They will then be incorporated in the Act, as it will then be, and the requirement will be there. However, the House is being asked, effectively, to sign a blank cheque. We think that that is wrong. If, as we contend, the process is being handled wrongly, a proper requirement for full auditing and for full transparency on a six-monthly basis would seem to be the least that the House, in pursuit of its historic task of controlling expenditure, should require the Government to agree to. I hope that the Economic Secretary has heard the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) and will be persuaded by him that there is no problem in accepting the amendments.
      Mr. Davies: The amendments are about reporting, not limiting, the cost. I am contending that the cost is reported in any event. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary and we should get on with business.
      Mr. Maude: It would be advantageous in those circumstances for the amendment to be included in the Act so that there is an additional form of scrutiny. There is no way otherwise of exercising any control over the amount that the Government spend. The hon. Gentleman may be happy to tell his constituents that, in his great role as a Member of this place, exercising his historic role of controlling the Government and controlling public expenditure, he sat on his hands and thought that it was fine to write a blank cheque for the Government to spend. He may think that, but we do not.
      Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: No. The hon. Gentleman has made two silly points already. He may want the opportunity to make a fool of himself again, but the House will wish to proceed.
      There is every sign that the Government are happy to pick taxpayers' pockets to fund a measure that taxpayers patently do not support. There is no sign of Ministers being willing to commit themselves publicly either to the single currency or to an early referendum. I suppose that

      883
      we should not expect an answer from the Prime Minister. He is rather like a first world war general. He is happy to push his colleagues over the top into the line of fire but is pretty reluctant to get tangled up in the barbed wire himself. General Blair is comfortably ensconced in his chateau ordering his faithful troops to clamber over the barbed wire when he blows the whistle. Not a peep from him, be it noted, until it comes to trying to trumpet and spin his new sceptical image on the single currency. Just the other day, he said that it was "daft" to consider entry straight away.
      7.30 pm
      Should we believe the Prime Minister's official spokesman, who said:
      "The Prime Minister does not feel there is any need to persuade people to make a decision that does not yet have to be made"?
      That was quite instructive. Why, then, do the Government ask the House to approve expenditure—to sign a blank cheque—in relation to a decision that the Prime Minister says does not have to be made yet? It is extraordinary. How persuasive is the Government's case to allow the Revenue or the Customs to spend public money, if the decision for which they are preparing does not, according to the Prime Minister, have to be made yet?
      Perhaps we should turn to the Leader of the House for elucidation. She said recently that the referendum might not be called even in the next Parliament. Is that the official position? It rather looks as though those may turn out to be her famous last words. The confusion might be laughable, if those were not the people supposedly running the country.
      A week or so ago, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said about the organisation Britain in Europe, which is campaigning for Britain to join the single currency, that
      "because they"—
      Britain in Europe—
      "have changed their position the Prime Minister can endorse their programme."
      That was all part of the web of confusion that the Government were so sedulously spinning, but it turned out not to be the case.
      The noble Lord Marshall, the chairman of Britain in Europe, said immediately afterwards:
      "We are not backing off the euro at all."
      Clearly, the confusion runs far and wide.
      Around the same time, the Prime Minister's famous official spokesman commented:
      "I don't understand the purpose of Britain in Europe. Is its campaign about Britain in Europe, or is it saying it's the start of the campaign to join the single currency? The two things are entirely different."
      He spotted that, anyway. The two things are indeed entirely different. What is puzzling is why he is so confused about the purpose. All that he needs to do is open the pamphlet issued by Britain in Europe and he will see there, as large as life and spelled out in words of very few syllables, that Britain in Europe is the campaign to persuade the British public that they should agree to scrapping the pound and joining the euro.
      884
      All the confusion has not impressed people in Britain in Europe. They said:
      "We intend to press ahead with our campaign"—
      for Britain to join the euro—
      "and we don't intend to hold back for anyone".
      Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor for giving way. He is trading statements, comments and quotes. What is his reaction to the comment
      "It would be completely crazy and contrary to the national interest to throw away our option to join the single currency",
      especially as it was made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), his colleague on the Front Bench? What is his reaction to that?
      Mr. Maude: A warm endorsement of our policy, which is not to throw away the option. The point that the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) has not got into his head is that the Prime Minister's and the Chancellor's policy of dragging Britain into the euro by stealth at the earliest opportunity is the policy that gives up the option. Once we have scrapped the pound and gone into the euro, we have no options at all, because the decision is irrevocable. As long as we stay out of the euro, we always have the option.
      That is why our policy has always been the pragmatic policy. The dogmatic policy is the Chancellor's policy, which states that the Government are dogmatically committed in principle to Britain joining the euro. As soon as Britain joined the euro, if that were allowed to happen, the option would be gone. That is why the statement that the hon. Gentleman feels so clever for having quoted actually supports our policy.
      Mr. Love: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He mentioned the organisation Britain in Europe. Some of the best-known members of his own party are prominent in that organisation, and I note that they are not present in the Chamber this evening. Is not the Conservative party deeply split on the issue?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should return to the clause and the amendment before us.
      Mr. Maude: If that is the best that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) can do, I suggest that he remains in a sedentary position.
      Whichever of those apparently non-committal statements we prefer to believe—or none of them, in my case—the lack of leadership offered by the Government on the issue hardly makes a pressing case for the House to agree to the spending of money—the writing of blank cheques—that we are asked to agree tonight.
      The national changeover plan—the handover plan—gives the game away, by showing that what we are being asked to do is not necessary. I refer the House to figure A in the changeover plan at page 18, which sets out a time line or critical path for Britain to scrap the pound and join the euro. It shows the various points: decision; referendum; UK joins; euro cash issued; and the end of the process, when the pound is finally scrapped.
      There is a nice blue bar showing which process must start at which point. There is a bar marked "public sector", which I assume includes the Inland Revenue and

      885
      Customs and Excise. That blue bar does not start now. It does not even start at the point at which the decision is made. The bar starts when a positive decision is made in a referendum. Even if there were a rock-solid certainty that there would be a decision to join, which there patently is not, we do not need to contemplate the matter now. The Government's own document makes that clear.
      It is not as though there is nothing before the point of decision. There is a nice blue bar showing that there must be legislation before the referendum. The banks would have to make preparations before the referendum, but there is nothing in the figure about the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. It is all there, in the public sector. According to the Government's own document, nothing needs to be done until there is a positive decision in a referendum.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying in 1997 that he would make it clear to his constituents that he would oppose any legislation to adopt the euro. Has he now changed his mind?
      Mr. Maude: What I am doing today is opposing legislation to adopt the euro. I do not know how I can make it clearer than that. We think that the measure is wrong. We think that the Government should not be asking the House of Commons to sign blank cheques and to force the taxpayer to spend money. If there is not a decision to join the euro—the Prime Minister himself accepts that hardly anyone believes that we should—that money is wasted money.
      We have still had no answers from the Government about how much money is involved. We have still had no answers about how many schools will not get their extensions, and how many wards will have to be closed down to pay for this utterly unproductive expenditure on which the Government are so keen.
      When the Economic Secretary replies, I should be interested to hear her explain the fact that the graphic in the Government's document makes it clear that there is no case for the measure that the Government propose. That graphic seems to have escaped the attention of the spin doctors. It lets the cat out of the bag. It makes it clear that there is no basis for the measure.
      Not surprisingly, given how distant the Government are trying to make the possibility of a referendum appear, the Prime Minister has been a bit woolly about how much money the Government would spend. In his statement on the national handover plan on 23 February, he referred to the Inland Revenue and the Customs, saying:
      "They may need to spend some money prior to a referendum to make their information technology systems euro-compatible".
      He moved on to give us an idea of how much "some money" is, saying:
      "such expenditures … will amount to some tens of millions of pounds spread over a number of years."
      Will the Economic Secretary tell us today whether the measure that we are being asked to agree to amounts to tens of millions of pounds? If so, how many tens of millions? She must have some idea.
      I cannot believe that Treasury Ministers would ask the House of Commons for approval to spend money without having any idea of how much would be spent, but our
      886
      questions are met with a deafening silence. The Government are absolutely sure that agreeing to the measure is the right thing to do, but they cannot tell us how much that will cost. They have not quantified the benefits of Britain joining this effort, and they cannot tell us how much that will cost. Not a flicker of an effort has been made to cost the costs and quantify the benefits. How do they expect to persuade anyone that this is a good project for the country when the Government cannot even get to that point?
      Mr. Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
      Mr. Maude: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shipley made such a poor fist of his previous intervention, I am saving him from embarrassment.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister's readiness to tell businesses and taxpayers to reach into their pockets to spend money preparing for the euro contrasts starkly with his refusal to spend any of his own time promoting the project?
      Mr. Maude: That is an absolutely fair point. The Prime Minister is keen to get other people to make the running because, although he and the Chancellor are absolutely committed to the project, to dragging Britain into the euro and to scrapping the pound by stealth—no one should be under any illusions about that—he is reluctant to put his head above the parapet because he understands that hardly anyone wants the euro. He has admitted that himself.
      The Prime Minister makes the large claim that, "It's only tens of millions of pounds. That does not matter, it's just a rounding error." He justifies it by saying:
      "The Government will be making active preparations for the euro, in the belief that it will be in this country's interests to join in the future should our economic tests be met."
      We have already seen that those tests are bogus because the Government's own experts have accepted that the principal test will never be met. He went on:
      "Business should start to do the same."—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 181.]
      He seems to have overlooked the rather important difference between his Government's lavish spending plans and the day-to-day fight that many businesses face to survive against increasing regulation and mounting stealth taxes, which his Government are imposing weekly.
      The Prime Minister seems to forget that, while 100 per cent. of small businesses pay the rising taxes that fund those spending plans, only six out of every 100 small businesses said that the euro would affect them a great deal and 46 per cent. said that it would not affect them at all. The big difference is that, although businesses have to budget carefully to remain in business, the Government think that they can throw money at the political problem, because the Prime Minister does not have the courage to take a lead on an issue that he knows is unpopular. He is trying to buy his way out of that with taxpayers' money, which is a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do."
      That cannot be right—not when the funds needed to prepare for economic and monetary union may outstrip the cost of dealing with the millennium bug by as much

      887
      as 5:1. Whereas the millennium is at least foreseeable, the Government seem to be doing their best to spin an opaque web of disinformation around their own position. Why should business spend money to prepare when they refuse to give a coherent lead? Why should the taxpayer and the small business man bankroll a Government who are so unwilling to give a forthright lead?
      It has been estimated by Lloyds TSB that those preparations will amount to £2,000 for every small business in the land. For many, that money will not be an investment with any prospect of payback—46 per cent. of small businesses say that the euro would not have any impact on them at all because they are United Kingdom-based. After all, 83 per cent. of Britain's national output is not sold in the eurozone at all—it is sold either here in Britain or elsewhere in the world—but the costs of preparing will fall on 100 per cent. of British capacity.
      7.45 pm
      There is little sign from the plan that the Government understand the demands of business. It talks blithely of how small businesses may have to take on extra staff to help the elderly to meet the challenge of the changeover, but small businesses cannot afford to take on more staff—certainly not with the cost and complexity of employing people increasing so rapidly under this Government. That is one reason why businesses are small.
      The document's open advocacy of EMU is unfeigned. Talking, supposedly dispassionately, about the engineering sector, it says that
      "50 per cent. of all engineering exports are to the EU. Historically, the sector has been vulnerable to fluctuations in the value of sterling."
      What does that have to do with the changeover? The answer is nothing; it is just a party political broadcast on a supposed benefit of EMU. It is quite clear that, if the national changeover plan—which pretends to have foresight of which Nostradamus would have been proud—cannot avoid being political, we have every right to question the latest Government proposal to help to drag the United Kingdom into the single currency.
      Mr. Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: No, I shall make some progress now.
      It is time that the Government started to tell the truth about the real costs of joining the single currency. According to one survey, the real costs for businesses of changing are turning out to be 10 times higher than the European Commission predicted. That is surprising. We believe that it is absolutely right that the Government should account for their own spending and should come clean about what those costs will amount to and what the money will be spent on. It is also time that the Government came clean about some of the constitutional issues involved in the decision.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: I shall give the hon. Gentleman another chance.
      Mr. Davies: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman's position is to keep his options open and,
      888
      at some point in the future, he could conceivably put to the British people the question whether to join the single currency. Would it be wise to make some preparations for the contingency of joining or should we put the question to the British people with no hope of business and the public sector being prepared for the tremendous changes that we might see? Would he let the British public down in such a way or would he prepare?
      Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is clearly the sort of chap who starts building a house before he has even applied for planning permission. It is mad to start spending money on an eventuality that the Prime Minister himself admits people do not want to happen and which cannot happen unless most people agree in a referendum that it should. Even the Government admit that, so it is crazy to start wasting money, which is scarce. The public services and businesses need it to create new products, services, jobs and wealth, but the Government think that it is fine to spend in such a way.
      If the hon. Member for Croydon, Central looks at the time lines set out in the document, he will see that there is a considerable period between a decision being made in a referendum and the United Kingdom joining.
      Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maude: No, because plenty of other hon. Members want to speak in the debate. I have given way a great many times and I want to make progress. The fact is—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) to shout across the Chamber.
      Mr. Maude: If the Government do not want to call a referendum to test public opinion, they should not be asking the House of Commons to agree to spend taxpayers' money, either on departmental preparations or on the changeover plan. Our proposal offers a simple precaution: the Commissioners of the Revenue and of the Customs should account for every penny that they spend to get ready for EMU every six months, as long as the position remains as it is. On such a controversial political issue, is it not right that taxpayers should have the right to know in detail how much of their money is being spent on the project—in arrears, at any rate? If the Government are not honest enough to set that out in advance—when they are asking for the money to be spent—we should know how much is being spent on this project, which most people do not want. Surely that is part and parcel of proper scrutiny in a parliamentary democracy.
      In an age in which it is claimed that government have learned some lessons from business, it is surely right that the Government should set themselves some budgetary limits.
      There is a good reason why the Government want to spend so much public money so far in advance of a referendum. They want to prepare to scrap the pound and drag Britain into the euro by stealth. They want to sap opposition to their plans through a vast state-sponsored spendathon, and to spend so much taxpayers' money that a headlong rush into EMU becomes the only plausible option. That is arbitrary government, not parliamentary

      889
      government. That is why we have opposed, and will continue to oppose, the national changeover plan as a ploy dressed up in the language of prudence.
      We shall continue to press the Government to sign up to the Neill report, which is of direct relevance to these provisions. They have shown a remarkable reluctance to sign up to the recommendations of Lord Neill and his committee. We should remind the House of one of his principal conclusions. The committee said:
      "The Government of the day in future referendums should, as a Government, remain neutral, and should not distribute at public expense"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matters that the right hon. Gentleman is raising are wide of his amendment. He should get back to the amendment.
      Mr. Maude: I shall move on to my final remarks.
      There is a direct parallel with the Neill committee's recommendation. The Government are spending money without parliamentary authority to make the drive towards scrapping the pound inevitable. It is wrong for the Government to be involved in the campaign using taxpayers' money, as they have done. It is wrong from them, in this clause, to spend taxpayers' money, which will be utterly unproductive if the British people decide that they do not want to go into EMU.
      The Government want the so-called national changeover plan to be a national handover plan. We oppose the sleight of hand that goads business into spending money on something on which the Government will not risk their popularity. Their leadership on the single currency is leadership from behind. Proper accountability is the responsibility of any democratic Parliament, especially the House of Commons.
      The amendment guarantees proper scrutiny, and is in line with the conclusions of the Neill committee, on which the Government have promised they will act. I commend it to the House.
      Dr. Cable: I am a little mystified about the purpose of the debate. We have been given a half-baked analysis of EMU—a few throwaway lines about the problems that it presents—and an equally half-baked analysis of the scrutiny process and the constitutional issues. We are not focusing on either subject properly. There is a genuine issue of constitutionality in relation to the preparations, and it should be dealt with openly and transparently.
      When we debated this matter in Committee, the shadow Chief Secretary raised some technical points about the constitutional nature of expenditure commitments. As I am not a constitutional lawyer, I do not know whether he was right or wrong. The shadow Chancellor did not persist with those points. I do not know whether it was because they have been answered, but we need to focus on that aspect. We need a proper analysis of the constitutional position, and that is why I surprisingly supported the request of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), among others, for a constitutional White Paper dealing with EMU in general and preparations in particular.
      It is quite wrong for the Shadow Chancellor, to say that there is no mechanism for scrutinising this expenditure. As has already been said, the National Audit Office, the
      890
      Select Committee on the Treasury, European Standing Committees and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's committee on EMU preparation, on which I sit and which has been convened precisely for that matter, exist for that purpose. I hate to remind members of the Conservative Front Bench that they were invited to sit on that committee. They procrastinated for three months: they put forward a name and then withdrew it. That committee is now meeting, and it has been fruitful.
      Mr. Maude: Our position has been misrepresented before. When that Committee was being set up, we ascertained that it would not be involved in preparations for Britain to scrap the pound and to join the euro, and would be concerned solely with preparations for Britain to deal with the euro from outside while retaining its own currency. We thought that function wholly appropriate, so we nominated someone for the committee. However, we do not want to be involved in a process that we think quite improper until the British people have decided that they want to join the single currency. That is the time at which preparations should be made. One does not wheel the wagon half way across the river before asking the passengers whether they want to get to the other side.
      Dr. Cable: I do not understand what impropriety is being committed, because the euro preparations committee comprises not only people who, like me, believe that Britain should be a member of EMU, but some fairly severe Euro-sceptics from Northern Ireland, who do not feel at all uncomfortable about sitting on that committee. It provides a forum. I have asked the chairman of the committee to prepare documents and to obtain from the Treasury detailed information on this preparatory process so that we can review it critically and perform a scrutiny function. Members of the Conservative Front Bench, whatever their original reasons, are missing a perfect opportunity that Parliament has provided.
      To get back to the nub of the point, the objection seems to be that the Government should not engage in contingency planning for something that has not yet been approved by the British people in a referendum. That is irrational. The public and private sectors, in their different ways, engage in contingency planning: often very expensively. The defence budget is a form of contingency planning against events that we hope will never happen but for which we must be prepared.
      As I said in Committee, I know from my private sector experience that many companies in the energy and property sectors spend large amounts of money purchasing options on future investments that they may never make. That is good commercial practice. We are confronted with a decision that we all agree—whether we are for or anti—is probably the most important that this country must make, and it should be taken well and in the full knowledge of what is required.
      Mr. Swayne: Is not that the thrust of these amendments? They would allow us to scrutinise what is done with full knowledge. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that that scrutiny function should be carried out solely by his small committee. It should be undertaken by the whole House, as the amendments require.
      Dr. Cable: That small committee would be larger in significance and number if the hon. Gentleman and his

      891
      colleagues joined it. We could have many other scrutiny mechanisms. There is no justification for stopping sensible forward planning and contingency planning.
      Other points, which were thrown into the debate off the cuff and not as part of a coherent theme, related to the economics of EMU. I was surprised that the Conservative spokesman quoted in defence the views of Professor Willem Buiter, whose articles I have read. Professor Buiter is an independent-minded member of the Monetary Policy Committee, and has gone out of his way to argue—as distinct from the Governor of the Bank of England—that Britain should be a member of EMU and, moreover, that it is likely to succeed. That is a different position from the one that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has taken, so it is an odd choice of witness.
      The other point of substance that the right hon. Gentleman made, with which I partly agree, is that there must be a proper test of economic readiness to join. We all agree on that. I am not arguing for entry tomorrow. It must be on the right terms and conditions, the most important of which is the exchange rate, which is not one of the five tests at present. It is not correct to say that it is absolutely necessary to have complete cyclical convergence. There is no reason why that should be achieved. We should converge at the same low level of inflation, which is broadly what has happened, and our cycles should be broadly compatible, but the myth has been perpetuated that the British cycle is different from that of continental Europe. It has been since 1990, when German reunification created a divergence of our economies, but throughout much of the post-war period the British and German economies have moved in parallel, and there is no reason why that should not resume in a few years' time.
      The purpose of the debate is not to discuss the pros and cons of EMU: I am happy to join in that debate at any other time. It is about parliamentary scrutiny. It is right that the Government should make prior preparations, and it is right that that should involve certain expenditure and should be scrutinised, and we have a mechanism for that.
      I agree with the Conservative spokesman on one point. He is right to say that the private sector is being invited to take substantial risks. It is being invited to make preparations without being given the clarity that I would expect. It is unfortunate that we have not already had a referendum, although that is water under the bridge. I feel that the Government must be clearer and more forthright about where they are heading, about their commitment to join and about the timing. On that if on nothing else, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
      8 pm
      Sir Peter Lloyd: I strongly support the amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) put the case for it very well, especially in making the point that there is no real need to rush spending before the referendum. Figure A and the chart on page 35 of the changeover plan seem to endorse his view. Certainly, the amendment does not ask for very much; it simply asks for information, so that Parliament and the public can know how much the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are spending on preparation for our joining the single currency.
      The single currency is a matter of growing public interest. In some it generates enthusiasm, as for an exciting new dawn; in others, it generates certain
      892
      conviction that it will bring us no good. In most, however, it probably generates puzzlement and apprehension, as it becomes plainer that it is they who, in due course, will have to pass judgment, and say yes or no to the question of our actually joining.
      The Finance Bill would give the Government authority to spend whatever money they thought fit to prepare the Revenue and Customs and Excise for the possibility that the answer will be yes. Because there is apparently no ceiling to that expenditure, the Government should surely, at the very least, keep a running total of what they spend, and then let the country know at regular intervals how much they are spending and on what.
      This is not to deny the desirability of the Government's laying plans for our possible entry into the euro. As it is for the people to decide the matter by way of referendum, however, the Government should so organise themselves that the costs of joining are made clear, and the work that must be done to give effect to a yes vote is thought through well beforehand. The facts concerned are part of the evidence of which the public should be in possession, so that they can weigh them before deciding that the money is needed to put into effect the decision that they make.
      I am sure that it is right for the Departments involved, when upgrading their procedures, programmes and equipment in the normal way of good housekeeping, to make certain that the new procedures, programmes and equipment are sufficiently versatile to handle the euro as well as sterling, so that greater expense and unnecessary delay are avoided if the voters eventually decide that joining the single currency would be to the United Kingdom's advantage. I am also sure that the Government ought to make the necessary plans and investment across the public sector to accommodate and facilitate trade in euros, and its use in domestic transactions when companies or individuals choose to make and receive payments in euros. That should be done regardless of whether we join the single currency. If we do not eventually adopt the euro, we shall want to be able to use it whenever it suits us, our businesses, or overseas visitors doing business here.
      This country has prospered as a result of its openness and flexibility, dealing happily in any and every currency in which its customers want to trade. My own view has always been that, when the public are finally asked for their verdict, they will say no to a single currency. It is beyond the scope of this debate for me to say why, so I will not; but it is germane for me to say that I am not as worried as some of my colleagues—including, perhaps, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor—that Government expenditure, assuming our entry into a single currency, will give the public the idea that entry is inevitable, and so cause them to vote yes in the referendum when they would have preferred to vote no.
      It may be that some members of the Government who are enthusiasts for the single currency do have such an idea. They may see the unrestricted freedom to spend as a wonderful way of carrying the public psychologically into euroland before they have voted to join. I believe that such thinking, if it exists, is erroneous. I am sure that the public would resent and resist any attempt by the Government to use their money to foreclose on a decision that they, the public, had expected to make in due course—freely, in the light of the experience of other EU countries that have already adopted the euro. I believe

      893
      that, if the Government really want to take us into the single currency, they will find it counterproductive to give the public the impression that their assent was taken for granted, or the impression that they—the Government—seek to engineer entry in advance by means of a series of faits accomplis, especially if they do that by spending money that would be wasted in the event of a no vote.
      Such an action on the Government's part would be of dubious constitutional propriety. I will not expand on that, as the Bill would give the Government the legal right regardless of the proprieties, as my right hon. Friend said earlier. What I will say, however, in an effort to be helpful to the Economic Secretary—although my right hon. Friend may not thank me for revealing this—is that the Government will do themselves a disservice if they reject the amendment, and deny themselves the chance to show that they have nothing to hide and no ulterior motive, but merely wish to be open and frank with Parliament and the electors.
      If the Government do reject the amendment, they will leave in the public mind a suspicion that, at the very least, they want to retain the option of not being open and frank. They will also leave my right hon. Friend to argue convincingly that they are not coming clean: that they do have something to hide, and that they are spending money that need not and, indeed, should not be spent at this point. He will be able to argue that money that could usefully be devoted to the real needs of health and education, and spent in many other constructive ways, is being spent to secure the result that the Government want in the coming referendum.
      That will not help the Government. It will suggest to the public not that entry to the euro is inevitable, but that the Government have no real confidence in the objective case. It will weaken the case for entry by suggesting that that case is not strong enough to stand on its own merits. In their own enlightened self-interest, the Government ought to jump at the amendment with alacrity, saying that as they were planning to do what the amendment requires them to do in any event, they might as well accept it.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I want to ask the Economic Secretary a brief question. Does clause 122 really apply only to the possibility of expenditure by the Commissioners on taxes that are likely come out of stage 3 of EMU, or is it possible that it could also apply to taxes that are emerging irrespective of stage 3?
      We know that a mass of taxation is beginning to emerge in the existing legislation to which we are attached. The Government are conniving and contriving to increase the pace of that taxation at a remarkable rate. Luckily, they have been caught on the hop in regard to, for instance, the withholding tax. Commitments have been made. An answer that I received this week from the Paymaster General stated that not only eurobonds but all other forms of savings would be included, which is good news. Nevertheless, we all know that a mass of taxation is beginning to emerge, irrespective of stage 3.
      What does the Economic Secretary think of all the taxation that is beginning to emerge? Is it not right that the amendments should apply, so that at least we know a little more about that taxation and any expenditure that is likely to be incurred by the Commissioners? Is the Bill
      894
      giving the Government powers to anticipate the panoply of taxation that is beginning to emerge, irrespective of stage 3?
      Of course, it is true that, in relation not just to harmonisation, but to increased expenditure, under stage 3 of EMU, there will be a massive increase in taxation, to which the clause and amendments apply. We all know why that is to be. Under EMU, wages will not be flexible, but prices will be very much on the move upwards and there will have to be a massive transfer of funds from the northern, rich parts of Europe to the southern parts and, therefore, an enormous new system of taxation. If we enter EMU, there will be enormous increases in taxation. Therefore, the clause is applicable.
      One can perhaps understand, although it is highly unsatisfactory, why the Government want to prepare for the massive increase in taxation that would occur under stage 3. The real issue before Parliament, however, is whether what we are really doing is passing a clause and a Bill that will give the Government power to create expenditure in anticipation not of stage 3, which the Government seem to be running away from anyway—which some of us think is good news—but of other bad news: what Lord Denning called the on-rush of European legislation, the tidal flow down our rivers and estuaries, which goes on and on. That applies to taxation as much as anything else.
      Therefore, it is legitimate to ask: will the clause apply well before stage 3 is entered into? Are the Government not conniving, both implicitly in the clause, and explicitly in the Councils of Europe, in a massive taxation regime, to be imposed on this country, irrespective of stage 3 of EMU?
      Mr. Peter Luff: It is natural that high emotions should attach to any debate on economic and monetary union, the single currency and any aspect of it, because people feel strongly on the subject. A variety of emotions have already been expressed by Conservative Members.
      I declare myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who says that he expects the people of this country eventually to vote no when the referendum is held. I also express the hope that they will vote no, but one does not need to get terribly worked up about the issue to suggest to the Economic Secretary that the amendment is thoroughly pragmatic and sensible and its rejection would be literally incomprehensible.
      I agree with much of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor, but forget all that for a minute. I understand what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said about the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the matter, but I do not understand why the amendment should do anything other than commend itself to the Government. I am sure that they have nothing to hide, but a rejection of the amendment would certainly suggest that they did.
      The job of the House of Commons is to scrutinise the Executive. That would be made easier by the passage of the amendment, whatever other mechanisms already exist. I am sure that the Government have no wish to conceal from us any aspect of their expenditure in preparing to take us into a single currency—a move that is likely to be rejected anyhow by the majority of the British people.

      895
      I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: do you think that any Chief Secretary to the Treasury would conduct negotiations with another Government Department which asked for a few tens of millions of pounds for something and, on the basis of a bland assurance, say, "Oh that is fine, Fred. Have a few tens of millions for that"? We know that that is not the way in which such negotiations are conducted, but, so far, a bland assurance is all that the House has been offered. The Treasury notes on clauses simply say:
      "the revenue departments may need to spend some tens of millions of pounds on preparations for possible UK entry to the single currency prior to a referendum".
      I am against writing blank cheques in the House at any stage, never mind on a matter as controversial and important to the future of the economy and this country's constitution as the single currency. Does the Economic Secretary really think that she could conduct negotiations, if she were ever to be Chief Secretary, on the basis of assurances from her spending Ministers that they would live within their settlement—within the odd tens of millions of pounds here or there?
      8.15 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said that it was a debate between pragmatism and dogmatism. He is right. The amendment offers the pragmatic view. What is wrong with exposing the information to public scrutiny? It is simple dogmatism to reject it. It will be dogmatism that makes the House and the country suspicious of the Government's motive in seeking to conceal the information from the House and the people.
      The Government have laboured mightily to bring forth their freedom of information proposals and they have been widely criticised. Surely, they do not want to hide information, but they are acquiring a reputation for doing so. Rejection of the amendment will enhance public scepticism about the Government's true motives.
      I understand the problem for the Government, and for the Prime Minister in particular. On the single currency issue, as on many others, one could never accuse them of sitting on the fence. They come down firmly on both sides of it. The Prime Minister says that he is the friend of the pound, but, privately, he is an enthusiast for the euro. He says both things to different audiences to confuse the enemy and opposition, but the changeover plan shows where the Government's heart really lies. The Government owe it to the House and to the people who put them in office to explain how much money they are spending on trying to persuade the public to vote against their instincts and for membership of the single European currency.
      How much money do the Government intend to spend as a result of the clause? A reference to tens of millions is not good enough for the House. No parliamentarian should go through the Lobby tonight to allow the Government, according to some vague estimates, to spend tens of millions of pounds on something as important as the single currency. No parliamentarian worth his salt should even contemplate allowing the clause to go unamended on to the statute book.
      Yesterday, the Government rejected tens of millions of pounds of help for pensioners when there was the option to change the taxation of savings. We estimated that the cost would be £85 million, which is backed by
      896
      independent analysis, but a wild figure of £1 billion was thrown out from the Dispatch Box. A few tens of millions of pounds would have made a great difference to those pensioners. A few tens of millions of pounds would make a great difference to the Worcestershire social services department, which could do with a few tens of hundreds of pounds, never mind tens of millions, to help it out with its difficulties.
      I have the great honour to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. Last week, we had before us the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Clearly, MAFF is scratching around for every odd pound that it can find here and there because of the incredibly tight settlement that was imposed on it during the comprehensive spending review.
      The Ministry will face some difficult choices. A few tens of millions of pounds would help it considerably. The Government could abandon their plans to scrap harbour grants, and fishing safety grants, to cut research and development in MAFF and a host of other things, so why does the Treasury set one standard for itself on something as important as our membership of the single European currency, and another standard for every other spending Department? Why did we have the comprehensive spending review? Why did they not just say, "The Government are spending a few tens of billions pounds next year" and leave it at that?
      It is preposterous, incredible and an affront to the House that the Government should insist on proceeding with the clause unamended. The Economic Secretary shakes her head in disbelief. I shake mine in disbelief at her. Tens of millions of pounds is a lot of money for every man, woman, child and family in this country, particularly when it is being used to prepare the country for something that it does not want.
      Mr. Horam: The clause is a relic of the halcyon days, from the Government's point of view, when they thought that life in government was simple. The plan was obvious—they were hoping to win the next election, and if they did, legislation would be introduced to hold a referendum shortly thereafter. They would hope immediately to win a yes vote for entry into the euro. All would follow, so there had to be a national changeover plan.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made the point that the national changeover plan contains a lovely chart, which sets out clearly where we proceed from one point to the end point, where we end up with notes. I noticed that it also said "end cash", which, in these circumstances—as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will agree—is rather symbolic. Nevertheless, a timetable of three and a half years was established.
      Sadly, from the Government's point of view, those halcyon days are over—there are no more glad mornings. Since the European elections, the process has become etiolated, and it has been put ever further into the distant future. Should the Government win the next general election, will there even be a referendum in the first half of the next Parliament? Will there be a referendum at all in the next Parliament? How long will the process take? Even the Prime Minister must realise that the process will take much longer, and that it is much vaguer than it was

      897
      a year ago when the national changeover plan was proposed. The process has become extraordinarily vague, but clause 122 encapsulates the sense of certainty that the Government have lost.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, there is also the matter of the blank cheque. How much will be required? The Government have mentioned tens of millions of pounds for the process, although Tim Congdon and other economists have calculated that, if we were to go into the euro, the total changeover cost would be £2.5 billion; and that, even if we do not go into the euro, the cost will be £750 million. Those figures are being bandied about, and they cannot be totally irrelevant to the Government—who purchase 40 per cent. of everything purchased in the United Kingdom. The Government have huge purchasing power. Although they have vouchsafed to the House a potential changeover cost of tens of millions of pounds, the extent of their own procurement ensures that the changeover will have a far greater effect on them than that.
      I remember when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and I were in government, and we were castigated by the then Opposition for signing an allegedly blank cheque for the private finance initiative; yet the PFI was operated wholly within departmental—in my case, the Department of Health—budgets, which could not be exceeded without the Treasury's agreement. However, clause 122 would go beyond any agreement between the Treasury and a Minister. It deals not with a certain unspecified sum that would have to be agreed between Departments, but, literally, with a blank cheque.
      The fact is that we are now so far down the line—it is a year since the changeover plan was proposed—that Ministers must have some estimate, even a guesstimate, of the sort of figures involved in the changeover plan. The House should be told that estimate. I agree with my hon. Friends that we should be failing as parliamentarians, not to mention as Opposition Members, if we did not press for that information.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, made the fair point that Opposition Members are not attempting to limit the spending provided in clause 122—and we are not. It would be foolish to try to limit the spending, as we do not know—any more than the Government do, apparently—the correct figures. We are simply trying to expose the information that is available. It is a matter of accountability, not simply of disagreeing with the figures proposed. We simply want the House and the public to know what is likely to be spent, what is being spent, and even what will be spent—as my hon. Friends have said—retrospectively on those very important matters.
      Mr. Love: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments, and he has finally got to the nub of amendment No. 31—parliamentary accountability. However, as Labour Members and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) have said, there is already such parliamentary accountability in debates in this Chamber
      898
      on the Public Accounts Committee's reports. Opposition Members should tell us why that parliamentary scrutiny is not acceptable.
      Mr. Horam: First, that is an annual accounting. The National Audit Office examines matters annually, after which the Public Accounts Committee has to decide whether to deal with a specific expenditure item. The Committee has to choose from a crowded list of matters, and it may not have the time, even annually, to examine a specific subject in depth—as the changeover should be examined.
      We are not asking for something that the Government are not already doing. In the Government's own document on the national changeover plan, at the very end they state:
      "The Treasury will report on progress on this further work in the euro preparation unit's next six-monthly report and produce a further plan in around a year's time."
      We are simply asking for the EPU's six-monthly report to the Treasury to be reported also to the House. In their own document, Ministers state that they believe that six months is the right interval in which to report on that expenditure stream. I therefore think that it is not unreasonable for hon. Members to ask for any progress to be reported to them in a sensible way. I also do not think that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are the right forums to deal with that six-monthly report.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is making the most interesting speech. Does he agree that—unless we have that canard come back to us from the Minister—there is a third reason for the House to be provided with the information? The National Audit Office could justify the expenditure as wholly effective and proper—as it would be achieving the very result that the Bill was trying to make it achieve—even if huge sums were spent with the sole purpose of driving us into the euro.
      Mr. Horam: Indeed. The other point is that, by definition, the National Audit Office will take a non-political view on the matter, but does not always have the access to Government papers that it should. Perhaps it should have further powers. Moreover, the Public Accounts Committee, with a Labour majority, may or may not decide that it wishes to investigate the matter in depth.
      We are right to want to consider the matter separately. There should be an audit trail so that we can examine the matter systematically and discover how the expenditure is being used. We need to know not merely the total amounts involved, but how the money is being spent. I assume, from what the Government have said, that the national changeover plan deals not with private sector expenditure but with expenditure by the public sector for its own purposes. It also provides for information to be provided to the private sector so that it may prepare for a putative national changeover to the euro. That is the content of the changeover plan.
      Mr. Loughton: What possible confidence can we have in the Government's accountability to this House when every time Opposition Members have asked Treasury

      899
      Ministers for a rough idea of the sort of amounts involved, they have wholly and utterly evaded any figure, or even a stab at a figure?
      Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is right; we will get no estimate this evening from the Economic Secretary. I give full credit to the hon. Lady for her words on green and environmental matters, but on this matter she will be bound tightly by Treasury rules and will not be able to say anything about possible expenditure. However, we are some way down the track on these matters, and we should by now have some idea of what is likely to be spent.
      Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of the amount of money but, how the money is actually spent? The lack of any definition of categories of expenditure is extremely worrying and could have wide-ranging implications. The clause, as drafted, is capable of wide interpretation.
      Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is right. I have looked through the reports on the national changeover plan and I can find nothing other than two vague categories in this area—public expenditure on its own purposes, and measures to inform the public of what is happening. We need more definition, clarity and exposure to parliamentary scrutiny.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that the proposal is simple pragmatism, although I disagree with those who talk about emotion. This is low-key matter of parliamentary scrutiny, so we can take the emotion out of it. Whether one is for or against the euro, this is a matter of simple, pragmatic parliamentary exposure and discussion which should be dealt with on that basis. I hope that, in those terms, the Government can agree to the amendments.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Swayne: Were I an evangelical advocate of the abolition of the pound—and, despite the Prime Minister's belief that such a position is daft, I understand that such people exist—I would nevertheless advocate that the Government accept the amendments. The existence of clause 122 demands such scrutiny. The clause states:
      "Customs and Excise may incur expenditure".
      I am afraid that I did not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in his assertion that tens of millions of pounds were involved. Any amount of money might be involved over any period of time.
      Mr. Luff: For the record, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That was not my estimate; I was relying on the vaguest estimate that we have from the Government, which is in the notes on clauses. The amount could be hundreds of millions of pounds.
      Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. That begs the question: on what might those amounts, whatever they might be, be spent? The clause states that Customs and Excise may incur expenditure
      "to exercise their functions relating to taxes and duties (including agricultural levies of the European Community)."
      Despite racking my brains, I am unaware of how those concerned might properly spend any sum of money, never mind the unspecified amounts suggested by the clause.
      900
      Therefore, the clause demands the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). It demands scrutiny and accountability. The lack of accountability and any proper answer to our questions adds to the requirement for such scrutiny.
      I will listen with interest to the Economic Secretary when she tells us precisely how she anticipates these funds will be spent. I hope that she will do so when she gets up to tell us that she will accept the amendments. Any reticence on her part, or any decision not to accept the amendments, will only reinforce the sense of suspicion and concern that something is being stitched up behind people's backs in precisely the same way as in 1975, when the people were duped, and one campaign, the "Britain in Europe" campaign, outspent the "No" campaign by 10:1.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has left the Chamber. He asked in what way the amendments provided any control over expenditure. In one sense, he was right: they do not give us the ability to control expenditure—which, if I may say so to the Economic Secretary, is a good reason why she should accept the amendments. They do not give us the ability to control whatever it is that she wishes to spend on whatever it is that she wishes to spend it on. They merely give us the right to know what she has spent and what she has spent it on, which would at least provide some constraint on the expenditure.
      Not only do we not know what will be spent and what it will be spent on, but we do not know for how long it might be spent. I suggest that it could be a very long time indeed. The Government have made it clear that the event that the expenditures are designed to achieve—the abolition of the pound—cannot happen until there is sustained convergence.
      I did not agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that convergence had already taken place and that the British economy had moved closer to the European economies in the late 1980s. If the British economy is moving in an orbit around the European economies, it is an elliptical orbit, because it would appear that over the past 25 years it has diverged rather than converged.
      The key question is: what has caused that? I suggest that the principal cause is the volume of British trade that takes place with the United States and elsewhere and the consequentially large volume of assets and asset income. Because of those long-term changes, it is highly unlikely that the Government's timetable will be realised. The time scale for the expenditure is in fact very long, so it is highly pertinent for us to have the scrutiny that the amendments offer, which would preserve Parliament's ability to hold the Government to account.
      Mr. Loughton: Conservative Members have made some powerful points. It was clear that the debate was not going the Government's way when the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) was summoned away by pager and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) wafted in. I fear, though, that the heat has been too intense even for him and he has slunk away because even he knows that it is a losing battle. He has gone off, officially or unofficially, to represent the No. 10 view with yet another anonymous foreign diplomat.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) put his finger on it: the debate is not about whether and when we want to join the euro or what

      901
      damage or good it may do to the economies here or in Europe, but about transparency and democratic accountability.
      Today, the Economic Secretary has been in Committee debating the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is all about accountability, cost to consumers and industry and the guarantee that we are seeking that everything will be up front, which I hope the Government will go along with. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Health said that of course all the costs of his new-fangled health plan would be made public—so it is ironic that this evening, on an open-ended and potentially enormous issue, the Government are asking for our authority for an entirely blank cheque. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said, that cocks a snook at the whole democratic process.
      It was only on 23 February that the Prime Minister—uncharacteristically—came to the House and devoted all of 67 minutes to announcing the changeover plan and answering questions on it. That has been the House's sole opportunity to question a member of Her Majesty's Government on the changeover plan. Attempts to secure other appearances have been evaded and wafted aside. Yet within a month of that statement, the Bill was published, with this provision hidden deep among the latter clauses. It gives the Government the most enormous blank cheque which, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, is not even time dated.
      I am not in the business of writing blank cheques. No Conservative Member is. When I receive a tax bill from the Inland Revenue I expect to pay the amount stipulated at the bottom. I do not expect to pay an amount that may be thousands—or even tens—of pounds more. Similarly, when I get my council tax bill I expect to pay the amount stated, not some amount that may be much higher, of which I may—or may not—be informed at a later date, for added expenditure whose details may—or may not—be revealed.
      It is ironic that the Government should go on about all their proposals being fully costed. They have done so since before the election. They constantly go on about measures that will be paid for by taxation elsewhere.
      Earlier this afternoon, the Economic Secretary used a well-worn phrase when she spoke about the "black hole" that would be left by Opposition proposals, but this clause makes a black hole look like a vicarage tea party. The Government should never again have the temerity to ask Conservative Members how much our amendments to legislation might cost. That remark displayed nerve beyond belief.
      The clause is about the inevitability of gradualism, by means of which Britain will be driven into the euro behind everyone's back. It is about membership of the euro by stealth. If the Government stick to their promise of holding a referendum on the matter, the balance of probabilities is that the British public will vote resolutely against entry into the euro. That was true a year ago and remains true now. It will still be true in two years, and in the dim and distant future.
      The latest opinion poll showed opposition at a record level, with more than two thirds of the public against joining the euro. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that going into the euro would be the most
      902
      enormous leap of faith. Just two weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on his not terribly successful visit to China, admitted that Britain's economy was large enough to merit having its own currency. So why are the Government asking for funds to go completely against that statement of fact?
      The Government's policy ignores the fact that 80 per cent. of the world's financial trade, and 60 per cent. of commercial trade, is transacted in dollars. So what are the Government doing about preparing to ensure the stability of the dollar? That is a far more important currency for our financial and commercial markets, and is likely to remain so for some years, but the Government are doing nothing to ensure its stability.
      What are the Government doing to plan for what the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) called the contingencies of a no vote in a referendum? Everything is geared to a yes vote being secured. Nothing is being done to prepare for a no vote, or to protect our more important trade conducted in dollars.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless our amendments are passed, the situation will be perilous indeed? The president of the Bundesbank has said that within a single European currency it is an illusion to think that member states can retain their autonomy over taxation policy, but the Government have always rejected that view. Does not my hon. Friend think it peculiar that clause 122 provides for the exercise of functions relating to taxes attendant on entry to European monetary union, when previously the Government have insisted that the prospect of income tax control through EMU was a nonsense? Is there not a contradiction in the Government's position? Have the Government not slipped out the truth, so to speak, by stealth?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Loughton:My hon. Friend puts his finger precisely on the point. So great, in fact, is the emergency before us that the Chancellor has joined us for the first time tonight. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool plainly pressed all the panic buttons when he left the Chamber.
      Mr. Maude: He would not have phoned the Chancellor.
      Mr. Loughton: Wonders will never cease. There has been yet another shift in alliances within the Government.
      Only 18 per cent. of the United Kingdom economy is involved in Europe, but 100 per cent. of British business, industry, shareholders and taxpayers will have to pay the cost of a highly expensive, but uncosted, contingency changeover plan. We are always promised cost assessments, but the absence of one for the plan is stark. It is amazing that, before they deal with any of our EU problems—the common agricultural policy, fraud in the Commission, our rebate, the withholding tax, unfair tax competition that penalises our enterprises, and much more expensive social costs—the Government are trying to commit the British people to enormous and unlimited expenditure, although even the Prime Minister has doubts about which side of the fence to come down on.
      It is bad enough to be asked to write a blank cheque and to open up a funding black hole. It is worse still that the bank account holders—the British people—are not

      903
      allowed to know the amount to be written on that cheque, when it will be written or for what it will pay. I do not share the confidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) because I think that the Government are hiding something. Transparency is the best regulator.
      Mr. Luff: I know that it is not the custom of Hansard to put "irony" in brackets after our comments, but I hope that mine were heavy with it.
      Mr. Loughton: My hon. Friend spoke so subtly that I did not wish to disrupt the bonhomie that he engendered across the House.
      Transparency is the best regulation and the best measure of accountability. The amendment does not deal with the whole issue of the euro, but simply seeks accountability and the ability to hold Labour Members and the Government democratically to account on behalf of our constituents. The changeover plan is purely a contingency plan, but potentially the most expensive contingency in history. We should have none of it.
      Ms Hewitt: It is fair to begin by saying that Conservative Members have livened up somewhat during this debate. Indeed, we have heard from almost every Conservative Member present, except of course the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). It is hardly surprising that he has remained completely silent on the issue.
      Once again, the debate has shown that the Conservatives are indeed a single-issue party. It would appear, at least this evening, that they are a single-sex party too. We have heard a great deal of nonsense this evening in an attempt to whip up some excitement on the Opposition Benches.
      Mr. Luff: At least we Conservatives are here in numbers to discuss one of the most important issues that faces the United Kingdom, unlike Labour Members.
      Ms Hewitt: I do not think that we need to worry about the numbers this evening.
      The nonsense that we have heard from Conservative Members started with the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who accused the Government of asking Parliament to give us a blank cheque to spend—a phrase with which Conservative Members were clearly so impressed that several of them repeated it. That is complete rubbish. Clause 122 establishes the propriety of expenditure by Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue on preparations for the possibility that the United Kingdom might join the single currency. It does not remove Parliament's right to scrutinise the expenditure, or the requirement for Parliament to give legal authority for such expenditure each year through the annual supply estimates and the Appropriation Act.
      It might be helpful if I remind hon. Members that statutory authority for the payment of expenditure out of moneys provided by Parliament must be given each year and can only be given each year by the supply estimates and confirming Appropriation Act. Any expenditure by the Government on euro preparations, like any other expenditure out of moneys provided by Parliament, will
      904
      have to be authorised each year by Parliament in the annual Appropriation Act, which provides the legal authority for the expenditure.
      Mr. Maude: If that is the case, will the Minister undertake that the House will have the opportunity to debate separately the sums allocated for that line in the Budget?
      Ms Hewitt: We will treat it like every other line in the Budget. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. He did not refer to the constitutional practice that was enshrined in the 1932 concordat between the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee. I assume that as a former Treasury Minister he is familiar with that concordat. It is a rule of propriety that continuing functions of Government, in particular when they involve financial liabilities that extend beyond a given financial year, should also be defined and covered by specific statutes. It is in accordance with that rule of propriety that clause 122 provides specific statutory authority for expenditure on euro preparations.
      Mr. Maude: I take it from what the hon. Lady says that the answer to my question is no, the House will not have such an opportunity. If she cannot supply that and as she claims that this is not a blank cheque for the Government, will she tell us what number will be on the cheque? How much money is she proposing to spend? If she does not know, she has the Chancellor at her side—he seems to have come to life—and she should ask him.
      Ms Hewitt: I shall come to the figures for expenditure in a minute. As I said, expenditure on that matter will be treated in exactly the same way as any other expenditure from moneys authorised by Parliament. Perhaps it is not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman, who is Maastricht man—the man who signed the Maastricht treaty on behalf of the previous Government—wants to divert attention from his record by his obsession with clause 122.
      I shall spell out the procedures once again because the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues seem to have forgotten them. As with all expenditure incurred by revenue Departments, Parliament votes through estimates. Forecasts of euro preparation expenditure would be included in those estimates. The annual appropriation accounts report the actual outturn against the figures projected in the estimate and those are laid before Parliament in the January following the end of each financial year to which they relate. Moreover, the annual departmental reports, which are laid before Parliament around the end of March, provide a backward look to the previous financial year as well as a forward look to the coming financial year and expand on the detail contained in the estimate and appropriation account. I remind the House of that because so many right hon. and hon. Conservative Members seem to have forgotten it.
      There are three main reasons for pre-referendum spending in the Revenue Departments.
      First, unless we undertake the necessary practical preparations, the United Kingdom will not be in a practical position to join—even if that were in the national economic interest. That is especially true of the Revenue departments, whose computer systems are among the largest and most complex in Europe.

      905
      Secondly, if the UK were to join the single currency, our Revenue departments would come under pressure from UK businesses to allow taxes to be assessed, reported and paid in euro. That would be no more than was offered by countries which participated in the first wave. We have allowed taxes to be paid in euro from 1 January this year. So far, the investment that we have made in IT and other systems to enable that to take place has been small—about £150,000. We considered that to be commensurate with a relatively low take-up. Even without extending the euro options for UK businesses, increased take-up of existing options would require significant investment to ensure cost-effective and accurate services. I am sure that hon. Members would want that.
      Thirdly, by making relatively small and well-targeted expenditure now, we can save substantial sums if the UK were to join. That is effective public sector planning, to deliver best value for money, of the kind that any sensible organisation or business would undertake.
      The right hon. Member for Horsham and several other hon. Members asked me for detailed figures as to expenditure. I shall set out exactly what was spent up until the end of February 1999. The public sector spent £27 million on ensuring that the City of London and many businesses and departments were able to deal with the euro from its introduction on 1 January. The Bank of England, the euro preparations unit in the Treasury, Revenue departments and the Department of Social Security accounted for most of that preparatory spending. Less than £2 million has been spent on preparing for the possibility of UK entry. The Bank of England spent about £16.6 million preparing for 1999—£17 million in total. The euro preparations unit spent £8.5 million, of which only about £50,000 was related to possible UK entry.
      Customs and Excise spent £0.8 million on 1999 preparations—£0.2 million on planning for possible UK entry. The Inland Revenue spent £0.15 million on 1999 preparations—£0.35 million on planning for possible UK entry. In both cases, the spending on preparations for 1999 was to ensure that firms could pay taxes in euro from its launch. The DSS has spent about £0.5 million in total—almost all of which was geared towards possible UK entry, including £0.3 million on set-up and staff costs and £0.2 million on IT analysis. I hope that no Conservative Member will accuse me of lack of detail in these matters.
      I point out to the House that the extraordinary concern of Conservative Members over the relatively small amounts involved in this matter sits ill with their complete indifference to the £5 billion hole in their own spending plans, arising from their resistance to the fuel duty escalator and other matters that we discussed earlier.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady has given precise figures, broken down between departments and functions, for moneys spent up until the end of February. Will she give us the Budget figures for prospective expenditure under the same headings? To return the phrase that she used, any well-managed—or half well-managed—business or organisation would have a budget with precise figures.
      906
      If the organisation for which she is responsible is at least half well-managed, she will have forward budgetary figures. Will she give them to the House?
      Ms Hewitt: In the current financial year, the Inland Revenue plans to spend about £5 million, and Customs and Excise plans to spend about £10 million in total. As for the years beyond that, the planning that we are undertaking at present, following the publication of the outline national changeover plan, will enable us to produce detailed figures. They will be dealt with in the normal way, through the procedures that I have described.
      Mr. Letwin: I am most interested in the figures the Economic Secretary has just given. She has told us the spending that is planned for this year—figures of £5 million and £10 million. In which estimates were those approved, and which debate that occurred in this House inspected the validity and propriety of that expenditure?
      Ms Hewitt: They are part of the normal estimates, dealt with in the proper way. If the hon. Gentleman did not notice them at the time, that is his problem.
      It is absolutely fascinating to have heard from the two sides of the Conservative Treasury team. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said in 1996:
      "It would be completely crazy and contrary to the national interest to throw away our option to join the single currency. The British people would not respect a Government that did such a thing."
      He went on to say:
      "Taking irrevocable decisions before you have to and before all the essential facts are available is bizarre and indefensible"
      He is describing the policy of his own party, on whose Front Bench he now sits, as "crazy", "bizarre and indefensible" and
      "contrary to the national interest".
      Mr. Davies: I had better state it quite explicitly, so as to remove any doubt from the hon. Lady's mind. The quotation she has just delivered describes precisely the Conservative party's position on this issue, which I have the honour to defend from the Front Bench.
      Ms Hewitt: That is the entirely bizarre explanation that was offered by the right hon. Member for Horsham when he opened the debate. If I understood him correctly—it was difficult to follow his arguments—it is now the Conservative party's position to keep open the option of joining the single currency by ensuring that the British people are never given a chance to join. It is impossible for the Conservatives to square their policy of keeping open the option of joining with their other policy of establishing a constitutional principle that rules out the possibility of joining for five years, 10 years or for ever, depending on who is speaking.
      Mr. Bercow: Will such expenditure be undertaken only upon the assumption of continued direct taxation sovereignty, and rejected without it?
      Ms Hewitt: We have made it clear on numerous occasions in the House and elsewhere that tax harmonisation—harmonisation of direct taxation—is not required by possible entry into the single currency.

      907
      The House knows well the Government's position on the question of taxation, specifically the withholding tax, which has been mentioned.
      The fact is that there are three possible positions on the question of the single currency. The first is to rule it out, even if joining a successful single currency would be good for Britain. That is the position of the Conservative party, which has now become the anti-European party of British politics.
      Mr. Davies indicated dissent.
      Ms Hewitt: Apparently, that is not the Conservatives' position any longer. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Horsham—Maastricht man—will clarify the position once again. We have heard many different policies this evening, so the right hon. Gentleman, who signed the Maastricht treaty, should tell us what the Conservative policy is.
      That is one possible policy: to rule out joining a single currency on principle, even if it would be good for Britain. That policy was described, correctly, by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford as "crazy", "bizarre" and
      "contrary to the national interest."
      The second position is that we should join the single currency as quickly as possible, even if doing so were bad for this country. That indeed would be "crazy", "bizarre" and
      "contrary to the national interest",
      even though it is supported by some hon. Members.
      The third policy position—the position of this Government—is to join a successful single currency if it is good for Britain. If the economic benefits of joining a successful single currency are clear and unambiguous, then of course it is right that we should join. That is the only policy in the national interest, and it is of course the Government's policy.
      We have made it clear, in the statements in October 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he launched the national draft outline changeover plan, that the decision on possible entry to a successful single currency should be made by Government, Parliament and then the British people in a referendum. It is in pursuit of that policy of "prepare and decide" that we have published the changeover plan.
      The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), a member of the previous Conservative Government and, indeed, a Front Bencher before he resigned in disgust at the anti-European position that his party has adopted, made the position clear when he welcomed the publication of the changeover plan. He said:
      "Anyone who opposes a national changeover plan must not want to have a referendum, because it can be held only if the British people are prepared."—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 194.]
      Our changeover plan has been prepared in very close consultation with business associations in this country. It is further illustration of how completely out of touch the Conservative party is with British business and the British national interest that it has opposed the sensible planning of the changeover plan, which was welcomed by, among others, the president of the CBI. The changeover plan is
      908
      a sensible and necessary step to enable this country to have the option of joining a successful single currency if that would be in the interests of our country.
      Under clause 122, as I have explained in considerable detail, we have ensured that the proper rules of propriety and the convention with the Public Accounts Committee are observed. We are extremely supportive of the important role that Parliament plays in the proper scrutiny of public expenditure, but there is a set procedure for reporting on expenditure to the House. The procedure works well, and the Opposition were quite happy to follow it during their 18 years in government. Euro preparations expenditure will continue to be included in the annual estimates, appropriation accounts and departmental reports, along with all the other spending by revenue Departments.
      I am astonished that the Opposition seek to impose an extra bureaucratic burden on our tax authorities—one that has nothing whatever to offer in improving real accountability and scrutiny of public expenditure. I hope very much that the right hon. Member for Horsham will have the wisdom to withdraw his amendment. If not, I shall certainly urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.
      Mr. Maude: I knew that it would be fascinating to hear how the Economic Secretary would make the case to resist the amendments. Now we have the answer. She did not make the case; she just ignored the case, which became stronger and stronger as each hon. Member rose to their feet. The Economic Secretary has insulted the House of Commons by refusing to address the actual issues and by making a pathetic attempt to sow dissention. She was dismayed by the fact that Conservative Front Benchers have been resolutely united in this approach. It is very upsetting for her, but it is a fact that the whole House ought to be concerned about this issue.
      I said when I moved the amendment that the Government were asking for a blank cheque. Having heard what the Economic Secretary has had to say, that remains so. This is an extraordinary clause. As far as I can see, no other clause is a spending clause.
      It has been claimed that the National Audit Office already has the power to scrutinise the accounts, but if the expenditure is proper according to the terms of the clause—we have no reason to suppose that it will not be—the NAO will not scrutinise the accounts in detail but simply report on the global sum. The Public Accounts Committee will not get close to the accounts because the NAO will sign off that sum as having been effective spending.
      That spending may be effective according to the terms of the clause, but it is effective spending to achieve the wrong outcome. The Government will spend unspecified amounts of taxpayers' money on something that even the Prime Minister has accepted hardly anyone wants. The Economic Secretary has mentioned several figures, but she cannot say in which estimates those figures are contained. She cannot tell us in which National Audit Office report they are scrutinised. There is no proper mechanism by which the House can fulfil its historic function of scrutiny for such extraordinary expenditure.
      Coming from a Government who prate about and use the language of prudence and competence, this is a disgrace. The Treasury, which admits to having negotiations to agree hard and fast budgets with other Departments, will simply

      909
      say, "We shall spend as much as we think right." The Prime Minister says, "We shall spend tens of millions of pounds over a number of years." That is airy-fairy, and it is intolerable that the House of Commons should not have the ability properly to scrutinise that expenditure. For that reason, I ask the House to support the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 336.

      Division No. 225]

      9.11pm

      AYES

      Anisworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heald, Oliver

      Allan, Richard

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Amess, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Horam, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bercow, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Key, Robert

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Body, Sir Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Boswell, Tim

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Leith, Edward

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brazier,Julian

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (FareHam)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Loughton, Tim

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Luff, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Burstow, Paul

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cash, William

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

      Madel. Sir David

      Clappison, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maples, John

      Collins, Tim

      Mates, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Cran, James

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Moss, Mascolm

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Norman, Archie

      Evans, Nigel

      Oaten, Mark

      Faber, David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Prior, David

      Forsuthe, Clifford

      Randall, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Rebathan, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gale, Roger

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ruffley, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gill, Christopher

      Sehpherd, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gary, James

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Green, Damian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Greenway, John

      Spring, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Steen, Anthony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Streeter, Gary

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Deamond

      Hancock, Mike

      Syms, Robert

      Harvey, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      910

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Thompson, William

      Whittingdale, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilshire, David

      Trend, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tyne, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Viggers, Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wardle, Charles

      Webb, Steve

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ainger, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coleman, lain

      Alexander, Douglas

      Connarty, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Corbett, Robin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cryer, John (Homchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cummings, John

      Austin, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Battle, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bayley, Hugh

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Beard, Nigel

      Darvill, Keith

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Benton, Joe

      Denham, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Berry, Roger

      Dobbin, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Doran, Frank

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dowd, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drew, David

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Boateng, Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Efford, Clive

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Browne, Desmond

      Fisher, Mark

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Flint, Caroline

      Burgon, Colin

      Flynn, Paul

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Follett, Barbara

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Casale, Roger

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Caton, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Win (Bndgend)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gunnell, John

      Hain, Peter

      911

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWilliam, John

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Martlew, Eric

      Hill, Keith

      Maxton, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Meale, Alan

      Hoey, Kate

      Merron, Gillian

      Home Robertson, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hope, Phil

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mitchell, Austin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hurst, Alan

      Morley, Elliot

      Hutton, John

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Illsley, Eric

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pike, Peter L

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Plaskitt, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kennedy, Jane (VVavertree)

      Pond, Chris

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pope, Greg

      Kidney, David

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Purchase, Ken

      Laxton, Bob

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Lepper, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rapson, Syd

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Raynsford, Nick

      Linton, Martin

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lock, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Love, Andrew

      Rowlands, Ted

      McAllion, John

      Roy, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      McCabe, Steve

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      (Makerfield)

      Salter, Martin

      Macdonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonnell, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheerman, Barry

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      912

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Timms, Stephen

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Tipping, Paddy

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Todd, Mark

      Singh, Marsha

      Trickett, Jon

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Snape, Peter

      Wareing, Robert N

      Soley, Clive

      Watts, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      White, Brian

      Spellar, John

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Starkey Dr,

      Phyllis

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Steinberg, Gerry Ger

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stevenson, George

      (Swansea W)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen

      rt, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Convey)

      Stewart,

      Michael, Wills

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wise, Audrey

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wood, Mike

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Worthington, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wray, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Mr. David Hanson and

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.

  Schedule 1

    RATES OF VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY FOR GOODS VEHICLES ETC
    Ms Hewitt: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 97, line 29, column 4, leave out '2,320' and insert '2,230'.
    I hope that this amendment will not cause anything like the controversy caused by the previous amendment. It amends schedule 1, which concerns vehicle excise duty for goods vehicles, and corrects a typographical error in the tabled rate for three-axle rigid goods vehicles weighing between 23 and 25 tonnes. The provision should have remained unchanged at 2,230 lbs rather than the 2,320 lbs set out in the schedule.
    This corrective amendment reflects Government policy: rates for all goods vehicles, apart from the more heavily loaded vehicles that became available from 1 January, should be frozen, as they were last year. Lorries relicensed since the Budget have of course been charged at the correct rate. I trust that there will be no opposition to the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    VAT: GROUPS OF COMPANIES
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 102, line 15, at end insert—
    '(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) above the Commissioners may only give notice in the circumstances specified in subsection (2) above if it appears to the Commissioners that—

    (a) a company is engaged in a VAT avoidance scheme,

    913

    (b) membership of the group threatens the collectability of tax, or

    (c) the revenue loss associated with its membership of the group goes beyond the natural consequences of grouping.'.

    Although the amendment will be spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), I am moving it because of the rules of advocacy. My hon. Friend may conceivably have an indirect interest, which he will doubtless describe to the House.
    Mr. Letwin: I declare a possible interest in that there may be clients of the bank of which I am a director who could be affected by the amendment.
    The amendment protects not so much against a Henry VIII clause—we have done much of that in this Parliament—as against a Charles I clause of the kind that has also become all too familiar. Such a clause would give Customs and Excise tyrannical powers over those who are unlucky enough to fall into its clutches. When the issue was raised in Committee, a great many organisations were quoted—organisations that are not politically partial, but rather, are bound by the rules of looking after the interests of their members and, indeed, the public interest. The Institute of Indirect Taxation said:
    "Under all of these provisions"—
    to which the amendment relates—
    "the trigger for Customs powers is subjective."
    The Law Society said that
    "it would be possible for the Commissioners retrospectively to degroup a company…that…ignores the possibility of a mistake being made by the Commissioners".
    The Institute of Directors said:
    "The power, given by new section 43C (1) and (2),"—
    to which the amendment relates—
    "to remove companies from groups where that is necessary is far too wide."
    The Institute of Indirect Taxation had more to say, as did many other bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
    The interesting point, which gave rise to our amendment, is that the Paymaster General—not the Financial Secretary, whom I excuse from blame entirely—remarked to the Committee, no doubt with the consent and acquiescence of the Financial Secretary:
    "It is right that Customs has broad powers and some discretion, as has long been provided in our legislation. That is to ensure that abuse is dealt with adequately…That approach…is the conventional way to proceed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 May 1999; c. 174-182.]
    There is some truth in the hon. Lady's observations. Alas, we find that the conventional way to proceed, under Governments of both colours over many years, has been to give quite excessive and undue powers to Customs and Excise, and it is about time that something was done to correct that.
    Finding a means of restricting the excessive, arbitrary powers of Customs and Excise—in order to protect legitimate businesses from the exercise of those arbitrary powers in ways that cause significant dislocation for many of our constituents—will be a major plank of the Conservative party's policies for going forward. That is particularly the case in respect of people with small and
    914
    medium-sized businesses which cannot afford to employ legions of highly paid advisers to protect them against the exercise of those powers.
    9.30 pm
    Amendment No. 1 is astonishingly modest: I am amazed by our moderation. It would merely specify a little more closely how the commissioners must go about their actions. It says that commissioners can give notice of degrouping only if it appears to them that
    "a company is engaged in a VAT avoidance scheme … membership of the group threatens the collectability of tax, or … the revenue loss associated with its membership of the group goes beyond the natural consequences of grouping."
    Straightforwardly, that amounts to saying that the commissioners must satisfy themselves that there is a genuine abuse.
    It is a perfectly reasonable proposition that the commissioners, before taking action that could be highly deleterious to the companies against which they are taking it, should at least satisfy themselves that there is a real abuse, and that it is not an honest and innocent scheme.
    I note that the Financial Secretary has closed her mind to this proposal, because she is happily engaged in badinage with her colleagues on the Front Bench. I am afraid to say that that surprises us not in the least. We have just debated a proposal from my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor that was so eminently reasonable that the Economic Secretary was unable to find the slightest rationale for defeating it. We now have another such reasonable proposal, and I am sure that it will meet the same fate. Her Majesty's Government are unfortunately unwilling even to listen to the argument. The time will come when amendments such as amendment No. 1 will be seen for what they are: modest, perhaps even pusillanimous. In due course, we will need far more protection for the ordinary and innocent business man against the exercise of arbitrary power.
    This is a test case. If the Government insist on rejecting amendment No. 1, it will show that even the most modest constraints on that arbitrary power, such as the requirement that commissioners should satisfy themselves of an abuse, is too much for the Government. The Financial Secretary should bear in mind the fact that—if she is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure she will be—what she says in her usual mellifluous and elegant fashion will be recorded in Hansard, and will ring down the ages as a statement of the Government's intention, which is that things should be done in the conventional way. That is what the Government will stand for: the proposition that the conventional way should be followed, and Customs and Excise should be given wholly arbitrary powers.
    Some slight purpose will have been fulfilled by this debate if we at least get it on record that that is the Government's intention and design. It would, of course, be far better if, having heard these words, the Financial Secretary had a damascene conversion and accepted amendment No. 1, but that will not happen. We could then get on with the serious business of trying to put to rights something of which Governments of both colours—this is not a party point—have been culpable for the past 50 or 100 years, and which the Opposition at least intend to do something about.
    Mr. Fabricant: I support the amendment, primarily because I have experienced the abuse that my hon. Friend

    915
    has described. He referred to the badinage among hon. Members on the Treasury Bench. I suspect that the reason for that badinage is that they have not been abused as I have, because none of them have run a business. None of them have had the experience of Customs and Excise officers descending on them in the early hours. They have not heard the kick of the jackboot on the door—perhaps I exaggerate—and have not endured an inspection of their books lasting a week or two.
    Customs and Excise has a long history. The revenue men have powers that go back 300 or 400 years. Their powers exceed and have existed for longer than the powers of the police.
    I hasten to add for the record that I was abused, and my company was abused, because the company—although it was a new company—had started from scratch, and ended up exporting all over the world. As a consequence, we incurred a lot of input tax—because we were purchasing items and paying VAT—but very little output tax, because we were exporting at zero rates. Most of our VAT returns, therefore, related to claims rather than payments.
    There we were, a small company, trying to trade and trying to build up a reasonable base not only of suppliers, but of English—British—employees. Then the jackboot came: Customs and Excise arrived, and for two or three weeks we experienced complete disruption. No sales could take place, and while Customs and Excise went through our books with a fine-toothed comb—this was long before the days of computers—we were in cashflow difficulties, and were barely surviving as a result. Fortunately we got through that, and my career culminated on the Back Benches in the House of Commons.
    The amendment is reasonable. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) described it as a test case; I would go further, and say that I consider it to be an acid test of the Government's good intent. Is it unreasonable to expect the Government, Customs and Excise and the commissioners to pay a little attention, and exercise some caution, before kicking down the gates of a small business and examining its books?
    The amendment is also simple. The commissioners need to satisfy themselves that
    "a company is engaged in a VAT avoidance scheme"—
    in other words, not engaged in its lawful business. Is that unreasonable, I ask the Financial Secretary? I do not see how she can say that it is.
    The commissioners also need to satisfy themselves that
    "membership of the group threatens the collectability of tax"—
    in other words, that the group has not been formed as a natural consequence of the functions of the company. Is that unreasonable, I ask the Financial Secretary?
    Finally, the commissioners must satisfy themselves that
    "the revenue loss associated with its membership of the group goes beyond the natural consequences of grouping."
    Mr. Letwin: Let me make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that these are alternatives. The commissioners need to satisfy themselves of either the first, the second or the third. The amendment is even more modest than my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right. Reasonableness is the essence of the amendment. The question—the acid test—is this: are the Government going to be reasonable, and do they want the commissioners to be reasonable?
    916
    I know that the Financial Secretary is a reasonable lady, although she and her bedfellows—perhaps I should not say that; she and her colleagues—lack business experience. I therefore hope that they will accept the amendment.
    Mrs. Roche: I find myself in a quandary. To misquote Oscar Wilde, I can resist everything but flattery. I have heard two flattering speeches, from the hon. Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant); however, I must disappoint them this evening. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know: it almost brings tears to my eyes as well.
    I was rather surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield. He will know of the many hard-working men and women in our Customs and Excise service who do such sterling work for us on a number of issues—not just on VAT, but on combating drugs and smuggling. It is incumbent on hon. Members on both sides of the House to pay tribute to those brave men and women.
    Mr. Letwin: I hope that the Minister might recognise the following point. It is the only defence of those hard-working and conscientious individuals that there should be rules that ensure that they do not have to fulfil their function by acting arbitrarily to squeeze every last penny out of every rock. I hope that she will recognise that the intention is precisely to protect those individuals, not to attack them.
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful for that clarification, because I had thought for a moment that the all-party consensus on law and order issues was in danger of breaking down. If the hon. Gentleman is a little patient, I think I can reassure him.
    The one thing that the hon. Members for West Dorset and for Lichfield did not mention was that, if one looks at the whole package, of which the measure is a very small part, the Government's proposals on the sector have been welcomed by business as a whole. The proposals are the result of a long period of consultation and have gone down well.
    The power to remove companies is necessary, as customs currently has powers to refuse applications to groups on revenue protection grounds, but no powers to remove companies when the same revenue concerns arise involving an existing group member. The inability of customs to remove companies from groups facilitates abuse and can lead to distortions of competition. Anyone who believes that having a level playing field is good will not support the amendment.
    Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Roche: I am anxious to make a little progress. I want to say something that might help the hon. Gentleman. I will be nice to him, so will he take his seat for a moment?
    I am sure that it is not the intention of those who have tabled the amendment to facilitate abuse, especially in light of the successive years of legislation—the hon. Member for West Dorset was generous enough to say, unlike some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, that Conservative Governments have gone down exactly the

    917
    same route—that have been necessary to counter some of the abuse of what is an important business facilitation measure. That includes legislation that was passed by the Opposition when they were in power.
    Members who have read the Hansard—the hon. Member for West Dorset has already referred to it—of the Standing Committee debate will know that the criterion in the amendment is the same criterion that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General said would be applied by customs to all the revenue protection powers in the clause.
    Mr. Letwin: Now the hon. Lady is absolutely right. All we are trying to do is to enshrine in law what her colleague said would be a matter of practice. How can she possibly object to that? Is not that the ultimate reasonable activity of Parliament—to enshrine in law what is regarded as reasonable practice?
    Mrs. Roche: I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious about the matter, but, if he contains himself for a little longer, I will deal with that.
    The amendment seeks to set that criterion in law in respect of the new powers to remove companies from groups for the protection of revenue, but the amendment is defective. I have had to take Conservative Members to task before when they have tabled amendments that are technically defective because my right hon. and hon. Friends might be tempted by such amendments, which would put them on a path that could not be said to be one of righteousness. There is no mention of the approach that should be taken over refusing applications on the same grounds. Rather than creating more certainty for business, this limited amendment would create more uncertainty and reintroduce distortions—precisely what the Bill is meant to overcome.
    Although the amendment may be superficially attractive, when we look at its detail, it raises more questions than it solves. Customs will apply, as it always does, those good principles, but there are sound—
    Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Roche: No, I will not.
    There are sound reasons why those principles should not be defined in law. That is why the Paymaster General stated in the Standing Committee that she had asked customs to provide a business brief. Tomorrow, that brief will be published and placed in the Library. It will state the circumstances in which all the revenue protection powers in schedule 2 are likely to be used, thereby providing assurance to business that customs will not use revenue protection powers merely to raise revenue.
    9.45 pm
    Amendment No. 1 deals with a very important matter. I am sorry that, today, Opposition Members have not sought to talk—as they were generous enough to do in Committee—about the great benefits for business that the Bill will provide.
    Amendment No. 1 would only confuse the issue, and I urge the House to reject it.
    Amendment negatived.

  Schedule 5

    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT AND DEVOLVED ASSEMBLIES: EXEMPTIONS AND RELIEFS
    Amendment made: No. 25, in page 112, line 37, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 38 and insert 'and—

    (a) any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg, or

    (b) the national parliament of another member State.".'.—[Mrs. Roche.]

  Schedule 20

    REPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 35, in page 175, line 26, at end insert—

    '(2) BUSINESS ASSETS: ROLL-OVER RELIEF

    Chapter

    Short title

    Extent of repeal

    1992 c. 12.

    The Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

    Section 193.

    This repeal has effect in accordance with section (Business assets: roll-over relief)(2) of this Act.'.—[Mrs. Roche.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.46 pm
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Finance Bill reforms and strengthens the British economy by rewarding work, enterprise and families. Quite rightly, it has been subjected to detailed scrutiny, both on Report and in Committee. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom are in the Chamber, who contributed to our consideration of the Bill in Committee. I particularly thank my hon. Friends for the excellence of their work on the Bill, but also thank Opposition Members for their work—not least because it has given us some profound insights into where they stand on so many key issues of tax policy, spending policy and economic policy.
    The Bill helps to lock in the economic stability that the Government have been creating since we entered office, and introduces new measures to improve—for the long term—the productivity and performance of the British economy. The Bill contains measures to improve investment, to strengthen links between business and education, and to improve the tax position of growing firms.
    The Bill's measures give Britain the lowest rates of company taxation in our history. Indeed, the measures give us the lowest tax rates of any major industrialised country anywhere in the world. Moreover, those rates will not apply for only one year, but will remain at that level, or below, for the remainder of this Parliament. They are evidence of the Government's determination to make Britain the very best place for businesses to invest, and the very best place for businesses to do business.
    The Finance Bill helps put in place the building blocks not only for an enterprise economy, but for a fair society—the current Government, unlike the previous one, recognise that the two go together. In our two previous Budgets, we helped people move from welfare

    919
    to work. We are now taking that fundamental reform a step further, by ensuring that, when people go into work, it pays.
    For years, successive Governments have taken too much tax from those who work hard but are by no means wealthy. All too often, the working poor have paid the price for that failure. Some people have faced marginal tax rates of as much as 100 per cent. or more when trying simply to move off benefit and into work.
    The Finance Bill, with the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, begins to end the perverse incentives that have encouraged benefit dependency. We do so in recognition, first, that work is the best way out of poverty; and, secondly, that—for too many people, for far too long—financial uncertainty has acted as a real barrier.
    The Bill ensures that we now have the lowest starting income tax rate in 35 years. Next year, we will have the lowest basic rate of income tax in some 70 years. On any count, those are major reforms to the tax system. They will make working families better off. They will cut the tax burden on the average family to below 20 per cent. for the first time in more than 20 years.
    In contrast to the practice of the Conservative party when it was in power, those tax cuts honour the pledges that we made at the last election. [Interruption.] Before the shadow Chancellor starts to chunter too much, I say to him that the cuts are a reminder—if reminder were needed—that, while this Government keep our tax promises, the previous Government failed to do keep theirs. We said that we would cut VAT on fuel and that we would introduce a 10p rate of income tax. We have done so.
    We said that we would do something else—we promised more support for families. This Finance Bill delivers that promise. The new children's tax credit will provide more help to those who need it most, when they need it most—families bringing up children. By the end of this Parliament, we will be spending £6 billion more on children than we were at the beginning. In total, as a result of the measures that we have taken to date, some 700,000 children will be lifted out of poverty.
    All those measures are opposed by the Conservative party. Frankly, the Opposition have done the House and the country a favour during the passage of the Bill. They have helped put clear blue water between us and them. While this Labour Government's policies are helping the poorest families in the land, it is now clear from the passage of the Bill that the Tories' policies would penalise the poorest families in the land.
    The Tories' pledge to abolish the working families tax credit would land 1.5 million families—many of them the poorest in the land—with an extra £24 a week on their tax bills. Their opposition to the minimum wage, to the 10p starting rate of income tax and to the children's tax credit would mean less help for hard-working families, middle and low income alike.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Where in the Labour manifesto did it say that the Labour Government would raise taxes to the tune of £40 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament? Where did it say that
    920
    newly retired couples who will reach the age of 65 after next April will lose £500 of income that they had expected to have at retirement?
    Mr. Milburn: I will come to that £40 billion in a moment because the hon. Gentleman, before he was moved on, helped contribute to the £40 billion black hole in the Tories' spending plans. The Bill and previous measures will help to cut taxes and will ensure that tax plans for this year, next year and the year after are all lower than if the Conservative party had been returned to power at the last general election.
    By reversing policies that are designed to make work pay, the Opposition would reinvent the spiral of benefit dependency that they now say they want to eradicate. However, the Opposition have revealed something else, too, during the passage of the Bill. They have revealed that they cannot be trusted with our country's public finances or with our country's key public services.
    In the last two years, the state of the public finances has been transformed. We have cut public sector borrowing by some £32 billion. The approach that we have taken has been prudent and disciplined, and this Finance Bill continues that process. It locks in the stability that we have been creating by keeping the public finances under control.
    Over the next five years, there will be a current budget surplus of £34 billion. The Government are now living within our means, and yet we have been able to invest extra money in our key public services—an extra £40 billion for our schools and hospitals alone over the next three years.
    Mr. Mauderose—
    Mr. Milburn: When the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box, perhaps he will say how he intends to match those plans.
    Mr. Maude: I shall say for the umpteenth time that we support those increases in health and education spending. However, let the Chief Secretary answer this. Before the last election, the Prime Minister said in clear terms that Labour had no plans to increase taxes at all. What does the Chief Secretary think that he meant by that?
    Mr. Milburn: What we said before the general election is contained in our manifesto. We said that we would not increase income tax rates, and we have not; indeed, we have reduced them. We said that we would not extend VAT to children's clothes, food, books and newspapers and public transport fares, and we have not. We said that we would introduce a 10p rate of income tax, and we have.
    If the shadow Chancellor wants to compare and contrast the tax promises that we made at the general election with those that his party manifesto made at the 1992 election, I am happy to go through that charade. He might have come to the Dispatch Box and explained how it is that one moment he describes our spending plans as reckless—and the Leader of the Opposition accuses my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of embarking on a spending spree—and the next he says that he wants to match our spending on health and education.

    921
    It is no good willing the end without being prepared to will the means. The Conservatives have failed to put their money where their mouth is. Worse, they have tabled proposals that would take money away from the very services that they say they support.
    Mr. Maude: As the Chief Secretary seems unwilling to defend the Prime Minister on his clear statement before the general election, will he say what he understood the Prime Minister to mean when he said just after the election that the Government would cut social security bills? Did he believe that the Prime Minister meant that he would increase those bills by £38 billion?
    Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of what has happened under this Government as compared to what happened under the previous Government. He must know that social security spending is rising at half the rate under this Government, so we will take no lectures from him.
    During our proceedings on the Bill, the Conservative party tabled amendments that would rob the public purse of almost £25 billion over the next three years and Conservative amendments to last year's Finance Bill would add another £15 billion to that total. [Interruption.] If the shadow Chancellor would stop chuntering and start listening, he might learn something. His party lost the trust of the British people at the general election because it broke its promises and it continues to make promises that it cannot keep.
    Our proceedings have highlighted all too clearly the contrast between the Government and the Opposition: £40 billion extra for our key public services with the Government or £40 billion less with the Conservatives; more help for families with the Government or less with the Opposition; more help to get people into work and to help them to stay there with the Government or less for both with the Conservatives; economic stability with the Government or a return to stop-go, boom-bust with the Conservatives.
    We have seen that today's Conservative party is not only out of touch and out of date but out of the political mainstream; it is no wonder that people say that it is the most extreme in living memory. The Bill will help to build a stronger economic future for our country and ensure that there is opportunity for the many and not only the few. It provides the right incentives for people to work and for business to invest. In short, it offers a better deal for both British business and the British people. It deserves the support of the House.
    9.59 pm
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In March, the Chancellor introduced a tax-raising Budget, followed in short order by a tax-raising Finance Bill. Even more recently, we have been faced with a tax-raising Report stage. Unusually—it is certainly unprecedented in my experience—the Government only yesterday tabled eight additional money resolutions, each of which was, by definition, tax-raising. We have had a series of Budgets, each of them tax-raising, and a series of provisions this year whose object has also been to raise taxation.
    922
    This is a bad Bill. However, in the debates during its progress through the House, we have managed to puncture the Chancellor's self-satisfied arrogance and complacency. Instead of strengthening the British economy, as the Chief Secretary claimed, he has put at risk the golden economic legacy that he inherited from the previous Conservative Government at the general election.
    The Chief Secretary made the truly remarkable claim that social security expenditure was rising less sharply now than under the previous Government. That is flatly untrue, as statistics from the ever-helpful House of Commons Library show. In the three years to 1998–99—in other words, the Conservative Government's last year of office and the years for which Conservative planning was taken over by the Labour Government—social security spending fell by 0.2 per cent. per year, in real terms. Conversely, the Library figures show that, from 1998–99 onwards, when the Labour Government have been on their own, social security spending is set to rise by 3.2 per cent. each year, in real terms.
    That is a graphic illustration of how the Government have turned a satisfactory plateau of real-terms social security expenditure into a steep rise. That is where the money is being spent. Instead of taking money from the social security budget and spending it on other desirable areas of social expenditure, the Government are wasting it on an acceleration of social security expenditure. That is documented in the figures that I have given.
    Mr. Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. I am correcting the facts and figures misrepresented to the House only a few moments ago by the Chief Secretary.
    The Bill, and the Budget before it, contain some gimmicky handouts. Interestingly, however, some of the handouts announced in the Budget speech are not to be found in the Bill. For example, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor proudly announced research and development tax credits. Business looked forward to them, but the Bill says nothing about them. The proposal is a fraud. Conversely, the Bill contains some tax increases that were not announced in the Budget speech. That is all so appropriate for a stealth-tax Government.
    On Budget day, the Government published a leaflet called "Budget '99", which purports to be a summary of the Budget measures. In the section entitled "Raising Productivity", the research and development tax credit is said to be an item that will be "delivered" in the 1999 Budget. Yet, as I have explained, it was not delivered, in either the Budget or the Bill.
    The leaflet does not mention something that is in the Bill—the sharp and damaging increase in stamp duty. That is set to raise £300 million a year, mostly from the business sector. The research and development tax credit may come into effect in the year 2001, and will benefit business by a maximum of £100 million.
    The leaflet is nothing short of state-sponsored propaganda. It is biased, partial and a disgrace. The taxpayer was expected to finance a leaflet—at a cost of more than £100,000—that gives a distorted and misleading account of the Budget measures.

    923
    The Finance Bill has been criticised for making the system more complicated. Every Finance Bill introduces more rates, more tax bands and more complex relief. Last year, the capital gains tax system—again unreformed this year—set up all sorts of perverse incentives, additional rates and multiple allowances. The Government say that they are trying to make the tax system simpler to aid self-assessment, but it is becoming more difficult for individual taxpayers and more expensive for businesses. The Government have begun a regulation drive to make everything more complicated and expensive, and that—just as surely as tax increases—is undermining the competitiveness of the British economy.
    The Bill abolished married couples allowance, but there was another trick. The Chancellor announced that, although the allowance was being abolished, it would be replaced by children's tax credit. The trick is that married couples allowance is abolished immediately, saving the Government over £1.5 billion a year, but children's tax credit will not come in until 2001, and will cost less than the amount saved.
    We have debated fuel duties again today, so I shall say only that the Government no longer seriously deny the damage to the road haulage industry. Fuel represents a third of the industry's running costs, and making our fuel the most expensive in Europe obviously makes the industry uncompetitive in Europe. Road haulage, by definition a mobile industry, will lose out in the single market. Those blindingly obvious truths are beginning to register with the Government, but it is too late for many in the haulage industry who have already suffered, and too late for British manufacturing industry, which has been made uncompetitive. I hope that it is not too late to persuade the Government to end the damaging fuel escalator in next year's Budget.
    Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Davies: Having mentioned stealth tax, would you agree that, when you add up the reversal of your policy—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
    Mr. Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman adds up the effect of his policies on the fuel escalator, elimination of the tobacco escalator and the married couples allowance, does he not find that the Conservative party will offer the electorate a bill amounting to tens of billions of pounds at the next election? How will he pay it?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he is always helpful. He has given me the chance to state that we are trying to chip away at the extra taxes that the Government are levying on British industry and individual taxpayers in defiance of their manifesto and election promises. The hon. Gentleman should thank us for trying to return the Government to the platform on which he was elected.
    On savings, the Government do not seem to understand that it is no good exhorting people to save more, or trying to get people off welfare and on to depending on their
    924
    own savings, if savings are being made more expensive and less attractive. They have done it in every Budget since the general election. In the first one, they carried out a £5 billion a year raid on pension funds. No one will trust the Government on pensions again.
    Then we had the quite unnecessary vandalism against personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts—two successful and established savings vehicles that were trusted by the saving public. The Government introduced the wholly unknown, untried and untested individual savings accounts, with which they are having so much difficulty. We confidently expect that they will in due course produce amendments to try to retrieve the situation. Why put the saving public to all the expense and difficulty of changing from a product that they understand to one that they do not?
    In this Finance Bill, the l0p starting rate of income tax was announced. However, the Government deliberately did not make it applicable to savings. What sort of a message does that send? Do not bother to save; the Labour Government do not believe that it is necessary.
    Exactly the same is true of the continuing scandal over dividend tax credits and the Government's failure to repay those credits, or an equivalent sum, to non-taxpayers. They have compensated everyone else—the better off—for the withdrawal of dividend tax credits, but despite being asked, they have deliberately refused to compensate the poorest non-tax paying savers. They are operating a sort of means test. They have looked after the better-off savers, but they are refusing to compensate the poorest category of saver—those who are below the tax threshold. That is a continuing scandal and it goes some way to explain why the Government are losing touch with their traditional supporters and why those ex-supporters have been making known their views in the recent local government and European elections. It is not surprising that the savings ratio has fallen and continues to fall.
    Before I conclude, I must touch on another extraordinary fact that we unearthed from the Government despite all their efforts to keep the information to themselves: the fact that at least three of the provisions in the Bill may be incompatible with the requirements of the European Union and may in due course have to be withdrawn or repealed. One such provision is the measure to help the film industry. The second is the 40 per cent. first-year allowance for small and medium-sized companies and the third is the 100 per cent. first year allowance for small and medium-sized companies in Northern Ireland.
    We have discovered that each of those measures, which were all introduced by the Government, are under investigation by the European Union business tax committee, which is chaired by the Paymaster General. We did not know that when we debated those measures in Committee. The Government did not tell us that they might all have to be withdrawn if that committee concludes that they represent unfair tax competition. They may have to be repealed because that committee is not advisory but mandatory. The Government have voluntarily agreed in advance to honour its conclusions. In a debate in Committee in November 1997, the Paymaster General said that, if the Government agreed to the code of conduct on unfair tax competition in Europe, they would honour the committee's conclusions and abide by its recommendations.

    925
    So, there we have it. The House of Commons and this Chamber this evening may think that they are regulating tax matters on which they are sovereign, but I am afraid that that is no longer the case. The Government have admitted—the information had to be extracted from them—that at least three of the measures that we are being invited to pass this evening are vulnerable to being withdrawn because of the conclusions of a European Union committee. If that is not the case, the Government still have time to reassure us to the contrary. When we debated the matter yesterday, they not only gave us no assurances on that, but they appeared to confirm that it was indeed the case.
    A recent example is provided by the debate on amendment No. 31, introduced by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The House is being asked to give the Government authority to spend unspecified amounts, during an unspecified period, on unspecified items in respect of the national changeover plan. That is a disgrace, and, in her response to that debate, the Economic Secretary made matters worse by refusing to give the House the details that it reasonably requires.
    In conclusion, the Bill remains a bad Bill; it is a tax-raising and stealth-taxing Bill. It is interfering and damaging; we shall vote against it.
    10.16 pm
    Mr. Edward Davey: Sometimes our debates generate a great deal of heat, and sometimes they shed a great deal of light. Unfortunately, the former is true of this Third Reading debate. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), failed to mention the two most historic tax changes in the Bill. Those truly historic changes are the abolition of mortgage interest tax relief—[Interruption.]—and of the married couples allowance. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) cheers the abolition of mortgage interest tax relief; he is right to do so. That relief needed to be abolished, and I am surprised that the Chief Secretary failed to mention it in his speech.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davey: If I must.
    Mr. Davies: Can it be true that the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats has written his speech on Third Reading on the back of an envelope?
    Mr. Davey: Although the hon. Gentleman may need to print out the full text of his own speeches, some of us have only a few notes—to which we often do not even need to refer.
    I was making a rather more serious point: there are some major tax changes in the Finance Bill, which one would have thought the Chief Secretary would mention. Perhaps he is rather embarrassed by them, and is not prepared to advocate them to the public—therein lies the truth. Perhaps the shadow Chief Secretary failed to mention them because he realises that the Conservative
    926
    Government began those reforms. He does not want to admit that the measures are the logical conclusion of Conservative tax policies.
    The Liberal Democrats support those two historic tax changes. However, we do not support the way in which the money freed by the changes has been spent. The Government have spent the money in several ways, none of which will promote full social justice and fairness—as should have been done. They have followed the Tory route of cutting marginal tax rates. In taking that approach, they are making the same mistakes as the Tory Government made in the past; they are not targeting those freed-up resources on the working poor. That is an historic mistake.
    The l0p tax rate will not help the poorest in society; it will be worth just as much to those on higher incomes. We could have taken hundreds of thousands of the working poor out of tax altogether, if the money saved by abolishing mortgage interest tax relief and the married couples tax allowance had been used to raise personal allowances. The Government failed to do that.
    There was an extremely Tory policy in the Budget: cutting the marginal rate of income tax by a penny in the pound. That money could have been spent on public services; we could have improved our health and education services, using the money squandered by the Government in an unnecessary tax cut. Alternatively, the money could have been used to raise personal allowances. Unfortunately, the Government failed to take that opportunity. The Finance Bill fails to promote social justice.
    To be fair to the Government, on Report, there were one or two concessions—on buses, bicycles and employee share ownership. We welcome that and we are grateful that constructive opposition occasionally bears fruit. Indeed, in Committee, we managed to delete the word "other" from one schedule. That clarified the law, for which I am sure the tax lawyers outside this place will be grateful.
    However, those minor improvements have not improved the fundamental quality of the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Wells said, the Bill increases the complexity of the tax system. An allowance and a relief have been abolished, but in their place has come a l0p tax rate, which creates huge complexities because it means that we now have a multiplicity of tax rates on different sorts of income. People filling in their self-assessment tax returns will suffer headaches as they try to work it all out; many of them will have to pay hundreds of pounds for professional advice. As we enter an era in which we ask the average citizen to fill out a tax return, we ought to make the tax system more simple, especially for elderly people. As the Financial Secretary will recall, we debated that point early this morning.
    Not only does the Bill fail the test of improving the tax system by promoting simplicity: it fails to enhance the fairness of the tax system. The Chief Secretary said that fairness was the Government's aim and that, through the working families tax credit and the 10p rate, they were achieving that. However, there are many other ways in which they could have achieved it, specifically, by raising personal allowances. In next year's Budget, the Liberal Democrats want a massive increase in personal income allowances that takes hundreds of thousands—even millions—of people out of the tax system altogether. It is

    927
    nonsense that people on low earnings pay income tax. We should return to a fairer tax system that does not trouble many low income earners with the attentions of the Inland Revenue. I hope that the Government will learn the error of their ways and that next year we will have a Finance Bill that increases simplicity and promotes fairness.
    10.22 pm
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall concentrate on only one clause—clause 27—and the children's tax credit. In his Budget speech this year, the Chancellor made much of fairness. When introducing the children's tax credit, he said:
    "In the Budget last year, I set down the two principles that govern my approach: we must substantially increase support for families with children and we must do so in the fairest way. It is in fulfilment of those two principles that the children's tax credit will be tapered away for the higher-earning family where there is a top-rate taxpayer."—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 183.]
    Fair enough—if the Chancellor intends to introduce a new children's tax credit in a fair way, there is nothing wrong with that. However, if we look at the Finance Bill, we find that that is not going to happen: the way in which the tax credit is to be implemented is not fair.
    A couple in which one partner stays at home to look after the children or an elderly or dependent relative will find that their children's tax credit starts to taper away once the earnings of the partner in work exceed £32,000 a year, and that once that partner's earnings exceed £38,000 a year, no credit will be due. At first sight, that might appear to be perfectly fair—after all, we want to concentrate resources on those who are most in need. However, it is not fair, because a couple in which both partners are in paid work will continue to draw the credit in full until their joint income exceeds £64,000 a year, if each of them earns broadly the same amount as the other and they are not higher-rate taxpayers. What is fair about a system that pays a credit in full to one couple who together earn £64,000 a year, but withdraws it completely from another couple whose income is only £38,000 a year? I cannot perceive the fairness in that.
    The children's tax credit is not to be introduced until April 2001. We cannot change this year's Finance Bill, because it is too late, so, looking ahead to 2001, my plea to Treasury Ministers is that they should reconsider that single aspect of the Bill and try to ensure that there is greater fairness in the system. All I am asking is that the Government treat each couple fairly. Surely, as a matter of principle, the Government should allow couples if they so wish—there is no compulsion—to live their lives in the way in which they want to. The Government should allow couples to pool their income and allowances for the purposes of calculating their entitlement to credit. That seems entirely fair.
    In that case, the make-up of couples' incomes would be immaterial. It would make no difference whether it was wholly earned by one partner or earned by both—or in what proportion it was split between them. They are a couple, living together and pooling their earnings. If they choose to live their life in a certain way, why should they be penalised so heavily by the state? That is unfair and cannot be just. All couples should be given the opportunity to be treated exactly the same.
    There is an even stronger case for my argument. The Government cannot reasonably argue that couples with higher incomes should not be given the opportunity to
    928
    pool their incomes for the purposes of CTC, since at the very same time under the working families tax credit, they are requiring people at the bottom end of the income scale to disclose to each other their incomes, savings and other details.
    The CTC is seen by the Government as part of the benefits system. It is designed to help couples with children. In effect, it is a benefit, although it is termed as a tax credit. Indeed, it was introduced instead of further increasing child benefit. The Government are also considering integrating the CTC with the child premiums in income support and the working families tax credit. All that is fair enough; I do not have any argument with any of it. Does it not show that the Government view the children's tax credit as part of the benefit system?
    We know that the basic unit in the benefits system is not the individual but the family—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) must not keep passing to and fro in front of hon. Members who are addressing the House.
    Mr. Leigh: I am sure that the Whip was trying to be helpful.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not the point. It should not be done.
    Mr. Leigh: If the benefits system views the family as a unit, and the CTC is in effect a benefit, why cannot it be treated as such?
    Are we to try to build a society that is fair, allows couples to live their lives and does not penalise a couple in which a wife, or possibly a husband, wants—I stress that there is no compulsion—to stay at home to look after the children? Such penalties are unfair and I plead with those on the Treasury Bench to reconsider.
    10.28 pm
    Mr. Fabricant: This Finance Bill and the Budget statement are typified by the leaflet that was produced by the Treasury at a cost of more than £100,000 and distributed to more than 1.5 million people. This little leaflet is a distortion of the truth; the entire Finance Bill is a distortion of the truth.
    The Budget statement made on the day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave all the good news and none of the bad news. It took journalists at least three or four days to read the Finance Bill and all the attendant literature in order to extract the truth. This has been one of the most dishonest Finance Bills before Parliament this century.
    The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have claimed that this Bill would reduce taxes. Yet the House of Commons Library, after detailed analysis, stated unequivocally that this Budget will raise £40.7 billion of extra funds from taxpayers. That figure is equivalent to £1,500 per taxpayer over the course of this Parliament. I am astonished that during the proceedings on the Finance Bill and at Treasury questions, Ministers have consistently denied that. At the end of the day, they are claiming that they are right and the independent

    929
    House of Commons Library is wrong. The Labour party is endeavouring to fiddle the figures, and that must be wrong.
    Labour claims that it is in favour of hard-working families, but the Finance Bill has hit families by scrapping the married couples allowance. The abolition of the tax relief on mortgage payments will cost home owners more than £200 a year, and that is wrong.
    The Budget has resulted in Labour taxing motorists off the road. We now have the highest petrol charges in Europe. The Government trumpet that they are in favour of green policies and have introduced the tax break of lower vehicle excise duty for vehicles below 1100 cc, but that is a joke. We all know that even a Fiat Punto's engine is over 1100 cc. That makes a mockery of all the Government's claims. Of course, we do not expect the Labour party to know about such matters. We all know that the Deputy Prime Minister owns two Jaguars, so what would he know about Fiat Puntos?
    The Chief Secretary claimed that 10p was the lowest rate of tax, but we know that scrapping the 20p income tax band will result in a tax rise of £60 a year for most people. That is yet another distortion.
    In conclusion, this Budget has been driven solely by the Government's desire to disguise the fact that they are raising taxes by stealth and by their desire to win the next election for the Labour party, but the Government underestimate the electorate if they think that they will be fooled indefinitely. The Finance Bill destroys the golden legacy inherited from the previous Government and sows the seeds of economic decline.
    10.33 pm
    Mr. Loughton: If, after the long haul on this Finance Bill, there is one word that encapsulates what the Bill is all about, that word is stealth. Uncharacteristically, it was the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) who put his finger on that. This is the stealth tax Budget.
    Throughout the proceedings on the Finance Bill, including this evening's debates, Ministers have boasted of the headline rates of income tax and corporation tax. Never once have they tackled the most important issue of the overall tax burden. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) rightly pointed out, the Library explicitly said that the overall tax burden—not the tax rates—of the Government's three Budgets will, over the lifetime of this Parliament, add £40.7 billion to the tax bill. According to the president of the CBI, there will be £20 billion of extra taxes on industry alone. That is from a Government who, in opposition, had no plans to raise taxes.
    The British people are wising up to taxation by stealth. The fuel duty and so-called environmental taxes are the biggest red herring, painted green, in the Finance Bill. As we heard earlier, the Bill will destroy large swathes of this country's freight industry. The measures are counterproductive in terms of the revenue coming into the Treasury and in their effect on the environment. It took a great deal of questioning and requestioning to drag out, at long last, the admission from the Economic Secretary that the price of fuel under the Labour Government has increased by 13p per litre in excise duty. People who live in the country will feel the brunt of that. The disabled
    930
    who rely on their vehicles will also feel the brunt of that. Those who rely on community bus transport, who have no exemption from this tax, will feel the brunt of the increase in excise duty more than anyone else, through no fault of their own.
    Environmental measures in the Budget that we applaud, like the 29 per cent. reduction in local gas charges, pale into insignificance without the kick-start that is needed through the capital tax reliefs for which we called. As a result, the reduction becomes meaningless.
    The public are waking up to the highest fuel duty in Europe. It is all the making of the Government, when 85 per cent. of the cost of a litre or gallon of fuel is down to tax as per Government instructions in the Bill.
    There is the stealth tax of the 10p rate of which we learn with great fanfares while nothing is said about the 20p rate that will be abolished, to be increased to 23p. There is stealth in that the 10 per cent. rate does not apply to people's savings. There is the stealth of the fact that the married couples' tax allowance is to be abolished, to be replaced two years later by the children's tax credit, which is no good if one's children happen to be older than 14. That is no good for prospective pensioners born after a certain date.
    With the Finance Bill, the Government are all about giving with one hand with great fanfares and taking by stealth with the other. We have heard this evening about the biggest black hole of them all. There will be unlimited, unaccounted for and unaudited expenditure on the euro handover plan. So much power is being delegated through the Bill to secondary legislation, let alone what may be delegated to the superior powers of the code of conduct group, about which we hear so little.
    This is government by stealth. It is government by presentation and headline rather than by practical implications and detail. It is a thoroughly dishonest Budget from a Government who are obsessed by spin, and we should vote against it.
    10.37 pm
    Mr. Quentin Davies: We have had some very effective contributions in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke extremely persuasively about the stealth tax policy of the Government. That is the hallmark of the Government, of the Budget and of the Finance Bill, which I hope the House will shortly be rejecting.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) spoke with his usual vigour about how disingenuous the presentation of fiscal and economic policy has become under the Government. The Budget speech is no longer a serious occasion when the light and the shade, the pluses and the minuses are presented. All the unpleasant news is either entirely passed over in silence or is hidden with a few glib phrases supplied by a spin doctor from Millbank. Such has been the decline in our proceedings and in the standards of parliamentary presentation that the Government have sadly brought about.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke extremely well about the children's tax credit. He is a recognised authority in this country on social security matters. I add only that the children's tax credit brings with it the extremely negative historic

    931
    achievement in our tax policy that it destroys the principle of independent taxation. That principle was introduced under a Conservative Administration in the 1980s by Lord Lawson, as he now is. That great achievement is the pillar of a fair and just tax system in a modern society. It is now being destroyed as a by-product of this ill-thought-through policy.
    The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made a good speech, but confirmed that the Liberals are to the left even of the Labour party. They are the highest tax-raising party in the country. They are welcome to that position, and I hope that they enjoy it.
    The most striking feature of the debate this evening was not the effective and often interesting speeches to which I referred, but the complete silence from the Government Benches. The most revealing—because it is entirely objective—aspect of the debate has been the utter failure of the Government to generate the slightest enthusiasm among their own supporters for their taxation measures and fiscal policy.
    I remember that when I entered the House in the 1980s, I looked forward to intervening from the Back Benches in support of the momentous Budgets of the time. I was proud to do so. Not a single hon. Lady or hon. Gentleman spoke this evening from the Government Back Benches, and my goodness, we all know that there are far too many hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen on those Benches. We shall have to wait a couple of years to get rid of most of them. Not a single one could muster the slightest enthusiasm for the Government's proposals. Many of them must have had the greatest difficulty in hiding their deep embarrassment.
    The cracks are appearing in the apparently bright facade of the new Labour Government. They are appearing in the areas of tax policy and economic management as much as, or more than, in any other field. Let us consider the growing rift in public expenditure between the Government's promises, to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor rightly referred—promises to spend more money on desirable public services such as health and education—and their total failure to deliver the other half of that commitment: to make savings in social security expenditure.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunity to take part in the debate. He knows that I like taking interventions, including those from him, and I often take them, but it is a pretty poor show that Labour could not muster a single speaker tonight. Now, because Labour Members are so pained by my strictures, they put up the hon. Gentleman to try at the last minute—and after time—to remedy the obvious deficiency of the parliamentary Labour party in the debate. That will not wash. The hon. Gentleman will have to do better next time and get in during the debate, as he could so easily have done.
    If a rift is appearing in the Government's public expenditure policies and the facade of new Labour, that facade is crumbling to dust on the revenue side of the Government's tax policies. We all know that their behaviour has been characterised by a series of stealth taxes. They started right away with the dividend tax
    932
    credit. We have lost count, but I am sure that someone in Conservative central office is keeping a record—he or she must be employed full-time adding the number of stealth taxes introduced by the Government.
    Several of those stealth taxes were revealed in this evening's debate, not least that nasty little trick of bringing to an end the married couples allowance one year, then waiting a full year before introducing its supposed replacement, the children's tax credit, thereby taking hundreds of pounds surreptitiously out of families' pockets. What a sickening thing to do, when the Government continue with their rhetoric about supporting the family. They are doing no such thing. They are making an entirely cynical and opportunistic attempt to take money out of households with children while pretending to do nothing of the kind.
    Many Government policies are in shreds.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: I have already explained why I will not—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but if Labour Members lack either the courage or the conviction to take part in debates on these important budgetary matters, and if they do not have a good word to say about the Finance Bill or the Government's tax proposals, I am afraid that I shall rub it in by deliberately not taking interventions from them. As the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) knows, I am making an exception by not taking interventions, but tonight's events have been striking. Although no hon. Member will have missed the significance of the silence of Labour Members on the Finance Bill, it is important that the public realise what is going on and how little conviction Government policy carries even among Labour Back Benchers.
    The Government's taxation policies are already unravelling and many are in shreds. Only pigheaded obstinacy—or a desperate desire to save face at any price, including the national interest—is holding up the concessions that everybody knows are required and must be delivered. The Opposition have pressed for them during proceedings on the Bill. We must have a change in the annuity rule to get rid of the 75-year rule so that people's pension savings are not thrown away on an annuity that will accrue hardly more interest than that which they would receive from putting their money on deposit or in the gilt market. We must allow draw-down indefinitely and the Government must think again about our proposal to abolish the 75-year rule.
    The situation in respect of personal equity plans and individual savings accounts has made the Government a laughing stock in every section of our society that follows financial matters. Every independent financial adviser in this country would endorse that. The Government came to power and destructively decided to get rid of extremely successful policies only to replace them with a colossal failure. The sooner they recognise that, and get rid of the mini ISAs in particular, the better.
    As my hon. Friends have said so clearly throughout proceedings on the Bill, the Government have come to the end of the road on the fuel duty escalator as well. Increasing the rate to 6 per cent. was extremely foolish and unsustainable, and the escalator must go. Above all, they have come to the point at which they can no longer

    933
    defend what they are doing on personal tax. I made that point yesterday, and it is going to be made again tonight, but we have had not a single response.
    What is the justification for taking hundreds of pounds out of the pocket of someone who has only £5,000 a year to live on? Last night, I referred to a case involving someone who had £1,000 taken out of his pocket and he has only £4,000 a year to live on because people below the income tax threshold are being made to pay tax on their dividend income. What is the justification for introducing a 10 per cent. lower rate of tax and not applying it to savings income? There is no justification in terms of economics or of basic good or evil. Nor is there a common-sense justification for what the Government are doing. They must think again, and it is obvious that their Back-Bench supporters think that they should do so as well.
    10.49 pm
    Mrs. Roche: After that performance, let me assure the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that I managed to hear his every word. I remember his record on Finance Bills from when I was in opposition, and it was very helpful to us. Given his views on Europe, he will continue to be of use to us.
    I thank my hon. Friends on the Back Benches who so ably supported us and spoke so frequently in Committee—unlike Conservative Members, who, during their years in power, never spoke on Bills.
    I want to correct a few of the comments made by Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) alleged that social security spending is out of control. How wrong can he be? The forecast of real growth is 1.9 per cent. a year over this Parliament, compared with 4.1 per cent. during the previous Parliament. The rate has halved, but we are still providing extra resources for the poorest in society. Once again, that is absolute proof that a Labour Government are much better managers of the economy.
    The right hon. Gentleman had the cheek to allege that savings were less attractive under a Labour Government. The real enemies of savers are instability and high inflation. The Government have no intention of returning to the sky-high inflation rates of the Tory Administration. The savings ratio fell to 3 per cent. in 1988 under the Tories, and we will not let them forget that.
    The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) poked fun at the 1100 cc cut-off for vehicle excise duty. He had the temerity to call it a joke. Drivers of 1.8 million cars will benefit from a £55 cut in the annual VED, and they will not regard it as a joke—and neither will members of the public in the hon. Gentleman's constituency when he goes into the Lobby tonight to vote against the Bill.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about the road haulage industry. The total tax burden on UK hauliers is lower than that in other major EU states, and is below the EU average. The Government have been able to achieve that because we support business. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may mock, but we remember what happened to businesses when they were in power. Under the previous Government, a business went bust every three minutes.
    The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to the child tax credit and the taper. The taper works according to an individual's income, so if one
    934
    person in a couple is a 40 per cent. taxpayer, the taper will bite, but if neither of them is, they can each earn about £32,000 and the taper will not bite. During that debate, there was a split between the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who made a plea to abolish independent taxation, and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford who, only a couple of minutes later, made an even more passionate plea to save it. That is why we like the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford.
    The Budget builds on a strong foundation of economic stability, advances a modern framework of efficient public services and encourages a dynamic Britain of enterprise and fairness. That is what the country said when people heard the Budget proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The Budget and the Finance Bill that implements it are about building a better Britain and a better economy for all our people. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 149.

    Division No. 226]

    [10.54 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Casale, Roger

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Caton, Martin

    Ainger, Nick

    Cawsey, Ian

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Chaytor, David

    Allen, Graham

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Clapham, Michael

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Ashton, Joe

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Austin, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clelland, David

    Barron, Kevin

    Coaker, Vernon

    Battle, John

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bayley, Hugh

    Coleman, lain

    Beard, Nigel

    Colman, Tony

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Connarty, Michael

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Corbett, Robin

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cryer, John (Homchurch)

    Benton, Joe

    Cummings, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Berry, Roger

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Best, Harold

    Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Betts, Clive

    Dalyell, Tam

    Blackman, Liz

    Darvill, Keith

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Boateng, Paul

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Denham, John

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Browne, Desmond

    Dobbin, Jim

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Burden, Richard

    Doran, Frank

    Burgon, Colin

    Dowd, Jim

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Drew, David

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Campbell—Savours, Dale

    Edwards, Huw

    Cann, Jamie

    Efford, Clive

    Caplin, Ivor

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    935

    Ennis, Jeff

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Laxton, Bob

    Fisher, Mark

    Lepper, David

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flint, Caroline

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Flynn, Paul

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Follett, Barbara

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Fyfe, Maria

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gapes, Mike

    Lock, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Love, Andrew

    Gerrard, Neil

    McAllion, John

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McCabe, Steve

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Godsiff, Roger

    Macdonald, Calum

    Goggins, Paul

    McDonnell, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McNulty, Tony

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Grogan, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Gunnell, John

    McWilliam, John

    Hain, Peter

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hanson, David

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Healey, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Maxton, John

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hesford, Stephen

    Meale, Alan

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Merron, Gillian

    Hinchliffe, David

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hoey, Kate

    Mitchell, Austin

    Home Robertson, John

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hope, Phil

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hurst, Alan

    Mudie, George

    Hutton, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Illsley, Eric

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pike, Peter L

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Plaskitt, James

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pond, Chris

    Khabra, Piara S

    Pope, Greg

    Kidney, David

    Pound, Stephen

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Purchase, Ken

    936

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Stringer, Graham

    Rammell, Bill

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Rapson, Syd

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Raynsford, Nick

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

    Temple—Morris, Peter

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Timms, Stephen

    Rooney, Terry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rowlands, Ted

    Todd, Mark

    Roy, Frank

    Trickett, Jon

    Ruane, Chris

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk),

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Salter, Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sawford, Phil

    Walley, Ms Joan,

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wareing, Robert N

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Watts, David

    Sheerman, Barry

    White, Brian

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Whitehead,Dr Alan

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Singh, Marsha

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wills, Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Wilson, Brian

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wise, Audrey

    Soley, Clive

    Wood, Mike

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Worthington, Tony

    Spellar, John

    Wray, James

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Stevenson, George

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mr. Keith Hill and

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mr. David Jamieson.

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Colvin, Michael

    Allan, Richard

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Amess, David

    Gran, James

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Baker, Norman

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Beggs, Roy

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Beth, Rt Hon A J

    Duncan, Alan

    Bercow, John

    Duncan Smith, lain

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Evans, Nigel

    Blunt, Crispin

    Faber, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Fallon, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Flight, Howard

    Brazier, Julian

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Breed, Colin

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Fraser, Christopher

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gale, Roger

    Burns, Simon

    Gamier, Edward

    Cash, William

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Gibb, Nick

    Chope, Christopher

    Gill, Christopher

    Clappison, James

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Collins, Tim

    Gorrie, Donald

    Gray, James

    937

    Green, Damian

    Rendel, David

    Greenway, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Hammond, Philip

    Ruffley, David

    Hancock, Mike

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Harvey, Nick

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Hawkins, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    Heald, Oliver

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

    Horam, John

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Spring, Richard

    Key, Robert

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Steen, Anthony

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Streeter, Gary

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Stunell, Andrew

    Lansley, Andrew

    Swayne, Desmond

    Leigh, Edward

    Syms, Robert

    Letwin, Oliver

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Livsey, Richard

    Thompson, William

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Loughton, Tim

    Townend, John

    Luff, Peter

    Tredinnick, David

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Tyler, Paul

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Madel, Sir David

    Viggers, Peter

    Malin, Hurnfrey

    Wardle, Charles

    Mates, Michael

    Webb, Steve

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Wells, Bowen

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Whittingdale, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Willetts, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wilshire, David

    Norman, Archie

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Page, Richard

    Paice, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Prior, David

    Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Religious Minorities (Middle East
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
11.6 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the important subject of toleration for religious minorities in the middle east, and shall deal with two particularly important issues affecting Iran: toleration of people of the Bahai faith, and toleration of the people of Iran's Jewish community. However, the subject goes wider than Iran, and I appreciate that there are also alarming reports of events in Iraq.
Before dealing with those specific concerns, however, I should like to make it clear that, when I speak of toleration, I am in no sense trying to lecture other countries or to assert that one set of religious or cultural values is superior to another. I should like simply to assert the importance of tolerating the religious beliefs of any minority in any society, whatever that society's political, cultural or religious basis.
In the United Kingdom, such toleration has been hard won over many centuries. Even today, sometimes, that toleration is not as complete as we should wish. I am certainly aware, not of persecution by the state, but of cases in which members of the Muslim community, for example, have suffered from harassment, intolerance and even physical attack, simply because of their religious faith. Therefore, I should like simply to assert the importance of religious toleration.
Many of my constituents are interested in the subject of religious tolerance. On a number of occasions, I have been approached by constituents of mine who are members of the Bahai faith. I know that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is anxious to mention the case of the Bahais, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) is also very interested in the Bahai community. When Bahais in my constituency have come to see me, I have been impressed both by their character and by their gentle faith. However, in the middle east, especially in Iran, Bahais have faced particular problems of persecution.
Since 1979, more than 200 Iranian Bahais have been killed.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are difficult decisions for Bahais, who often have had to keep quiet about their problems for fear of recriminations and reprisals against their families in Iran?
Mr. Clappison: Yes—my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which has been made also by Bahais to whom I have spoken. Her comment also underlines a report, in September 1998, by the special representative of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which detailed wide-ranging violations of the basic human rights of the Bahai community. The United Kingdom Foreign Minister who was dealing with the matter—the late Derek Fatchett, taking a characteristically robust stand in defending human rights—made appropriately robust statements on those violations. I am hoping for a similarly robust approach this evening.

939
I should like to draw particular attention to another immediate issue of persecution in Iran—the arrest of 13 members of the Jewish community in Iran on charges of espionage. This is a complex story. There have been changes in Iran since 1979, and the picture today is by no means a simple one. It must be said that members of the Jewish community in Iran are allowed to practice Judaism. They enjoy universal suffrage, and there is a representative of the Jewish community in the Iranian Parliament. There are elements in Iranian society and politics who take an enlightened view. It is important to give a balanced picture.
None the less, the background to this particular case is worrying. There has been persecution of members of the Jewish community in Iran since 1979 and the revolution in that country. At least 17 members of the Jewish community have been executed since then. Some of those executions have taken place recently—one in 1994 and two in 1996.
The 13 now under arrest are facing charges of espionage, a charge that carries the death penalty. There have been reports in some quarters that, at first, they faced charges relating to the sale of alcohol. Those are somewhat strange reports. Espionage has been linked to the consumption of alcohol in individual cases, but not to the sale of alcohol. Today, those people face the serious charge of espionage.
It is necessary to look at the character of those who have been charged with this serious offence to assess the credibility of the charge. That credibility is undermined when one takes into account that among the 13 people are rabbis and religious and community leaders—people of great standing in their community. That says something about the nature of the charges and the background to them. We should not give too much of a cloak of respectability to those charges.
I appreciate that those who are charged with the offences will face the Iranian judicial process, and I know that our Government have made certain representations about that process. We would want the people to receive fair and proper treatment under that process. However, I should like our concern to be expressed even more robustly, and I should like us to express concern at the fact that those people are being placed upon trial at all.
There has been a robust international reaction to the subject from France and Australia, among others. In Britain, Ministers are aware of the issues involved, and one Minister has met a delegation from the all-party inter-parliamentary council against anti-semitism. I appreciate that Ministers have taken an interest in that important subject.
I appreciate that this is a complex subject, and there is a complex background to it. I appreciate also that the Government will want a certain amount of flexibility in how they approach this matter. I urge the Minister to give an assurance that the Government will work in every possible way to protect the 13 people facing those most serious charges, and that they will do everything they possibly can, with their discretion, to bring about their release at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that our Government will assert the need for toleration of this religious minority, and others, in Iran and throughout the middle east.
11.14 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: First, I thank the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and the Minister for allowing me to contribute to the debate.
I am not a Bahai myself, but I have come to know and deeply respect their values and traditions. As the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, they have a gentle character which is distinct and defines the nature of their faith.
With 300,000 members, the Bahais are Iran's largest religious minority. Unlike the Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian minorities, they are not recognised as a religion by the Iranian constitution; as such, they are classified as unprotected infidels, and have no legal rights, even though Iran is a signatory to the international convention on civil and political rights.
The UN special representative to Iran, Maurice Copthorne, reported:
"the situation of the Bahais has not improved; in some respects it has deteriorated".
In July 1998, Ruhullah Rawhani was executed for being a Bahai. Even now, 14 Bahais languish in Iranian prisons, four of them facing death sentences. Iranian Bahais are barred from taking degrees; they cannot hold state sector jobs; their marriages are not respected; and many have even had their businesses repossessed by the state. It seems that their burial sites have even been desecrated.
Iran has yet to honour in full the recommendations of the special rapporteur on religious intolerance, Abdelfattah Amor. His proposals would emancipate all Iran's religious minorities. If they were introduced in phases, as the Bahais have suggested, there would be no need for any changes in the Iranian constitution.
Britain has been a good friend to the Bahais. It backed the resolution condemning Iran at the 55th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. It is my view that past action by our Government has helped considerably in the fight for decent human rights for Iranian Bahais. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the Government will continue actively to help Iranian Bahais in both word and deed—thereby, we hope, putting an end to this terrible persecution.
11.17 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for raising this important subject, which concerns a fundamental matter of human rights. I want to place on record the Government's policy on religious minorities in the middle east, whose plight has been highlighted recently by the detention on espionage charges of members of the Iranian Jewish community. Promotion of human rights is central to our foreign policy and religious freedom is a fundamental human right. All hon. Members would share that view.
We take every opportunity, working with our European Union partners, to urge all states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination and intimidation, wherever it happens and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned. We also regularly raise with the Governments concerned specific cases of religious persecution.

941
The human rights instruments of the United Nations set clear principles to be applied by states to protect the rights of everyone to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. We are right to press all states, without exception, to adhere to those principles. Wherever possible, we aim to work with officials, religious leaders and non-governmental organisations at international and local level to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. Where the possibility of meaningful dialogue on human rights issues exists, I believe that it is the best way of achieving lasting improvements.
The human rights policy department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has recently started an informal consultation group to bring together a number of non-governmental organisations working for religious freedom. We use the group to exchange information not only about instances of abuse but about practical ways of tackling abuse and promoting tolerance. That is the longer-term agenda, but it is every bit as important as the necessary action that is taken in response to particular moments of persecution.
The hon. Members for Hertsmere, for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) all spoke about Iran. However, I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. There have been some especially positive developments in Iran over the past two years, which should not be ignored and which bode well for the future.
The Iranian Government under President Khatami have undertaken a programme of significant change, which includes the enforcement of the rule of law, full facilitation of freedom of expression and a more open and co-operative foreign policy. Those steps should help to create an environment more conducive to the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
The Iranian Government have made significant progress with the programme. In particular, there is now an unprecedented freedom of debate in Iran, as most impartial observers recognise. The role of the press is increasingly prominent: it is becoming more open and critical and is having an impact, especially on the use of torture. We welcome and recognise those changes.
The effort to establish a civil society based on the rule of law has made progress as well. Democracy has been extended. The first local elections were held on 26 February, and showed overwhelming popular support for the reforms taking place in Iran. The Iranian Government are also steadily improving their relations with their neighbours, especially in the Persian gulf. That is a particularly welcome development. Iranian co-operation is vital for future stability in the region, but we must look at the country's record in the round, and I take on board what has been said about the two groups that hon. Members have mentioned.
I shall turn first to the question of the Jewish detainees. I hope that I can demonstrate that the Government have been active, bilaterally and through our multilateral arrangements and partnerships. Specifically, we and our European Union partners remain especially concerned about the recent detention of members of the Iranian Jewish community. We first became aware some weeks ago that a number of Jews had been detained without charge in Iran, but some time had passed since the detentions took place.
942
It was not easy initially to establish the truth amid the rumours circulating about what had happened. We have been in regular contact with the Agudas Israel organisation, both in the UK and, through our mission in New York, in the United States. We have also been in touch with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and with the other bodies and organisations that have drawn attention to these cases. The more reliable accounts now seem to indicate that 13 Iranian Jews have been detained. On 7 June, it became apparent, first through media reports from Iran and then officially, that they had been accused of espionage.
Before that news broke on 7 June, the German European Union presidency—representing all EU Governments—on a visit to Tehran on 20 May had already expressed the concern of member states at these detentions. That was followed up by a formal EU demarche in Tehran on 30 June. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) made a statement on 10 June expressing the Government's strong concern about those detained. The Iranian ambassador was summoned on 1 July, when my hon. Friend pressed for a fair trial and access for visitors.
Many of our EU partners have taken similar action. Our ambassador in Tehran has also raised our concerns bilaterally with the Iranian authorities. We welcome one positive step—the Iranian Government's recent confirmation, following the arrests, that they accept responsibility for individuals of every religious persuasion in Iran, including specifically the Jewish community, which is officially recognised under the Iranian constitution. The constitution thereby guarantees them a fair trial. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has said:
"The Government condemn anti-semitism wherever it occurs"—[Official Report, 22 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 915.].
That applies as much to Iran as to anywhere, and we shall continue to monitor the situation, and take further action as necessary.
Our priority will be action most likely to help those detained. This is more than a simple human rights issue, as it goes to the heart of president Khatami's declared objective of fully establishing the rule of law in Iran.
Mr. Clappison: The Minister will be aware that the Government have received a representation from, among others, Mr. Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), has asked the Government to make public their response to that contact. Will the Minister tell us something about that?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a response about the Government's position. Normal practice is that representations from individuals, of whatever background, are treated as confidential, and it is for individuals to make their representations known if they wish to. I shall, however, look into the matter, and may write or speak to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
I can confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about the plight of the Bahai community in Iran. Unlike the Christian community, the Jewish community and the Zoroastrian community, which have special protection under the Iranian constitution, the rights of the Bahai have no such protection. Their plight

943
has been of serious concern for some time, and it remains so. We and our EU partners have raised our concerns with the Iranian authorities on many occasions. I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the role played by our deceased colleague Derek Fatchett, who made his extremely forthright views on human rights known to the Iranian authorities.
Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is totally unacceptable, whether or not a group is recognised by the constitution. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Iran, sponsored by the EU and adopted on 23 April, reaffirmed international concern about the situation. We supported the resolution, which clearly signals the concerns of the entire international community.
We and our EU partners have also raised individual cases of concern with the Iranian authorities, most recently the cases of Mr. Najafabadi and Mr. Dhabihi-Mugaddam, both of whom face the death sentence. We were told on 4 October that their cases were subject to review by the Iranian supreme court. To date the sentences have not been carried out, and we have been led to believe that they will not be. That is welcome, but we await certainty on that point.
We also raised our concerns about the arrests at the end of last year of members of the Bahai institute of higher education, which relates particularly to the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about access to education. The concern of successive British Governments has been marked and continuous, and we shall continue to press it.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to Iraq, and I can put religious tolerance into a wider regional context. Religious minorities in Iraq have long been subject to discrimination and oppression. Simple expressions of belief lead to fear of arrest or imprisonment, as has been recognised by the UN Commission on Human Rights which, in its resolution on Iraq earlier this year, called on the Government of Iraq to respect and ensure the rights of all individuals, irrespective of their origin, ethnicity, gender or religion.
One interesting feature is that the majority Shia community, which amounts to about two thirds of the population, is the most persecuted group in Iraq. Reports from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Max van der Stoel, whose specific brief is Iraq, show a systematic policy of intimidation against the Shi'ite religious community. Amnesty International has drawn attention to reports from June 1998 when hundreds of Shia Muslims were arrested by security forces in
944
Karbala during processions to celebrate a religious anniversary. Scores of others were shot dead when Iraqi forces opened fire indiscriminately.
Mr. van der Stoel described the systematic attacks and assassinations of Shia clerics, such as the murder of Ayatollah al-Sadr in February, as part of a planned policy aimed at discouraging religious leaders from freely expressing their opinions and religious beliefs. Amnesty International believes that more than 100 Shi'ite clerics have disappeared since 1991.
The regime treats other religious minorities similarly, for example the Assyrian Christians, Turkomen and Yazidis, who all face ill treatment and repression. The fate of 33 members of the Yazidi community, for example, who were arrested in July 1996 remains unknown. Iraqi opposition groups have released documents that detail on-going ethnic cleansing of the Kirkuk region of its Kurdish and Turkomen residents. Similarly, in December, Iraqi tanks and troops entered an Assyrian village near Mosul, causing the inhabitants to flee.
I could continue at length, but time prevents the full record being established. As Max van der Stoel stated, the current regime has effectively eliminated freedom of thought, expression, association and assembly, in addition to the civil rights to life, liberty and physical integrity. There can be no doubt that, for the foreseeable future, the people of Iraq will not enjoy respect for their religious beliefs or their other human rights.
I thought that it was worth while establishing that contrast, not because we are sanguine about intolerance of religious minorities in Iran—of course we are not—but to point out that in the Iranian context we at least believe that we have the possibility of constructive dialogue. It is a dialogue that we will use forcefully. Sadly, I cannot tell the House that similar dialogue is possible with Iraq.
I reiterate to all hon. Members the central point that the Government are committed to a foreign policy that has human rights as its very essence. Of course, religious freedom must be one of the essentials. It is enshrined in international law and covenant and it is something that we as a Government will continue to pursue because we have a duty to do so.
I will contact the hon. Gentleman about Mr. Netanyahu and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to have this important debate. While the House is not packed, its voice will be heard in Iran and Iraq and the message of concern and condemnation will spread much more widely than the small number of hon. Members here tonight would suggest.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE

  BAe Closure (Dunsfold)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action is being taken to ensure continued operational support for RAF Harriers following BAe's announcement of the closure of its Dunsfold factory; [89347]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect the closure of BAe Dunsfold will have on the ongoing operational support for Royal Navy Harriers; and if he will make a statement. [89348]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministry of Defence contracts with British Aerospace for Harrier work are negotiated with, and awarded to, the British Aerospace Military Aircraft and Aerostructures Division at Warton. Work continues on existing contracts. The decision about where work is undertaken on these, or any future contracts, is ultimately a matter for the company.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89988]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

  Defence Diplomacy Scholarship Scheme
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the launch of his Department's Defence Diplomacy Scholarship Scheme. [90046]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Defence Diplomacy Mission has placed renewed emphasis on the provision of high quality defence related training and education in Britain for overseas students, for which we already have an excellent reputation.

  As part of this wider initiative, I am pleased to announce the launch of the MOD's new two-tier Defence Diplomacy Scholarship Scheme. Its principal aims are to
  426
  introduce selected overseas officers and officials to the principles of Defence Diplomacy, and to help them develop the skills needed to lead and run modern democratically accountable armed forces.

  Cranfield University at the Royal College of Military Science will run this scheme.It will comprise a year long MSc based "Defence Diplomacy Fellowship" and a shorter seven-week "Diploma in Defence Diplomacy". Up to 12 Fellowships will be offered annually,starting from the next academic year (1999–2000).A further 30–40 places will be available annually for the shorter Diploma course.

  This scheme is further evidence of the high priority that the MOD attaches to the Defence Diplomacy Mission, and is an excellent example of the MOD's contribution to the Government's initiative to attract more international students to the UK.

  Chief Scientific Adviser
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence who the new Chief Scientific Adviser to his Department will be.

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am announcing today that Professor Sir Keith O'Nions will become the Chief Scientific Adviser to the MOD on 4 January 2000. His appointment will be for three years.

  KFOR
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the contribution to KFOR.

  Mr. George Robertson
  Some elements of the UK contribution to KFOR have now completed the tasks for which they were deployed. In the light of this,I have agreed to the withdrawal of the Headquarters of the 5th Airborne Brigade, Headquarters 3(UK) Division, and seven support helicopters, together with their supporting elements. HQ 5 Airborne Brigade and the helicopters will start moving immediately, to be followed by HQ 3 (UK) Division from 23 July. These withdrawals will not affect the number of UK battalions in KFOR, nor their ability to perform their assigned tasks.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence if he will list cost-benefit analyses carried out in connection with his proposal for a Public Private Partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, [89202]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The study team's primary objective was to find a long-term solution for the future of DERA which would provide MOD with the scientific services it will continue to need. These were defined by the "MOD Customer Needs Statement" as laid down in Figure 1 of the Consultation Document and were used as option evaluation criteria throughout the study,to identify both the benefits and risks of each option.

  A financial model, supported by some analytical work,was used to asses each option against the financial objectives.
  427
  The three requirements shown at Paragraph 13 of the consultation document, "capability", "financial" and "wider issues", were judged to be interdependent. MOD did not assign quantitative weightings between them. Although no formal cost-benefit analysis is available, iterative judgments were made throughout the options process on the relative benefits, risks and costs of each option.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under his Public Private Partnership proposals for DERA, if, when property is transferred to a new private sector owner, his Department retains liability for clearing contaminated land and unexploded ordnance. [89195]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: No decisions have been made on the nature of a Public Private Partnership, PPP, for DERA, and it is too early to speculate on the precise form it would take. The MOD study team is supported by legal experts who provide advice on a range of legal and commercial issues, including the future treatment of liabilities. The details have not yet been addressed as they will depend on the precise nature of the PPP. During implementation, further work would be required on the negotiation of such liabilities between MOD and DERA.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways DERA's relationships with the Research Councils will be affected by his public private partnership proposals for DERA.[89197]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The MOD strives to develop and maintain close working relationships with all relevant scientific and research bodies, including the Research Councils. DERA's main relationship with the Research Councils arises through the operation of the Joint Grants Scheme, JGS, whereby the Ministry of Defence part funds research which has some direct defence relevance.

  No decisions have been made on the form of a public private partnership, PPP, for DERA, and it is too early to speculate on the precise form it would take. Whatever the form, the importance of maintaining effective relationships with the Research Councils will be taken into consideration.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under his public private partnership proposals for DERA, if DERA will lose Crown immunity. [89198]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: No decisions have been made on the nature of a public private partnership, PPP, for DERA, and it is too early to speculate on the precise form it would take. The MOD study team is supported by legal experts who provide advice on a range of legal and commercial issues which may affect the PPP. This includes the subject of Crown immunity. While further analysis would be required during the implementation phase, the basic premise is that Crown immunity would cease to apply in the event that assets, facilities and employees were transferred out of the direct control of the Crown.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under his public private partnership proposals for DERA, if liability for insurance cover against catastrophic accident will be transferred to private sector partners from his Department. [89199]
  428
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: No decisions have been made on the nature of a public private partnership, PPP, for DERA, and it is too early to speculate on the precise form it would take. However, the apportionment of risk between a PPP DERA and the MOD, including the handling of liability for catastrophic accident, is an important issue. During the implementation phase, these and other legal and commercial considerations will be addressed in detail by the MOD study team and their advisers, in consultation with DERA and key stakeholders.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under his Public Private Partnership proposals for DERA, if Boscombe Down airfield will be upgraded to civil airfield standards; and at what cost. [89200]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]No decisions have been made on the nature of a Public Private Partnership, PPP, for DERA, and it is too early to speculate on the precise form it would take. In the proposal outlined in the consultation document, the aircraft test and evaluation activities at Boscombe Down would form part of the PPP, operating in the private sector, with implications for the licensing of the airfield. Further work would be required on the detailed aspects of this during implementation.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the terms of risk analyses and the risk assessments carried out on his proposals for a Public Private Partnership for DERA. [89201]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The study team's primary objective was to find a long term value for money solution for the future of DERA which would provide MOD with the scientific services it will continue to need. These were defined by the "MOD Customer Needs Statement" as laid down in Figure 1 of the Consultation Document. These are being used as option evaluation criteria in the study, to identify both the benefits and risks of each option. Risks to achievement of financial objectives and compatibility with wider MOD and UK interests are also being addressed.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposals for a Public Private Partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on his smart procurement initiative; and if he will make a statement. [89203]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: Throughout the DERA PPP study, the MOD study team has had frequent discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry and UK industry as well as the MOD Smart Procurement Initiative implementation team, to ensure that the DERA PPP and Smart Procurement projects complement one another.

  Our consultation process, announced on 5 May 1999, Official Report, columns 384–85, has included significant debate with industry over the way a DERA PPP would function in the Smart Procurement environment. We have had many constructive responses and discussions. Although it is too early to summarise the outcome of the consultation, these views will be reflected in the study team's final recommendation, along with a view on how DERA will operate with the Smart Procurement Initiative.
  429
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is conducting a full economic appraisal of the proposals for the DERA public private partnership; and if he will place the results of his appraisal in the Library. [89027]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: During the DERA PPP options study, the MOD study team paid much attention to assessing the long term financial benefits of each option. However, in choosing between options, the evaluation process addressed not just financial issues, but also each option's ability to deliver top quality scientific and technical capability to meet future defence needs and to complement wider MOD and Government policy. There is no specific stand-alone economic appraisal suitable for the Library.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce a decision on the DERA public private partnership proposals before the summer recess. [89029]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Our formal consultation period is now drawing to a close and the study team is analysing the responses received. The consultation process has highlighted the complexity of some of the issues involved, and, on the recommendation of the study team, we have agreed that further analysis and discussions with key stakeholder groups are required. We do not expect a final recommendation from the team before the summer recess.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location and size of common land owned by DERA.[89196]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 6 July 1999:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), I have been asked to reply to your question about the location and size of common land owned by DERA.
  I am afraid that we do not hold this information ourselves, nor is it held centrally by Defence Estates (DE). The official Register of Common Land is kept by the County Councils or Unitary Authorities. Copy title deeds are actually held at 8 regional DE offices and the Head Office. Enquiries to the regional offices have not identified common land within the estate vested in DERA, though this preliminary search cannot be considered exhaustive.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the current asset value of and (b) the revenue stream derived in the last financial year from, the intellectual property rights of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.[89204]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 6 July 1999:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), I have been asked to reply to your questions about intellectual property rights.
  430
  You asked for the current asset value of the intellectual property rights of DERA. Prediction of intellectual property is unreliable due to uncertainty over the industrial implementation of inventions and the arrival of competing technologies as well as general economic uncertainty. Because of these sources of uncertainty, the Agency has reviewed its accounting policies in the context of recent changes in the guidance on best practice and no longer allocates a capital value to its intellectual property.
  Accordingly, the balance sheet for the year ending 31 March 1999 shows a zero value for intangible fixed assets (effectively intellectual property). This is, of course, an accounting convention and does not reflect the open market value of DERA's intellectual property which cannot be precisely defined except by an actual sale following a process of due diligence by prospective buyers.
  Your second question asked about the revenue stream derived in the last financial year for the intellectual property rights of DERA. The financial statements for the year ending 31 March 1999 are currently being finalised but we expect to report non-Exchequer royalty income in the order of £6M.
  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Eurofighters are being purchased for the RAF and at what cost; and how many are being purchased by other NATO countries.[88961]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 6 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of Eurofighters being purchased for the RAF and by other NATO countries and the cost to the UK. The matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The 4 Eurofighter Partner Nations are procuring 620 aircraft: 232 for the UK; 180 for Germany; 121 for Italy and 87 for Spain. Production contracts for the first tranche of 148 aircraft, 55 of which are for the UK, were placed in September 1998.
  The total procurement cost of the Eurofighter programme to the UK is estimated at £16.1 Billion at current prices.

  Porton Down (Animal Procedures)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many project licence applications for animal procedures at Porton Down have been(a) approved unamended for submission to the Home Office, (b) approved in amended form for submission to the Home Office and (c) rejected for each month since 1 January 1997.[89451]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 6 July 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the number of applications for project licences to conduct research involving work with animals, which have been submitted to the Home Office from Porton Down since January 1997.
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down has operated both an internal consultative process and ethical review process for several years, although the latter was only an official requirement by the Home Office from January 1999.

  431
  The operation of a preliminary internal consultation process and ethical review means all of the project licence applications are modified, amended and refined prior to application to the Home Office. However, during this period no application was totally rejected and none required resubmission to the ethical review. The numbers of project licence applications processed internally and submitted to the Home Office since January 1997 are shown in the table below.

  Number of project licence applications processed

  Year

  Month

  1997

  1998

  1999

  January

  0

  0

  1

  February

  2

  1

  0

  March

  0

  1

  0

  April

  1

  1

  0

  May

  2

  0

  0

  June

  1

  1

  1

  July

  0

  2

  —

  August

  2

  0

  —

  September

  0

  0

  —

  October

  1

  0

  —

  November

  0

  1

  —

  December

  0

  0

  —

  I hope that you find this information helpful.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals have been bred for use in experiments at Porton Down in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and how many of each year's total were subsequently killed without being so used. [89453]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 6 July 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the numbers of animals bred at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down for use in research and the numbers culled without use.
  These numbers for the financial years 1997–1998 and 1998–1999 are given in the table below.

  Species of animal bred

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Mice

  Weaned

  5,656

  3,232

  Surplus cull

  4,468

  2,603

  Rats

  Weaned

  7,235

  4,555

  Surplus cull

  4,055

  3,851

  Marmosets

  Weaned

  116

  154

  Surplus cull

  0

  0

  Rhesus

  Weaned

  42

  46

  Surplus cull

  0

  0

  Pigs

  Weaned

  44

  85

  Market sales

  18

  7

  In 1998–99, 2,375 of the culled mice and 3,080 of the culled rats were given to two local bird sanctuaries.

  I hope that this information answers your question.

  Antonov 124
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Antonov 124, with a military aircraft release certificate, would meet his Department' s required in-service date of 2001 under the Strategic Short-Term Airlift Programme. [88313]

  Mr. Spellar
  The five tenders received for the Short Term Strategic Airlift programme are currently being assessed by DPA officials against the authorised Staff Requirement, which includes the in-service date of 2001. Owing to the commercial confidentiality of the tenders and assessment process, I am withholding the information that my hon. Friend seeks under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

PRIME MINISTER

  Biotechnology
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if the studies of the consequences of developments in biotechnology to be undertaken by the OECD on behalf of the G8 will be published; [88085]

  (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 21 June 1999 on the G8 summit, Official Report, columns 761–64, if he will ensure that the terms of reference of the studies on the consequences of developments in biotechnology, to be undertaken by committees of the OECD and reported to next year's summit, are placed in the Library. [88094]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to ensuring an open and informed debate on biotechnology both within the United Kingdom and internationally. I firmly endorse the G8 conclusions inviting the OECD to carry out studies in this area, and we are currently discussing with G8 partners and the OECD the detailed arrangements under which these can best be taken forward.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the total cost, including travel and accommodation, of each occasion when a special adviser of the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997, whether accompanied by a Minister or not, indicating the place visited. [89047]

  The Prime Minister
  The two Special Advisers to the then Chief Whip visited the European Parliament in Brussels in September 1997. The cost of flights and accommodation was £300 each.

  Following a request from the South African Parliament, one Special Adviser was a member of a party, which included the Principal Clerk, Select Committees in the House of Commons and other officials who visited South Africa to assist the Parliamentary Administration to prepare for the new induction of MPs following the national elections on 2 June. This was funded from the development assistance programme of the Department for International Development. The cost attributed to the Special Adviser's flight was £2,334. Subsistence was paid at a rate of £72 a night for the three nights of the visit.
  433
  All visits have been in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 1, on special advisers, if he will list the total cost including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowances, and place visited of each occasion that his (a) Chief of Staff and (b) Chief Press Secretary travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997, whether accompanied by him or not. [89065]

  The Prime Minister
  My Chief of Staff and Chief Press Secretary regularly accompany me on official overseas visits and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 25 June 1999,Official Report, column 482–83 which accounted fully for costs of my official visits overseas, including the costs of those accompanying me. In addition, during the conflict in Kosovo, my Chief Press Secretary has visited NATO HQ in Brussels on six occasions, at the request of the NATO Secretary General and General Clark, SACEUR at an average cost of £400 per visit; and undertook a single visit to Macedonia and Kosovo at a cost of £570. Wherever possible, any accommodation needed was provided at no charge by HM Ambassador, NATO or General Clark. Normal subsistence rates for civil servants have applied.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by special advisers in his policy department for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89995]

  The Prime Minister
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model

  Title

  Author

  Date published

  Environmental Planning

  Professor J. B. Cullingworth

  1975–80

  Nationalisation of British Industry

  Professor Sir Norman Chester

  1975

  Colonial Development

  D. J. Morgan

  1980

  External Economic Policy Vol. 1

  Professor L. S. Pressnell

  1987

  The British Part in the Korean War

  General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley

  1990–95

  The Health Services since the War

  Dr. Charles Webster

  1988–96

  In addition a number of official histories are in preparation. These were listed in my answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on 3 February 1999, Official Report, column 646. Both the published histories, and those in preparation, relate only to the Cabinet Office official history programme. Other Government Departments produce histories relating to their own responsibilities. No central record of these is held.

TREASURY

  Fixed Penalty (Speeding)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income the Treasury has received to date from fixed penalty fines issued as a result of speeding offences detected by speed cameras. [89381]
  434
  Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning with the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the party and helping to brief party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Administrations.

  Intelligence Services Act
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will identify the Secretary of State referred to in Paragraph 13 of the report of the Commissioner for 1998 in respect of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. [88715]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: As has already been made public, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has confirmed that reference was to him and that he acted in accordance with long-standing procedures which were in place at the time.

  The Commissioner's Annual Report made no criticism of any Secretary of State, but the Government will take account of advice received from the Commissioner and introduce any necessary procedural changes.

  Official Histories
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official histories held by each Government Department. [89727]

  The Prime Minister
  Official histories are those produced by the Cabinet Office. Since the current programme began in 1966, the following titles have been published:

  Mr. Milburn
  This information is not held centrally. However I understand that the following Fixed Penalty Notices in respect of automatic speed detection have been issued:

  Year

  England and Wales (a)

  Scotland (b)

  Northern Ireland (c)

  1993

  25,767

  646

  n/a

  1994

  95,510

  8,464

  n/a

  1995

  170,014

  15,049

  n/a

  1996

  212,600

  23,860

  n/a

  1997

  288,622

  27,145

  n/a

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  6,674

  1999 (to date)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  (a) Automatic detection came into force on 1 April 1993. The penalty has been £40 since 1 April 1992.

  (b) Automatic detection came into force on 1 April 1993. The penalty has been £40 since then.

  (c) Mobile speed cameras came into being on 1 October 1997. The penalty has been £40 plus 3 penalty points since then.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of how much the Treasury will receive annually as a result of the climate change levy; and if the levy will be fiscally neutral within the manufacturing sector. [89568]

  Ms Hewitt
  The climate change levy will be introduced in April 2001 raising around £1.75 billion in its first full year. Its introduction will entail no increase in the overall burden of tax on business as the revenue will be fully recycled via a 0.5 percentage point cut in the main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions. Business will also benefit from an additional £50 million for schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency and support for renewable sources of energy, like solar and wind power.

  The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in National Insurance Contributions on individual sectors will depend on the rates at which the levy is set. The final rates of the levy will not be set until the Finance Bill 2000.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89982]

  Ms Hewitt
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the party and helping to brief party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

  Financial Services Authority
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the annual report of the Financial Services Authority to be published. [90168]

  Ms Hewitt
  A copy of the Board's report was laid before Parliament today. It includes a report, pursuant to Section 1(3) of the Banking Act 1987 on the exercise of the Authority's functions under that Act, during the 13 month period to 31 March 1999. It also includes the report made by the FSA under section 117 of the Financial Services Act 1986, covering the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 19 June the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in
  436
  Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [89262]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of paramilitary attacks during 13–19 June 1997 are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  1

  1

  Shootings

  3

  3

  Total

  4

  4

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 26 June the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [89260]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of paramilitary attacks during the period 20–26 June 1999 are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  1

  0

  Shootings

  0

  0

  Total

  1

  0

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 26 June the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [89259]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of security incidents during the period 20–26 June 1999 are as follows:

  Incidents

  Deaths

  0

  Shooting

  1

  Bombing

  3

  The numbers of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  1

  0

  Shootings

  0

  0

  Total

  1

  0

  Notes:

  1. The shooting and bombing incidents can as yet be firmly attributed to a grouping

  2. Figures may be subject to minor amendment

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 19 June the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [89261]
  437
  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of security incidents during the period 13–19 June 1999 are shown below:

  Deaths—1

  Shooting incidents—7

  Bombing incidents—nil.

  The numbers of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  1

  1

  Shootings

  3

  3

  Total

  4

  4

  Notes:

  1. The shooting and bombing incidents cannot as yet be firmly attributed to a grouping.

  2. Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees the Fair Employment Commission has and what are their(a) grades or positions and (b) religious affiliations; and if he will provide the same information for 1994. [89547]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Fair Employment Commission currently employs 76 staff. Of these 63 are operational staff and 13 support staff. The religious composition is 30 Protestant and 46 Roman Catholic overall. Of these 25 operational and 5 support staff are Protestant and 38 operational and 8 support staff are Roman Catholic.

  In 1994 staffing also stood at 76, with 57 operational and 19 support staff. The religious composition was 34 Protestant and 42 Roman Catholic overall. Of these 27 operational and 7 support staff were Protestant and 30 operational and 12 support staff were Roman Catholic.

  Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums she has expended to date under section 2 of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999. [89879]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date £694.50 has been spent under section 2 of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999. Of this £610.50 has been spent on transport and associated expenses for the UK Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. The other £84 has been spent on setting up a Post Office Box.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  A130 Bypass Scheme
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authority transport schemes which were considered for PFI when the A130 bypass scheme was approved. [88589]
  438
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following local authority transport schemes were being considered last autumn along with the A130 bypass project:

  Baldock Bypass

  Bristol/South Gloucestershire Rapid Transit

  Doncaster North Bridge

  East Leeds Radial

  Manchester Metrolink Extensions

  North Yorkshire PFI

  Northumberland County Council Street Lighting Nottingham Express Transit

  South Hampshire Rapid Transit

  Surrey Cross Thames Integrated Transport Corridor

  Tyne and Wear Metro Extension

  Walsall Integrated Transport Project

  Walsall Street Lighting

  Weymouth Transportation and Regeneration Project.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria by which the different schemes were judged when the PFI Scheme for the A130 bypass was approved; and how each scheme scored against the criteria. [88735]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The A130 bypass PFI project and the other local road schemes considered for PFI funding last autumn were appraised using the New Approach to Appraisal developed during the Roads Review. The Appraisal Summary Table for the A130 was placed in the Library, as specified on 19 May 1999,Official Report, column 354. As the other schemes considered at the time were not progressed and are subject to further evaluation by the local authorities concerned, Appraisal Summary Tables for these have not been published.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Environment Council held in Luxembourg on 24–25 June; and if he will make a statement. [89125]

  Mr. Meacher
  The meeting of the Environment Council on 24–25 June reached political agreement on common positions for seven proposals which will now go forward to the European Parliament for a second reading. The Council also reached conclusions on several other matters.

  Political agreement was reached on the proposal to amend Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. This amendment provides improved risk assessment procedures which will now include an assessment of direct, indirect, immediate or delayed effect of GMOs. The agreement introduces a post-market monitoring regime, recognition of the precautionary principle, and recourse to a Commission committee on questions of a general ethical nature. It also includes a more comprehensive labelling regime for GMOs. The Commission's review of the Directive in 2003 will include an assessment of whether sufficient experience has been gained to consider differentiated procedures for marketing release. Of key importance, the voice of member states will be strengthened in the Commission chaired regulatory committee responsible for resolving objections lodged by one or more member states (referred to as the comitology procedure). GMOs subject

  439
  to authorisation under other EU product legislation will be exempted from authorisation under amended Directive 90/220 only where the relevant product legislation provides for equivalent risk assessment requirements to those in the amended Directive. Likewise, such exemptions will apply only where equivalent safeguarding provisions to those in Directive 90/220 apply. These allow member states to take unilateral emergency action in the event of new evidence of risk. The text provides for the identification and phasing out of antibiotic marker genes which are harmful to human health and the environment. It provides for first time consent to be time-limited to a period of up to ten years. In addition, the text provides clear timetables for the taking of decisions on marketing of GMOs; this will make it easier for industry to invest and plan. The UK made a statement for the minutes calling on the Commission to consider, as a matter of priority, the feasibility of a liability regime to cover the release and marketing of GMOs.

  The Council reached agreement on a proposal for a directive to minimise adverse environmental effects from the incineration of waste. The agreement will extend EU controls to virtually all waste incineration plants, update the requirements of the 1989 municipal waste incineration directives and, by merging them with the 1994 Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive, consolidate incineration controls into a single piece of legislation. It sets stringent minimum emission limit values for a range of substances emitted from incineration and co-incineration processes, including a 10 fold tightening of the dioxins limit currently set by the Environment Agency.

  Agreement was also reached on a proposal concerning noise from outdoor machinery which will set noise labelling requirements for 57 types of machinery and noise limits for 22 of these. A further agreement will set controls for the first time on diesel exhausts for agricultural and forestry tractors and set emission limits in line with those already agreed for non-road mobile machinery.

  The regulation governing the EU' s funding programme for projects which improve environmental quality, known as the LIFE programme, has also been updated, and agreement was reached on a budget of 613 million euros over the next 5 years.

  Revisions to two voluntary schemes were also agreed. Political agreement was reached on a revised EU ecolabelling regulation, governing the scheme which enables products to display the EU eco label symbol if they meet agreed environmental criteria. The UK made a statement for the minutes recording disappointment that it had not been possible to agree better arrangements for promoting convergence between the EU ecolabelling scheme and various national labelling schemes which will continue to run alongside it. Political agreement was also reached on a revised regulation to govern the EU eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), which gives recognition to companies and organisations with good systems for environmental management and reporting.

  Council deferred a decision on a common position on the draft end of life vehicles directive which should now be decided under the Finnish Presidency.

  The Council agreed conclusions on EU Chemicals policy, as part of a process begun at the informal Environment Council at Chester under the UK
  440
  Presidency; on negotiations with Japanese and Korean car manufacturers concerning a voluntary reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from new passenger cars; on the Convention on Biological Diversity; on the proposed Biosafety Protocol; and on the environmental situation in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.

  The Council held a policy debate on a proposal for directive on the environmental assessment of plans and programmes and noted presentations from the Commission on the integration of the environment into the internal market and on the implementation of the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

  London Underground
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received concerning current disruptions on the Circle and District London Underground lines. [89138]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As of 1 July 1999, my Department has received letters from four members of the public on the recent disruptions on the Circle and District lines. We have also received questions from four hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman.

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make public the report into the London Underground penalty fares scheme; and if he will make a statement. [90252]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have today placed a copy of the review in the Library.

  The operation of the penalty fares scheme on London Underground is the statutory responsibility of London Transport in accordance with powers under the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Act 1992.

  Leaded Fuel
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to(a) advise consumers of the removal of leaded fuel from the market and (b) assist owners of cars where conversion is uneconomic to dispose of their vehicles appropriately or support their continued use. [89083]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since December 1998 over 3.5 million leaflets have been made available to inform motorists using leaded fuel that they will have several alternatives available to ensure that they can continue to use their cars after the general removal of leaded fuel from the market by 1 January 2000. The Government will shortly be launching a further publicity campaign to reinforce this message. Information leaflets are already being provided with Vehicle Excise Duty payment reminders and these will be followed by advertisements in the national press and the provision of further information leaflets at MOT garages and at filling stations. Information will also be available on the DETR site on the internet.

  Most cars will be able to run on lead replacement petrol (LRP) without adjustment to their engines. LRP will become widely available at pumps from the autumn with a duty rate set by the Chancellor some 3.67p per litre

  441
  lower than that of leaded petrol. Alternatively, where LRP is not available, motorists will be able to buy special additives in bottles or syringe-like applicators for use with the grade of unleaded petrol (super or premium) recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.

  Many cars could alternatively be switched to ordinary unleaded petrol, with no alteration to the engine or with only a simple adjustment to the ignition timing, the cost of which could be recovered through lower fuel costs. In a relatively few cases where motorists often use their cars for prolonged heavy motorway driving or for towing they may find they need to have their engines modified. However, the vast majority of cars will not need this extreme modification and independent advice should be obtained before deciding whether this is necessary.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the environmental costs and benefits of alternative refrigerant gases in the next generation of installed equipment; and if he will make a statement; [89254]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the projected impact of the use of HFCs as refrigerant gases on the United Kingdom's target for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; and if he will make a statement. [89256]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has carried out several assessments of alternatives to the use of ozone depleting substances such as CFCs. Alternatives to CFC refrigerants include HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases, ammonia and hydrocarbons. While ammonia and hydrocarbons benefit from not being greenhouse gases, they are either toxic or highly flammable. Nevertheless, in suitably designed systems, they may be used for many refrigeration applications. Energy efficiency is an important factor in determining overall greenhouse gas

  Terminal passengers

  1998

  1997

  Percent change on previous year

  London area airports

  Gatwick

  29,032,838

  26,792,797

  8.36

  Heathrow

  60,360,404

  57,848,625

  4.34

  London City

  1,360,182

  1,161,065

  17.15

  Luton

  4,115,924

  3,221,266

  27.77

  Southend

  4,053

  8,652

  -53.16

  Stansted

  6,830,289

  5,366,197

  27.28

  Total London area airports

  102,216,797

  94,398,602

  8.28

  Battersea Heliport

  4,709

  5,072

  -7.16

  Other UK airports

  Aberdeen

  2,651,995

  2,568,620

  3.25

  Barra

  8966

  8,597

  4.29

  Barrow-in-Furness

  105

  206

  -49.03

  Belfast City

  1,314,346

  1,282,390

  2.49

  Belfast International

  2,626,963

  2,459,344

  6.82

  Benbecula

  36,294

  36,983

  -1.86

  Biggin Hill

  6,967

  7,269

  -4.15

  Birmingham

  6,607,910

  5,903,434

  11.93

  442
  emissions from the use of refrigeration systems, and is generally comparable for well designed systems using HFCs, ammonia or hydrocarbons as refrigerants.

  Emissions of HFCs used as refrigerant gases were 0.2 million tonnes of carbon-equivalent in 1995 and are currently projected to rise to 1.3 million tonnes of carbon-equivalent in 2010. This increase in emissions is equivalent to 0.5 per cent. of total UK emissions of the basket of six greenhouse gases in 1990. These projections assume the increased use of alternative refrigerants in some applications. The Government are developing a UK climate change programme which will address both their legally binding target of 12.5 per cent. reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2008–12, and the domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to encourage the use of non-HFC refrigerants inside Government buildings; and if he will make a statement. [90061]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department issued a model improvement statement for greening government operations in May 1998. Since then Government departments have been adopting and adapting the model to meet their own special circumstances and develop further their environmental strategies. Among other things, the model statement promotes switching from HFCs to environmentally preferable substitutes having a low or zero global warming potential. Advice on suitable alternatives is given in DETR's "Green Guide for Buyers" and other guidance which can be found on our website.

  Air Passengers
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each airport in the United Kingdom the percentage increase in passenger volume for the last year for which figures are available. [89385]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The most recent year for which Civil Aviation Authority data are available is 1998. The absolute and percentage increases in 1998 over 1997 for each UK airport are listed.
  443

  Terminal passengers

  1998

  1997

  Percent change on previous year

  Blackpool

  93,745

  83,218

  12.65

  Bournemouth

  312,924

  265,067

  18.05

  Bristol

  1,814,237

  1,586,420

  14.36

  Cambridge

  16,605

  19,919

  -16.64

  Campbeltown

  9,137

  8,710

  4.90

  Cardiff Wales

  1,230,193

  1,124,131

  9.44

  Carlisle

  957

  834

  14.75

  Coventry

  2,639

  1,694

  55.79

  Dundee

  8,737

  15,777

  -44.62

  East Midlands

  2,136,064

  1,878,313

  13.72

  Edinburgh

  4,544,992

  4,161,359

  9.22

  Exeter

  240,753

  213,355

  12.84

  Glasgow

  6,480,765

  6,011,792

  7.80

  Gloucestershire

  2,236

  2,103

  6.32

  Hawarden

  3,507

  2,113

  65.97

  Humberside

  344,363

  331,849

  3.77

  Inverness

  323,661

  379,256

  -14.66

  Islay

  21,024

  19,508

  7.77

  Isle of Man

  700,929

  676,832

  3.56

  Isles of Scilly (St. Marys)

  131,617

  128,265

  2.61

  Isles of Scilly (Tresco)

  33,559

  27,303

  22.91

  Kent International

  2,269

  2,936

  -22.72

  Kirkwall

  83,460

  88,701

  -5.91

  Leeds Bradford

  13,304

  1,247,090

  12.13

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  4,029

  4,221

  -4.55

  Liverpool

  868,885

  682,265

  27.35

  Londonderry

  49,095

  56,043

  -12.40

  Lydd

  2,370

  2,596

  -8.71

  Manchester

  17,206,130

  15,741,516

  9.30

  Newcastle

  2,919,885

  2,592,382

  12.63

  Norwich

  317,525

  263,887

  20.33

  Penzance Heliport

  119,800

  108,805

  10.11

  Plymouth

  110,137

  103,044

  6.88

  Prestwick

  558,214

  567,338

  -1.61

  Scatsta

  104,297

  102,234

  2.02

  Sheffield City1

  46,521

  254

  18,215.35

  Shoreham

  2,156

  2,685

  -19.70

  Southampton

  725,029

  618,205

  17.28

  Stornoway

  95,735

  96,180

  -0.46

  Sumburgh

  287,028

  345,027

  -16.81

  Teesside

  651,435

  556,938

  16.97

  Tiree

  4,095

  5,056

  -2.99

  Unst

  1,752

  19,999

  -12.36

  Wick

  23,102

  25,195

  -8.31

  Total other UK airports

  57,288,253

  52,419,258

  9.29

  Total all reporting UK airports

  158,996,652

  146,822,932

  8.29

  Channel Islands airports

  Alderney

  77,196

  81,046

  -4.75

  Guernsey

  890,279

  870,741

  2.24

  Jersey

  1,693,791

  1,687,054

  0.40

  Total Channel Islands airports

  2,661,266

  2,638,841

  0.85

  1Sheffield city began reporting June 1997

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of passengers from(a) the UK and (b) the Yorkshire and Humberside Region flying to destinations (i) in the USA, (ii) in Europe and (iii) elsewhere in (1) 1978, (2) 1988 and (3) 1998. [89390]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Estimates of passengers originating in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and travelling to the United States, Europe and elsewhere are not regularly produced by the Civil Aviation Authority. Estimates of passengers flying from airports in the 444
  Yorkshire and Humberside region, which are Leeds, Bradford and Humberside, to these destinations are available. Data for 1978, 1988 and 1998 are listed in the table.

  Estimates are also made by the Civil Aviation Authority of the total number of UK passengers originating in the Yorkshire and Humberside region flying from UK airports on international services. These data are not disaggregated by destination and are available only for selected years. Figures for 1987 and 1997 are listed in the table.
  445

  Passengers flying from Yorkshire and Humberside airports by destination for 1978, 1988 and 1998

  USA

  Western Europe

  Elsewhere

  Total terminal passengers

  1978

  United Kingdom

  5,137,652

  24,061,548

  9,521,028

  38,720,228

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0

  31,705

  343,879

  375,584

  1988

  United Kingdom

  8,538,829

  47,039,170

  37,583,530

  93,161,529

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0

  253,419

  565,192

  818,611

  1998

  United Kingdom

  17,152,197

  82,462,356

  59,382,099

  158,996,652

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0

  1,217,791

  524,876

  1,742,667

  Source:

  CAP 552 Tables 10.1 and 12

  UK Airports 1998 Tables 2.2 and 12

  UK passengers originating in the Yorkshire and Humberside region traveling on international flights from UK airports

  Year

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Total United Kingdom

  1987

  2,653,000

  39,123,000

  1997

  4,476,000

  61,141,000

  Sources:

  CAP 690 Tables 71 and 72

  A36 (Salisbury)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will(a) impose a 12 tonne weight limit on the A36(T) between Wylye and Salisbury, (b) erect signage to divert traffic from that route to the A303 and A360 between Wylye and Salisbury via Long Barrow roundabout, (c) detrunk and (d) declassify that road. [89190]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 1 July 1999]We are currently undertaking a detailed study of the potential options available to help solve the transport problems of Salisbury and the surrounding area. As the A36 forms an integral part of the highway network of the study area, the problems associated with it are being considered as part of the overall study. The results should be available in the Autumn and will be the subject of public consultation. It is too early to comment on what solutions may be proposed but weight limits and diversions are among the many options being considered for the Salisbury area. A final decision on the classification of the A36 will be taken after a further study, as announced by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 7 April.

  Domestic Electrical Systems
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations exist to ensure the correct fitting of electrical systems and circuits in homes; and if he will make a statement. [89598]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]There are no such existing regulations. My Department is considering the merits of extending the Building Regulations to cover this.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the. Environment, Transport and the Regions what timetable the Government have for the introduction of the direct high-speed access to the Channel Tunnel from York; and if he will make a statement. [90084]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 28 January 1999, Official Report, columns 340–41, the commissioning of a thorough and independent review of regional Eurostar services. On 17 June the consultancy firm Arthur D. Little were appointed to undertake this review, and it is underway. The review, which will include an assessment of possible York services, will be thorough and wide ranging in its consideration of alternative options. It will, in particular, seek to assess the regional economic and social benefits of regional Eurostar services, and will examine the proposals put forward by the Virgin Group and the report produced last year by Inter-Capital and Regional Rail Ltd. The final report is due to be submitted at the end of October, and we expect to make a statement to the House before the end of the year.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the square footage is of the English Partnerships' offices in Cockermouth. [88755]

  Mr. Meale
  English Partnership offices in Cockermouth were transferred to the North West Development Agency on 1 April 1999. I understand from the Agency that the net lettable area of the office is 5,135 square feet.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proposals the North West Development Agency has for the future of the English Partnerships' offices in Cockermouth; [88752]

  (2) what arrangements are being made for the sale or rental of the English Partnerships' offices in Cockermouth. [88762]
  447
  Mr. Meale
  Issues relating to office accommodation are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand that once the Agency has confirmed a vacation date, the Cockermouth Offices will be marked as 'available to let'.

  In the longer term, once the development is fully let, consideration will be given to its disposal on the open market.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the annual rental costs are of the premises to be occupied by(a) English Partnerships and (b) the Rural Development Commission at Penrith. [88756]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions on accommodation are for the North West Development Agency. I understand from the Agency that no final decision has been made on the location of the Penrith office. The annual rental costs of the likely premises to be occupied by the RDA staff (including former EP and RDC staff) are still under negotiation. However, I understand that the rental cost may be in the order of£10 per square foot.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the staff complement was at the English Partnerships office in Cockermouth in(a)1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999; and what the proposed complement of staff at English Partnerships' new offices at Penrith is for the first three years following relocation from Cockermouth. [88751]

  Mr. Meale
  I understand that English Partnerships' staff complements in Cockermouth were(a) 1996–14, (b) 1997–14 (c) 1998–11 and (d) 1999–11; and that the proposed complement of staff at the North West Development Agency's offices in Penrith is 18 to 20 people.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Standard's Excellent Standard will apply to the offices which will be occupied by English Partnerships and other North West Development Agency operations at Penrith. [88757]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions on accommodation are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand that in conducting the negotiations for the Penrith office the Agency has told the construction firm that they are looking for a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Standard's Excellent Standard (BREAM). The Cockermouth office has no BREAM rating.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the schemes for which funding had been approved by English Partnerships but not legally committed and which are the subject of funding reappraisal following the commencement of the operation of the North West Development Agency. [88766]

  Mr. Meale
  There were no such schemes outstanding at the commencement of the North West Development Agency.
  448
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are(a) the nature of the title and (b) the annual running costs of the English Partnerships offices in Cockermouth. [88753]

  Mr. Meale
  Issues relating to accommodation are for the North West Development Agency. I understand from the Agency that the office at Cockermouth is held on freehold. The total running costs for the financial year 1998–99 were £513,735 for office related costs, including salaries, and £352,797 for estate related costs in connection with the Agency's portfolio of land and buildings in Cumbria. (Physical work on the 375 units comprising 845,000 sq. ft. across Cumbria).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the budget for English Partnerships in each year since 1994; and what are the proposed budgets for the next three years. [88759]

  Mr. Meale
  Details of English Partnerships' total income and expenditure up to 1997–98 are given in their Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The information on grant-in-aid provided by my Depaertment is:

  Year

  Grant-in-aid cash outturn (£million)

  1994–94

  183.0

  1995–96

  210.1

  1995–97

  226.0

  1996–98

  1259.8

  1998–99

  2294.2

  1999–2000

  3,5227.5

  2000–01

  4,6208.7

  2001–02

  4,6208.7

  Total

  1,818.8

  1Includes grant-in-aid for the Greenwich Peninsula development.

  2Includes grant-in-aid for Greenwich and for projects inherited from the Urban Development Corporations

  3This figure includes an allocation for the Partnership Investment Programme (PIP) which will remain with English Partnerships (EP) Pending the resolution of issues that the Government are currently discussing with the European Commission. EP and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) will be co-operating closely on PIP projects. Full details given in a written answer to my hon Friend the Member for St. Helens North (Mr. Watts) on 21 Aprill 1999, official Report, columns 545–46

  4Although no grant-in-aid provision has been Voted by Parliament for 2000–01 and 2001–02, the table shows Government's spending plans for English Partnerships announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. This will be divided between EP and the RDAs.

  5Provision

  6Planned

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the maximum number of staff it is possible to accommodate in the English Partnerships offices in Cockermouth; and if the proposed personnel requirements of English Partnerships' and the Rural Development Commission in Cumbria could be accommodated there. [88754]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions about office accommodation are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand from the Agency that it estimates that up to
  449
  20 staff could be accommodated in the Cockermouth offices. The offices are of sufficient size to accommodate the Agency's Cumbria Area Office.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(1) what estimate he has made of (a) the change in the amount of excess mileage allowances arising out of the transfer of persons currently working at the English Partnerships office in Cockermouth to offices in Penrith and (b) the costs of excess mileage allowance if persons currently working for the RDC in Penrith had been required to travel to the Cockermouth offices of English Partnerships; [88764]

  (2) what estimate has been made of the change in the costs in travelling time and mileage allowances in servicing West Cumbria following the move of English Partnerships' operations from Cockermouth to Penrith. [88769]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions on location are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand from the Agency that the cost of travelling time and mileage, including excess mileage costs for staff required to change their location, were among the factors taken into account in the decision in principle to locate the Agency's Area Office in Penrith. However, the costs are impossible to estimate with any confidence because the staff concerned will often travel to appointments direct from home. The Area Office will service the whole of Cumbria; some journeys will be shorter and others longer depending on the destination for appointments.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions from which year's budget the additional costs of the location of English Partnerships' in Penrith will be funded. [88760]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions on location are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand from the Agency that its relocation may take place towards the end of this financial year, in which case the cost may be met in part this year and in part next year.

  My Department will not be providing additional funding for the relocation.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has been made of the costs of complying with TUPE arising out of the transfer of staff from the Cockermouth offices of English Partnerships to a new location at Penrith. [88765]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions on location are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand that costs associated with the transfer of staff have been fully taken into account when value for money aspects of the potential move were being considered by the Agency.

  North West Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultation took place prior to the appointment of the membership of the North West Development Agency. [88749]
  450
  Mr. Meale
  Candidates for the Boards of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were sought from as wide a field as possible. Three main approaches were taken to identify candidates: RDAs were included alongside other Non Departmental Public Bodies in a general advertisement for Board Members; the databases of the Public Appointments Unit, DETR and other government departments were searched for suitable candidates; and a large number of regional and national stakeholders were invited to offer nominations.

  I have placed in the Library a list showing the regional stakeholders who were invited to nominate members for the North West Development Agency.

  Candidates encouraged to apply by stakeholders were considered alongside applicants from other sources. Information on which stakeholder, if any, nominated those appointed to the Boards was not recorded separately.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the financial implications for the Exchequer are arising out of the movement from Mercury Court of the North West Development Agency's premises in Liverpool. [88761]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions on location are a matter for the North West Development Agency. The movement of some staff from Mercury Court to alternative premises, including area offices, is still being negotiated. However, any net increase in cost which may arise will be contained within the Agency's overall budget. There will therefore be no direct financial implications for the Exchequer.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultation took place and with which organisations and individuals prior to the North West Development Agency's decision to close the Cockermouth Office of English Partnerships. [88750]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions on location are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand that, in deciding in principle to locate its Area office in Penrith, the Agency took account of a range of factors.

  The Board reached a decision to locate the Area Office and Headquarters on the M6/West Coast Main Line (in respect of Cumbria and Lancashire); at the interchange of the M6/M62 and West Coast Main Line (Warrington Headquarters and Cheshire Area office) and on the M62/East West Rail Line (Liverpool and Manchester). The Penrith decision flowed from the application of these criteria-particularly the need to have public transport access via rail. There was no general consultation on this specific decision.

  Road Use Levies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take to ensure that levies on(a) road use and (b) workplace parking schemes will not unfairly penalise car ownership by vulnerable groups. [89457]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's proposals on road user charging and the workplace parking levy will not penalise car ownership, but will tackle congestion and other problems caused by car use in certain circumstances. The Government are keen to ensure that the needs of vulnerable groups are considered when charging schemes
  451
  are introduced. The Secretary of State will take all relevant impacts into account when considering proposed local authority schemes for approval.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards achieving the national targets for reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries resulting from road accidents in the United Kingdom. [89710]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1987, a target was set to reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries from road accidents in Great Britain by one third by the year 2000, compared with the average for 1981–85.

  The target has been exceeded for both road fatalities and serious injuries. By 1998, fatalities were 39 per cent. below baseline and serious injuries were 45 per cent. below. Compared with 1997, there was a fall of 5 per cent. for both deaths and serious injuries.

  This substantial reduction in road casualties is to be welcomed, but there is no room for complacency. We are working on a new casualty reduction target for 2010, and a road safety strategy, which we are aiming to publish in the Autumn.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what it will cost the Countryside Agency to occupy the property at Penrith formerly occupied by the Rural Development Commission. [88763]

  Mr. Meale
  The rent payable by the Countryside Agency is £l6,763 a year, which includes service charges and utility costs. In addition, the Agency incurred one-off costs of about £4,500 on minor refurbishment works, including the installation of computer cabling.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gene Patents
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to restrict the exercise of monopoly power under gene patents. [87371]

  Company

  Grade

  Period of secondment

  Aerospace Industries

  British Aerospace

  R10 (formerly Grade 7)

  November 1994–February 1995

  SBAC

  R9 (formerly SEO)

  October 1995–September 1997

  British Aerospace

  R10

  January 1996–December 1996

  Matra Marconi Space

  R10

  April 1996–September 1997

  British Airways

  R9

  August 1996–September 1996

  Textile Industries

  British Footwear Association

  R8

  December 1997–March 1999

  Faith Charnock Wilson

  R8

  June 1997 (2 weeks)

  John Partridge

  R6

  4 x 1-day attachments

  Illingworth

  R6

  4 x 1-day attachments

  Drummonds

  R6

  4 x 1-day attachments

  Paul James Knitwear

  R6

  4 x 1-day attachments

  452
  Mr. Battle
  Rights available to patent owners, including those relating to genetic engineering, offer encouragement to undertake the costs and risks of technical innovation, but are already limited in their scope and duration in order that others can gain access to patented inventions and the technical knowledge on which they are based. There are no plans for change.

  As for all technologies, patent rights in the genetics field can last for a maximum period of 20 years after which the invention becomes part of the public domain and all are free to use it. There are exceptions to rights allowing the use of a patented invention to undertake research relating to that invention. If the market for an invention is not being satisfied in the UK, then rights may be compulsorily licensed to others. It is also important to note that patented inventions are published in sufficient detail to allow others skilled in the technology to use them. This ensures that technical advances are disclosed so stimulating research for further inventions, and rights may be challenged more easily since their foundation is made available for all to see. These restrictions are consistent with European and International laws concerning patentability.

  In addition to these restrictions on patent rights, in the event that a patented invention places the rights owner in a dominant market position, exercise of patent rights is subject to competition law.

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88478]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have nothing further to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 18 June 1999, Official Report, column 255.

  Civil Servants (Secondments)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number and grade of civil servants seconded to work in the(a) textile and (b) aerospace industries for each year since 1992. [89549]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department does not keep comprehensive historical records of secondments. From the information that is available the details requested are:

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of statutory instruments introduced by his Department into Parliament in(a) 1998, (b) 1992, (c) 1985 and (d) 1973 had the European Union as their legislative source. [89169]

  Mr. Byers
  This question cannot be answered without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Inward Investment
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the levels of inward investment into(i) the South East Government Office Region, (ii) the West Midlands Government Office

  Region

  Number of Projects

  Number of new jobs

  Number of safeguarded jobs

  Number of associated jobs

  South East

  1993–94

  20

  916

  5,950

  6,866

  1994–95

  37

  3,248

  14,895

  18,143

  1995–96

  50

  5,385

  13,482

  18,867

  1996–97

  46

  3,775

  2,756

  6,531

  1997–98

  56

  5,534

  7,442

  12,976

  West Midlands

  1993–94

  84

  3,370

  46,069

  46,439

  1994–95

  62

  4,797

  7,469

  12,266

  1995–96

  77

  7,072

  4,479

  11,553

  1996–97

  76

  4,350

  15,351

  19,701

  1997–98

  81

  5,631

  12,546

  18,177

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1993–94

  41

  2,829

  3,998

  6,827

  1994–95

  26

  3,152

  3,867

  7,019

  1995–96

  45

  1,964

  7,515

  9,479

  1996–97

  36

  1,887

  3,503

  5,390

  1997–98

  65

  2,874

  15,131

  18,005

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are currently employed in the medical and pharmaceutical applications of biotechnology in the United Kingdom; and what has been the annual financial contribution of this area of biotechnology to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product from 1992 to date in actual terms and in terms of a percentage of gross domestic product [89715]

  Mr. Battle
  This information is not available from official statistics.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential for incorporating renewable energy sources in the rebuilding works in Kosovo. [89919]

  Mr. Battle
  During my brief visit to Kosovo on 28 and 29 June heading the Taskforce it was clear that rehabilitation of the power sector was urgently required. However, it is too early to assess the extent to which the potential exists to incorporate renewable energy resources in the refurbishment of Kosovo's power generation capacity; this will have to await more detailed assessment studies of all aspects of the power sector.
  454
  Region and (iii) the Yorkshire and the Humber Government Office Region for the last five years for which figures are available. [89384]

  Mr. Wills
  The figures in the table are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimates, at that time, of the number of jobs to be created/safeguarded by the investment in its first three years.

  There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. Comprehensive capital expenditure details are often not available at the time of the decision to invest, and are therefore not included.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for stimulating the availability of finance for SMEs through the regional venture capital funds element of the Enterprise Fund. [89955]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today published a consultation paper, "Addressing the SME Equity Gap—Support for Regional Venture Capital Funds" which sets out our proposals and seeks views on the design and form of the support for the Regional Venture Capital element of the Enterprise Fund. Depending on the results of the consultation, I will be making up to £50 million available over the next three years to support the creation of Regional Venture Capital Funds. I expect this to lever in significant amounts of matching private sector finance.

  The intention of our support is to provide a model which regional partnerships, working with Regional Development Agencies, can use to stimulate venture capital funds to address the equity gap. The purpose of this intervention is to increase the amount of equity finance available to growing SMEs to enable them to compete in a global economy and ensure that each region in England has access to a viable, regionally based venture capital fund. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have in place mechanisms for venture capital support.
  455
  The Government are seeking views from entrepreneurs, representatives of Small Firms, the venture capital and finance industries, Regional Development Agencies and business support organisations.

  Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library. I look forward to receiving comments from those interested by 30 September.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the MMC report on the Supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk. [90250]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today published the MMC report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk.

  I am requiring major changes to the conditions of sale of raw milk by the dominant supplier, Milk Marque, to prevent it from exploiting its monopoly position, but have rejected the MMC recommendation to enforce a break-up of Milk Marque.

  The MMC have found that Milk Marque, which was responsible for nearly half of the raw milk sales in Great Britain in 1997–98, is exploiting its monopoly in the supply of raw milk, using a variety of practices which raise the price of raw milk. Consumers pay more for fresh milk than they should, and the competitiveness of the dairy processing sector is being damaged.

  This is a thorough and detailed examination of Milk Marque's selling practices and their effects, and I accept the Commission's findings.

  With regard to the remedies necessary to stop these damaging effects, the MMC have explored the possibilities of either reforming Milk Marque's auction sales system, or of restructuring of Milk Marque into several independent producer bodies. Both of these options present difficulties, as the MMC recognises.

  The MMC recommends the restructuring of Milk Marque, by dividing it into independent and competing quota-holding bodies, able to sell their milk on an ordinary commercial basis and to engage in milk processing, that is the making of milk products, if they wish. I have not accepted this recommendation.

  An imposed restructuring of Milk Marque would be a drastic step which would affect a large proportion of the farmers of England and Wales. I am also conscious that this remedy would take a considerable time to put fully into effect: perhaps as long as two years. This would itself introduce worrying uncertainties for the industry. There is a strong possibility that by the end of the period the market may have changed considerably. I believe a wider debate about the future of Milk Marque is appropriate, informed by the analysis provided by the MMC report.

  In the meantime the raw milk market must continue to function, and it must do so on as fair a basis as possible. The report found that Milk Marque has been able to exploit its position by using its selling system to price discriminate and control the supply of milk available to the market. It is clear that Milk Marque must reform its sales procedures. I am therefore asking the Director General of Fair Trading to consider and advise me by the end of this year what changes should be made, after consulting with Milk Marque and its customers.
  456
  Milk Marque will be aware that from 1 March next year it will be subject to the prohibitions on anti-competitive behaviour and abuse of market power introduced under the Competition Act 1998. The DGFT will have interim relief powers to stop behaviour which is damaging third parties.

  The MMC also recommends (paragraph 2.400 of the report) a number of interim remedies to prevent Milk Marque abusing its market power. I accept these recommendations.

  I am aware that, in its recent auctions, Milk Marque has relied increasingly on sales on undisclosed contract terms to dispose of its milk. The undertakings I am seeking will apply to both auction and private sales.

  The MMC have concluded that Milk Marque's planned increase in its milk processing capacity may be expected to operate against the public interest, by enhancing its ability to exploit its monopoly power.

  Milk Marque, while it remains a monopoly supplier of raw milk to the processing sector, should not be allowed to extend its milk processing activities in this way. I am therefore also asking the Director General to seek undertakings from Milk Marque that it will not take any further steps towards making or carrying out any agreement to acquire or build processing plant without prior agreement by the Director General, as the MMC have recommended.

  Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress made through negotiated agreements with energy intensive industries as part of the climate change levy to improve energy efficiency; and what measures his Department is taking to safeguard the international competitiveness of manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom [89458]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) is leading for the Government on the development of negotiated agreement with a number of energy intensive sectors. We have said that significantly reduced rates of the climate change levy will be available to those energy intensive sectors which enter negotiated agreements with the Government to deliver targets covering energy efficiency improvements and/or cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The eligible sectors are those covered by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regulations (IPPC). Negotiations are under way between DETR officials, with some assistance from DTI, and the sectors concerned. DETR initiated discussions with an initial group of the nine main energy intensive sectors following the budget, and is also now holding meetings with around twenty further sectors. The negotiations are progressing in a constructive manner. The aim is to have negotiated heads of agreement with proposed targets by the autumn, when the levels of discounts from the levy will be determined, taking account of the stringency of the targets offered.

  The Government have previously stated that they aim to avoid taking action on climate change which damages business competitiveness. In this context, I welcome the

  457
  intention to recycle revenues from the climate change levy, primarily via reduced employers National Insurance Contributions, and also the promised support for promotion of energy efficiency and new and renewable energy technologies, as well as the special arrangements proposed for intensive energy sectors. DTI is contributing to interdepartmental discussions both on the development of the levy proposal and also on the draft national climate change strategy, which is intended for publication later this year for consultation, and which will set the broader policy framework for business's response to climate change.

  It is the case that the UK is not alone in having to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or in using economic instruments to do so. Since 1990, seven European countries have introduced carbon or energy taxes. On current projections, most OECDS countries will have to introduce new measures of one form or another to meet their Kyoto targets.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89994]

  Mr. Byers
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the party and helping to brief party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

  European Commission Communication
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place a copy of the European Commission Communications on (a) the Environment and the Internal Market and (b) Mutual Recognition in the Library. [90090]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Commission Communications referred to are available in the Library under the Commission references 99/263 (10 June) and 99/299 (21 June) respectively. They can also be accessed electronically via the Commission website: (www.europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm).

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  EU Cultural and Audiovisual Meeting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation on European identity given at the EU Weimar meeting on cultural and audiovisual issues; what is his policy on the issues raised; and if he will make a statement. [88464]
  458
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I will ensure that a copy of Jorge Semprun's Weimar speech is placed in the Libraries of the House. The meeting in Weimar underlined to those present the benefits which can accrue from learning the lessons of history and using culture as a means towards better mutual understanding between the peoples of Europe. Following the meeting in Weimar, the German Presidency presented a draft Council Resolution on integrating history into the European Community's cultural action. The Resolution was agreed unanimously at the Culture/Audiovisual Council in Luxembourg on 28 June, and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House when the final text is available.

  EU Culture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the outcome of the Culture Council held in Luxembourg on 28 June; and if he will make a statement [89289]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts represented the United Kingdom at the Culture/Audiovisual Council held in Luxembourg on 28 June. The Council agreed a Common Position on the Culture 2000 funding programme. A Council Resolution on integrating history into the Community's cultural action was agreed, as was a decision on the appointment by the Council of the members of the selection panel for the Community action concerning the European Capital of Culture. There was an exchange of views on the cultural dimension of the Kosovo conflict. On audiovisual matters, Council conclusions on convergence and self-regulation in the media were agreed.

  Television Licence Fee Evasion
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many offences of television licence fee evasion were adjudicated upon in magistrates' courts in(a) England and (b) Wales during each of the last five years; what was the cost; what proportion of the cost was borne by (i) the magistrates' courts and (ii) the BBC; and what has been the amount of fines imposed. [89558]

  Janet Anderson
  The Home Office Court Proceedings database records prosecutions under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. The great majority, but not all, of these relate to television licence fee evasion. The reporting of prosecutions where there has been no police involvement, as in this case, is known to be incomplete. Accurate information on the cost of prosecutions under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts is not available.

  The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts in England and Wales for offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts from 1993–1997 was:

  Total Proceeded against

  Total convicted

  Total fined

  Average fine, where imposed (£)

  England

  1993

  182,738

  157,959

  154,205

  113

  1994

  180,876

  156,138

  152,837

  94

  19951

  122,635

  106,694

  103,976

  99

  1996

  174,956

  153,753

  151,079

  102

  1997

  86,088

  71,600

  70,341

  105

  459

  Total proceeded against

  Total Convicted

  Total fined

  Average fine, where imposed (£)

  Wales

  1993

  12,130

  10,747

  10,560

  95

  1994

  7,925

  6,721

  6,636

  93

  19951

  8,321

  7,101

  6,974

  94

  1996

  13,162

  11,103

  10,913

  96

  1997

  6,661

  5,405

  5,279

  92

  1In 1995, as a result of an error in data processing procedures, there was a shortfall in the recording of data for certain summary offences, including those under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts

  Libraries (Lottery Money)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how local authorities will obtain money made available through the National Lottery New Opportunities Fund to develop a public libraries IT network; and what plans he has to ensure that all public libraries will benefit from this money. [89470]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Guidance on applications for funding for the £20m ICT training programme for librarians and the £50m programme for creation of digitised learning material will shortly be issued by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF).

  Guidance on applications for funding for infrastructure development, to be delivered through NOF's £200m Community Access To Lifelong Learning Programme, is likely to be issued at the end of this year.

  Millennium Prayers
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to facilitate the saying of prayers at midnight on 31 December 1999 in the Millennium Dome by the Archbishop of Canterbury. [89579]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is responsible for the content and delivery of the opening celebrations at the Millennium Dome on 31 December. NMEC is discussing these arrangements with a number of interested parties including the Royal Household and Lambeth Palace, and the Government are kept fully informed of these discussions. The nature and scope of the celebrations will be announced in due course.

  Preston Television Licensing Enquiry Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many successful prosecutions took place in the Preston Television Licensing enquiry office area for each year since 1992. [89550]

  Janet Anderson
  From April 1993, the Preston TV Licensing enquiry office (TVLEO) area also included Morecambe. From December 1996, the Preston TVLEO area was incorporated into TV Licensing's Northern Region; figures from 1996–97 onwards therefore relate to 460
  addresses with the PR postcode. The number of convictions for television licence evasion during the period in question was:

  Number of convictions

  1992–93

  (Preston TVLEO)

  5,360

  1993–94

  (Preston TVLEO) including Morecambe

  6,569

  1994–95

  (Preston TVLEO)

  5,503

  1995–96

  (Preston TVLEO)

  5,165

  1996–97

  (PR Postcode)

  1,058

  1997–98

  (PR Postcode)

  757

  1998–99

  (PR Postcode)

  522

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the tourism industry calling for(a) change to and (b) hypothecation of Air Passenger Duty. [89560]

  Janet Anderson
  We have had a number of representations on Air Passenger Duty either calling for change to, or a hypothecation of, the duty and these have been passed to the Treasury.

  Heritage Buildings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the historic and architectural merit of surviving buildings from the British Empire Exhibition held at Wembley in 1923. [89193]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 1 July 1999]: Wembley Stadium and the Palace of Arts were added to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest in Grade II in 1976. The other surviving buildings from the Exhibition were inspected by English Heritage in 1997, as a result of which the Palace of Industry was listed in Grade II.

  Verulamium
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department is taking to safeguard archaeological remains at Verulamium; what plans English Heritage has to secure a management agreement for the site; and if he will make a statement. [89405]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]The site is protected as Scheduled Ancient Monument. English Heritage has commissioned a detailed survey which should provide the basis for discussions with the owners about implementing a new management plan for the site.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committees
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Council if she will propose the appointment of a select committee on young people and sport. [88499]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no plans to do so. Whilst the area is an important one, both the Culture, Media and Sport and the Education and Employment Committees are able to conduct inquiries into it.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by her special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89997]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speech writing and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department has funded non-Governmental organisations which have supplied out-of-date medicines to Kosovo. [89999]

  Clare Short
  We adhere to the World Health Organisation Guidelines on the donation of drugs, which require pharmaceutical donations to have a minimum of a year's shelf life and be provided against strict need assessment criteria. We have funded the provision of essential drugs in response to the Kosovar refugee crisis through the World Health Organisation itself and through reputable operational agencies which follow the guidelines.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what data her Department has collated on possible breaches of regulations in respect of the supply of out-of-date medicines to Kosovo by British based non-Governmental organisations in the past three months. [90000]

  Clare Short
  The World Health Organisation leads on the collation of data with respect to the international guidelines for the donation of drugs. They have recently reported that up to 65 per cent. of drugs donated to Albania in May have a shelf life of less than a year. Over 100 non-governmental organisations, including British based NGOs, have been active in Albania as a result of the Kosovo crisis. It is likely that many of these are not aware of, or choose not to adhere to, the WHO guidelines. We provide funding for drugs only to NGOs who adhere to the guidelines.
  462
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will hold an inquiry into the supply to Kosovar Albanians of obsolete medical supplies by non-Governmental organisations. [90001]

  Clare Short
  The World Health Organisation, the lead agency for medical supplies and assistance, have recently audited the provision of drugs to Albania during the refugee crisis. The results of the audit have been widely circulated. We have already made it clear that we will only fund the provision of essential drugs in response to assessed need in Kosovo and elsewhere, in line with the standards published by WHO.

  European Development Fund Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the voting allocations given to the members of the European Development Fund Committee. [89372]

  Clare Short
  Within the European Development Fund (EDF) Committee, the votes of the members states are weighted as follows:

  Member state

  Votes

  Austria

  6

  Belgium

  9

  Denmark

  5

  Finland

  4

  France

  52

  Germany

  50

  Greece

  4

  Iceland

  2

  Italy

  27

  Luxembourg

  1

  Netherlands

  12

  Portugal

  3

  Spain

  13

  Sweden

  6

  United kingdom

  27

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's policy is on the proposed European Development Fund grant to support the Rehabilitation of Roads in Cameroon (PERFED II); and what discussions her officials have had on this proposal with other members of the European Development Fund Committee. [89373]

  Clare Short
  We support the maintenance of roads in the Cameroon. Improved rural roads can bring considerable benefits to the poorest, particularly those living in isolated rural communities. My officials are examining the European Development Fund project proposal to ensure that it meets our concerns over consultation, social and environmental impacts and capacity for ongoing maintenance. My officials have been in contact with the German Development Ministry (BMZ), who are the lead bilateral donors to the transport sector in the Cameroon. Their view is similar to ours.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what dates Special Advisers from her Department have travelled abroad on official business since 2 May 1997; which countries were visited on each occasion; and what were the names of the Special Advisers who travelled on each occasion. [88437]
  463
  Clare Short
  [holding answer 30 June 1999]For the period 2 May 1997 to 5 July 1999, Special Advisers in my Department have travelled overseas in an official capacity on 16 occasions to a variety of locations. The total cost of travel and accommodation was £33,285.00. All travel complied with the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by her special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89979]

  Clare Short
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, stating in each case whether the results were published. [89685]

  Clare Short
  There are two relevant pieces of research:a report was produced in October 1997 by Opinion Leader Research to explore public attitudes to international development issues. This was published on the Department for International Development (DFID) website;
  in June 1999 a readership survey was carried out in relation to "Developments", a magazine produced by DFID to raise awareness of development issues. The results of this are still being analysed and have not been published.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of statutory instruments introduced by her Department into Parliament in 1998 had the European Union as their legislative source. [89164]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid is being delivered to the people of the Nuba Mountains region in Sudan. [89521]

  Clare Short
  UN and non-governmental organisations are delivering assistance to Government of Sudan controlled areas of the Nuba Mountains. They are also delivering more limited relief aid to Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army (SPLA) held areas, where access is a serious constraint.

  A UN mission visited the Nuba Mountains region, including some SPLA controlled areas, from 21 to 26 June. The team's conclusion was that although there is no evidence of widespread famine, there is malnutrition
  464
  among children and displaced people, and significant needs for water, health and basic education. The UN is negotiating with the parties to the conflict for improved access for relief supplies.

  Serbia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if, in the context of aid for Serbia, assistance to reconstruct a hospital is humanitarian assistance or reconstruction. [89973]

  Clare Short
  We will consider the provision of humanitarian assistance to Serbia on a case by case basis. We would assist with the provision of hospital facilities if they were an immediate humanitarian need which could not be met from other sources. We are not aware of any such needs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish information about preparations made by other countries to deal with the millennium bug. [90106]

  Mr. Hoon
  Action 2000 are summarising on their website information which is already publicly available from other countries' official Year 2000 web pages. This is designed to assist businesses by providing the information in one place. In addition the Government are in the process of gathering local information which will be placed on the FCO website.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has held with the Government of Chile concerning(a) its legal process and (b) the immunity of members of the armed forces from prosecution. [88893]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 1 July 1999]We have not held discussions with the Government of Chile concerning these matters. My understanding is that members of the Chilean armed services do not have "immunity from prosecution" under Chilean law.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what dates Ministers in his Department plan to be absent from the office in 1999; [89615]

  (2) if he will list the overseas visits proposed for (a) himself and (b) Ministers in his Department between 1 July and 1 December. [89614]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 2 July 1999]It is not possible to provide a definitive list as my visits programme is under constant review, but during the period 1 July-1 December 1999 I expect, on present plans, to make a number of visits to Finland, Brussels and Luxembourg on European Union business. I intend to visit New York for the United Nations General Assembly. I will be in attendance upon Her Majesty The Queen
  465
  during her State Visit to Ghana and Mozambique. I will visit South Africa for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

  I, and Ministers in my Department, will also undertake a number of bilateral visits. Our bilateral programme is currently under consideration, but I am already committed to visit Estonia in July and Japan in September.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the(a) persecution of the Hmong people in Vietnam and (b) migration of the Hmong peoples from their ancestral homelands; and what discussions he has had with his international counterparts about the protection of minorities in Vietnam. [89463]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government receive regular reports from our Embassy in Hanoi of the persecution of Hmong Christians in Vietnam; and regularly raises human rights concerns with the Vietnamese Government.

  The late Derek Fatchett raised our human rights concerns with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister during last year's ASEM II meeting in London, and again with the Vietnamese Ambassador earlier this year. The Embassy, together with other EU Embassies, regularly raises with the Vietnamese Government concerns about human rights, including on individual Hmong Christian detainees, and will continue to do so.

  Solomon Islands
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the Solomon Islands regarding the recent activities of the Guadalcanal Liberation Army. [89526]

  Mr. Hoon
  The British High Commissioner in Honiara has been in close contact with the Solomon Islands Prime Minister and Government since the escalation of the ethnic unrest. In response to requests from the Solomon Islands Prime Minister the Department for International Development is providing £50,000 to the Solomon Islands Red Cross to help displaced Malaitans and we are providing a vehicle to assist the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. We are also exploring with EU partners the possibility of EU assistance.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the British embassies in which locally engaged staff are paid less than the UK national minimum wage. [89872]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: This salary information is not held centrally and to provide it for 220 Diplomatic Posts worldwide would incur disproportionate cost.

  The salary scales and conditions of service of locally engaged staff vary from country to country. Salary scales are set by reference to comparable employers based locally at a level which enables posts to recruit, retain and motivate suitable staff.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the continuation of the trade embargos on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, indicating the proportion of global shipping that is subject to the stop and search regime. [89820]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our aim is to continue to use sanctions to maintain pressure for democratic reform in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The search and visit regime prepared by NATO has not been put into effect following the termination of NATO's military action against the FRY.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to assist the peoples of Kashmir to determine their own future. [89892]

  Mr. Hoon
  We believe that any solution, if it is to be permanent and acceptable, must involve, and reflect the views of, the people of Kashmir. Our role, and that of others who wish India and Pakistan well, is to encourage both countries to resolve, through dialogue, the issues between them.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning whether the current shelling in and around Kashmir was caused by infiltrators. [89891]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are clear that the current fighting, including shelling by both sides, in the Kargil sector of Jammu and Kashmir was instigated by the infiltration of a large number of armed personnel across the Line of Control.

  Indian Ocean Territories
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America on the future of the Indian Ocean territories. [89676]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We hold annual bilateral talks at official level, with the United States, to discuss the British Indian Ocean Territory. This year they were held in May. At these talks both delegations agreed on the continuing strategic importance of the defence facility in Diego Garcia, including in operations against Iraq.

  Helms Burton Act
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the United States administration on the effects of the Helms Burton Act on Cuba; and if he will make a statement. [89827]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made it clear to the US that we entirely reject the use of extraterritorial legislation such as Helms Burton. We have consistently told the Americans that the best way of encouraging reform in Cuba is to convince the Cubans themselves, through dialogue and co-operation, of the need for change.

  Chechnya
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the persecution and the resultant migrations of Christians in Chechnya. [89998]

  Ms Quin
  We are aware of unconfirmed reports that some Christians have left Chechnya. But we have no clear evidence to show whether this is as a result of persecution, or local political instability, or the collapse of social support structures in Chechnya. We are discussing the situation with NGO's connected to the region.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  HM Prison Aldington
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has for Her Majesty's Prison, Aldington; and if he will make a statement. [89306]

  Mr. Straw
  Following a review of the projected future requirements of both the Prison Service and the Immigration Service, it has been agreed that Her Majesty's Prison, Aldington should be closed by the end of August 1999 and the site handed over to the Immigration Service to pursue its development as an Immigration detention centre.

  Our plans are to redevelop the site under a form of private finance to provide at least 300 detention places with sufficient flexibility to accommodate males, females and families in a safe and secure environment by the spring of 2002. The opening of the Aldington site by the Immigration Service will enable detainees held in prisons elsewhere in the south to be placed in conditions better suited to their status and needs. It will also free much needed spaces in local prisons.

  The Prison Service plans to redeploy the staff of the prison elsewhere within the Service. No compulsory redundancies of "mobile" grades are envisaged as a result of the closure of Aldington. Every effort will also be made to avoid redundancies for "non-mobile" grades. In addition to the employment opportunities arising from the construction of a new centre, we estimate that around 150 new jobs will be created once the facility is opened.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of statutory instruments introduced by his Department into Parliament in(a) 1998, (b) 1992, (c) 1985 and (d) 1973 had the European Union as their legislative source. [89165]

  Mr. Straw
  The total number of Statutory Instruments (SIs) registered as General Instruments in 1998, 1992, 1985 and 1973 made by my Department is listed in the table. I have indicated, to the extent the information is available, the number which were made to comply with European Community obligations.

  Year

  Number of SIs

  Number implementing European Community obligations (where applicable)

  1998

  118

  1

  1992

  86

  2

  468

  Year

  Number of SIs

  Number implementing European Community obligations (where applicable)

  1985

  84

  —

  1973

  116

  —

  With regard to 1985 and 1973, it is not possible, without incurring disproportionate cost, to determine how many of these SIs were introduced to comply with European Community obligations.

  The figures given exclude Statutory Instruments which deal with European Parliamentary elections since these do not give effect directly to a Community obligation.

  Racial Discrimination
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about persons who have not been racially discriminated against having the power to bring forward a complaint on the part of a group or individuals who have been victims of such discrimination. [89544]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The question has been taken to mean "representative action". In this context, no representations have been received.

  In the Commission for Racial Equality's Third Review of the Race Relations Act 1976, there were a large number of proposals for amending the Act. One of the proposals was that the Act should be amended to enable a court or tribunal to consider a complaint where the discrimination affects a number of people who wish to bring a group complaint, without the need for each person separately to bring proceedings. This proposal envisages "class action" and it, along with all the other proposals in the Commission's Review, is currently under consideration.

  Highway Offences
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been(a) for offences related to cycling and (b) for dangerous behaviour by pedestrians in the last five years. [89541]

  Mr. Boateng
  Available information on the number of defendants proceeded against for offences connected with pedal cycles is given in the table.

  Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for offences connected with pedal cycles, England and Wales 1993–97

  Persons proceeded against

  1993

  1,370

  1994

  1,129

  1995

  1,298

  1996

  1,513

  1997

  1,718

  Information on the number of pedestrians prosecuted for highway offences are not identifiable separately within the Home Office Court Proceedings Database.

  Parking Offences
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many spot fines have been levied by the police on motorists for(a) illegal parking and (b) parking on cycle lanes in the last five years; [89542]
  469
  (2) how many motorists have been prosecuted for (a) illegal parking and (b) parking on cycle lanes in the last five years. [89543]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to separately identify illegal parking on cycle lanes in the statistics collected centrally.

  The table shows the number of proceedings at magistrates courts and the number of fixed penalty notices issued for all offences of obstruction, waiting and parking in England and Wales during the years 1993 to 1997. Statistics for 1998 are not yet available.

  Proceedings at magistrates courts and fixed penalty notices issued for offences of obstruction, waiting and parking, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Year

  Number of proceedings at magistrates courts

  Number of fixed penalty notices issued

  1993

  45,137

  3,383,011

  1994

  32,111

  2,698,349

  1995

  24,192

  2,270,732

  1996

  23,348

  2,282,481

  1997

  23,631

  2,199,242

  From 1994, local authorities were allowed to enforce parking controls within Special Parking Areas by parking attendants. The number of penalty charge notices issued

  Initial decisions made on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom1.2 by type January to April 1999, nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia

  January 1999

  February 1999

  March 1999

  April 1999

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Total decisions of which:

  45

  50

  75

  985

  Grants of asylum

  *

  10

  10

  805

  Grants of ELR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Refusals

  45

  40

  50

  20

  Grants of ELR under the backlog criteria3,4

  *

  *

  15

  160

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Iraq

  Total decisions of which:

  10

  15

  30

  35

  Grants of asylum

  *

  *

  10

  10

  Grants of ELR

  5

  *

  10

  15

  Refusals

  5

  10

  10

  5

  Grants of ELR under the backlog criteria3.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  Total decisions of which:

  5

  10

  25

  20

  Grants of asylum

  *

  5

  5

  5

  Grants of ELR

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Refusals

  5

  5

  15

  15

  Grants of ELR under the backlog criteria3.4

  —

  —

  5

  5

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria3

  —

  —

  *

  —

  1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '* = 1or 2

  2Excluding dependants

  3Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum backlog

  4May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To Ask the secretary of state for the Home Department if he will list each of the prisons in England and Wales where prison officers have been suspended for alleged assaults against prison inmates or for other 470
  was 1,706,000 in 1994; 3,148,000 in 1995; 3,523,000 in 1996; and 3,769,000 in 1997.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the purposes of each order, currently under preparation, which will relate to the processing of personal data in accordance with the provisions in Schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the Data Protection Act 1998. [89652]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We are preparing an order under paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 to the Data Protection Act 1998 specifying additional circumstances in which sensitive personal data may be processed. We have no current plans to bring forward subordinate legislation made under any other provision of Schedules 2, 3 or 4 to the 1998 Act.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were processed in(a) January, (b) February, (c) March and (d) April from (i) Kosovo, (ii) Iraq and (iii) Somalia; how many of these were (1) agreed and (2) refused; and if he will make a statement. [89467]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. I regret that it is not possible to separately identify Kosovans within the available statistics for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  breaches of prison rules; and how many officers at each prison have been suspended for these alleged offences in the last year. [89346]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The table shows in which prisons prison officer grades were suspended as at 1 July 1999.
  471

  Suspended prison officers in prisons in England and Wales

  Prison

  Number

  Alleged offence

  Bedford

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Belmarsh

  1

  Sexual misconduct

  Birmingham

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Blundeston

  1

  Seeking loan from prisoner

  Brinsford

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Brixton

  3

  Favours for prisoners for monetary gain

  Brockhill

  2

  Fraud

  Theft

  Bullingdon

  2

  Assault on prisoner

  Confidentiality breach

  Cardiff

  1

  Failure to get authority for relationship with prisoner

  Castington

  1

  Assault on prisoner

  Chelmsford

  2

  Preventing course of justice

  Assault

  Coldingley

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Cookham Wood

  1

  Sexual harassment, assault

  Downview

  2

  Expenses fraud

  Money laundering and harbouring

  Elmley

  1

  Improper relationship with prisoner

  Everthorpe

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Feltham

  2

  Assault on prisoner

  Frankland

  1

  Possession of drugs

  Full Sutton

  3

  Action that led to assault of prisoner by prisoners

  Garth

  2

  Fraud

  Improper relationships with prisoner's wife

  Gartree

  1

  Improper relationship with prisoner

  Gloucester

  1

  Public order offence

  Haverigg

  1

  Fraud

  High Down

  3

  Assault on prisoner

  Sexual harassment

  Indecent assault

  Highpoint

  1

  Misappropriation of funds

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Holloway

  1

  Indecent behaviour in front of prisoners

  Hull

  1

  Harassment of staff; unnecessary force on prisoners

  Lancaster Farms

  1

  Fraud

  Latchmere House

  I

  Expenses fraud

  Leeds

  1

  Possession of drugs

  Long Lartin

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Low Newton

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Maidstone

  2

  Expenses fraud

  Racial comments

  Manchester

  6

  Assault on prisoner

  Assault on wife

  Indecent assault on member of staff

  Sexual activity on duty

  Interfering with witnesses

  Bribery

  Moorland

  1

  Expenses fraud

  Norwich

  1

  Unlawful sale of goods

  Nottingham

  1

  Falsely claiming sick

  Parkhurst

  1

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  Pentonville

  1

  Indecent assault on minor

  Portland

  1

  Assault

  Send

  2

  Expenses fraud

  Releasing prisoner without authority

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Harassment

  Thom Cross

  1

  Fraud

  The Verne

  1

  Loss of keys

  Wandsworth

  3

  Harassment of staff

  Theft

  Threatening behaviour to staff

  The Weare

  2

  Expenses fraud

  Rape

  Woodhill

  4

  Drug use

  Failed to give sample, criminal damage

  Failed to prevent assault on prisoner Deception

  Wormwood Scrubs

  26

  Assault on prisoners x 25

  Aiding prisoner escape

  Wymott

  1

  Expenses fraud

  472

  Sexual Offences (Children)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of sexual offences against children(a) led to charges being preferred, (b) were prosecuted and (c) resulted in convictions in each year from 1989. [89581]

  Table A: Number of offenders cautioned for sexual offences against children by type of offence, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  39

  59

  49

  30

  27

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  2

  7

  5

  8

  8

  Buggery by a male of a male under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male with a female under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  157

  221

  199

  209

  184

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rape of a female aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rape of a male aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  1,121

  1,117

  1,023

  1,081

  1,007

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  83

  72

  63

  59

  67

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  1,122

  984

  850

  706

  553

  Incest with girl under 13

  11

  16

  13

  12

  19

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  3

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  3

  7

  3

  3

  3

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 or under

  44

  53

  41

  46

  56

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 or under

  34

  41

  40

  52

  45

  Table A: Number of offenders cautioned for sexual offences against children by type of offence, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  41

  8

  5

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  6

  1

  1

  —

  Buggery by a male of a male under 161

  —

  2

  5

  44

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Buggery by a male with a female under 161

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burggery by a male aged 18– with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  176

  137

  120

  102

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 182

  —

  4

  4

  11

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Rape of a female aged under 163

  —

  5

  11

  18

  Rape of a male aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 163

  —

  2

  4

  3

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  849

  670

  664

  624

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  45

  41

  40

  16

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  500

  400

  369

  273

  Incest with girl under 13

  11

  8

  4

  7

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  5

  2

  2

  2

  474
  Mr. Boateng
  Detailed information on the number of people charged is not collected centrally. We do have some information from the Home Office Cautions and Court Proceedings Databases, on the number of persons cautioned, proceeded against and convicted for sexual offences against children. This is given in the tables and is not comprehensive as it is not possible to identify all offences where the victim was under 16 years of age.
  475

  Table A: Number of offenders cautioned for sexual offences against children by type of offence, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 or under

  49

  28

  21

  27

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 or under

  36

  30

  33

  37

  1Buggery and attempted buggery offences under the Sexual offences Act 1956 S 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S143

  2Indecency between males offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 S12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S144

  2Rape and attempted rape offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 S1 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S142

  Table B: Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for sexual offences against children by type of offence, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  281

  327

  300

  329

  294

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  32

  25

  24

  27

  15

  Buggery by a male of a male under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male with a female under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  553

  570

  522

  457

  432

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rape of a female aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rape of a male aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  2,169

  2,285

  2,138

  2,005

  1,896

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  139

  146

  155

  112

  97

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  290

  292

  254

  254

  189

  Incest with girl under 13

  88

  111

  80

  50

  52

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  3

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  6

  7

  3

  9

  8

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  16

  12

  20

  24

  13

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 or under

  130

  156

  117

  131

  102

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 or under

  147

  161

  122

  130

  155

  Table B: Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for sexual offences against children by type of offence, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  345

  125

  16

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  21

  6

  3

  —

  Buggery by a male of a male under 161

  —

  48

  66

  107

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  1

  2

  6

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Buggery by a male with a female under 161

  —

  25

  26

  35

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  449

  400

  325

  373

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 182

  —

  10

  9

  30

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Rape of a female aged under 163

  —

  336

  477

  592

  Rape of a male aged under 163

  —

  18

  20

  45

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 163

  —

  32

  44

  74

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 163

  —

  —

  4

  5

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  2036

  1797

  1604

  1639

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  88

  77

  40

  40

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  202

  195

  164

  153

  Incest with girl under 13

  41

  22

  26

  14

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  5

  3

  2

  7

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  —

  4

  4

  3

  476 477

  Table B: Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for sexual offences against children by type of offences, England

  and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male2

  —

  1

  —

  6

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  27

  11

  9

  6

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 or under

  87

  62

  61

  63

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 or under

  129

  109

  97

  109

  1Buggery and attempted buggery offences under the Sexual offences Act 1956 S 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S143

  2Indecency between males offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 S12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S144

  3Rape and attempted rape offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 S1 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S142

  Table C: Number of offenders convicted1 at all courts for offences against children by type of offence, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  183

  189

  168

  163

  136

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  26

  18

  26

  17

  20

  Buggery by a male of a male under 162

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male with a female under 162

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  406

  421

  351

  363

  293

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 183

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 183

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rape of a female aged under 164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rape of a male aged under 164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 16°

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  1,657

  1,537

  1,469

  1,331

  1,205

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  96

  110

  105

  89

  76

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  262

  304

  223

  218

  170

  Incest with girl under 13

  100

  84

  68

  52

  51

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  5

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  3

  5

  1

  3

  6

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  1

  2

  2

  —

  1

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  13

  8

  8

  12

  6

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 or under

  104

  128

  91

  99

  80

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 or under

  115

  148

  128

  129

  123

  Table C: Number of offenders convicted1 at all courts for offences against children by type of offence, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  135

  86

  5

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  16

  14

  2

  —

  Buggery by a male of a male under 162

  —

  29

  66

  70

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 172

  —

  2

  3

  6

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Buggery by a male with a female under 162

  —

  7

  17

  21

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 172

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 172

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  324

  339

  355

  363

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 183

  —

  11

  11

  17

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 183

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Rape of a female aged under 164

  —

  113

  210

  198

  Rape of a male aged under 164

  —

  2

  13

  24

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 164

  —

  21

  35

  52

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 164

  —

  2

  2

  2

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  1355

  1,446

  1,597

  1,627

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  64

  81

  54

  44

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  205

  203

  207

  199

  478 479

  Table C: Number of offenders convicted1 at all courts for offences against children by type of offence, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Offence description

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Incest with girl under 13

  35

  21

  19

  19

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  4

  5

  —

  3

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  2

  3

  —

  1

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  —

  3

  1

  1

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male3

  —

  2

  3

  6

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  9

  6

  3

  1

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18

  —

  1

  1

  0

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 or under

  77

  56

  53

  56

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 or under

  112

  99

  109

  111

  1Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences

  1Buggery and attempted buggery offences under the Sexual offences Act 1956 S12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S143

  3Indecency between males offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 S12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S144

  4Rape and attempted rape offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 S1 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S142

  Child Prostitution
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children under 16 years of age have been charged with prostitution offences broken down by age in each year from 1989. [89582]

  Number of offenders cautioned and defendants prosecuted in magistrates courts for prostitution related offences, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Aged 10

  Aged 11

  Aged 12

  Aged 13

  Aged 14

  Aged 15

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Kerb-crawling (Sexual Offences Act 1985 s1)

  Males

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Females

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Persons

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution (Sexual Offences Act s2)

  Males

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Females

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Persons

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution (Street Offences Act 1959 sl)

  Males

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Females

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  9

  —

  32

  6

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  13

  1

  19

  3

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  5

  —

  10

  —

  34

  6

  1992

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  6

  1

  41

  10

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  32

  1

  32

  8

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  3

  19

  5

  25

  14

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  11

  1

  27

  8

  1996

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  16

  —

  31

  6

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  11

  1

  42

  6

  480
  Mr. Boateng
  Detailed information on the number of people charged is not collected centrally. Available information, taken from the Home Office Cautions and Court Proceedings Databases, on the number of persons aged under 16 cautioned or prosecuted for prostitution related offences is given in the table.
  481

  Number of offenders cautioned and defendants prosecuted in magistrates courts for prostitution related offences, England and Wales, 1989–97

  Aged 10

  Aged 11

  Aged 12

  Aged 13

  Aged 14

  Aged 15

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Caut.

  Proc.

  Persons

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  9

  —

  32

  6

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  13

  2

  19

  4

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  5

  —

  10

  —

  34

  6

  1992

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  6

  1

  42

  10

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  32

  1

  32

  8

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  3

  19

  5

  25

  14

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  11

  11

  28

  9

  1996

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  16

  —

  31

  6

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  11

  1

  42

  6

  Male soliciting or importuning in public place for immoral purposes (Sexual Offences Act 1956 s32)

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Note:

  Years in which no cautions or prosecutions were reported to the Home Office have been excluded

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were charged with living off the immoral earnings of child prostitutes in each year since 1989; and what was the average sentence for such offenders on conviction. [89583]

  Mr. Boateng
  Detailed information on the number of people charged is not collected centrally.

  Although the Home Office Cautions and Court Proceedings Databases identify persons cautioned or proceeded against for offences of
  "living off immoral earnings or exercising control over prostitute"
  (S30 and S31 combined of the Sexual Offences Act 1956), they do not hold information on the age of the prostitute.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unprocessed passport applications were outstanding at each office of the UK Passport Agency and in total at the end of the week beginning 27 June. [89845]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]The information requested on the number of unprocessed passport applications outstanding at the end of the week beginning 27 June is set out in the table.

  Unprocessed passport applications outstanding end of week commencing 27 June 1999

  No.

  London

  11,026

  Liverpool

  174,422

  Peterborough

  95,852

  Newport

  119,544

  Glasgow

  124,374

  Belfast

  1,803

  Total

  527,021

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, during the present difficulties concerning passports, he will reintroduce the practice of making one-year passports available over the counter at post offices. [89461]
  482
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. A review by the Passport Agency in 1994 established that the one year's British Visitors Passport (BVP) was used in the evasion of immigration controls and by criminals, terrorists and football hooligans, and had been a cause of great concern to police and immigration authorities in this country and in Europe for some considerable time. The review also found that the BVP had a poor reputation and with the immigration pressures that other European Union governments were facing, the point had been reached when the BVP's flaws could no longer be tolerated. As a result, the Home Secretary announced on 20 December 1994,Official Report, columns 1214–15, that the BVP would cease to be available after 31 December 1995.

  The sound reasons for withdrawing the BVP are such that there is no case for its re-introduction.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the criteria which he applied in awarding the Passport Agency's contract for passport-issuing arrangements to Siemens Business Services. [89974]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The high level criteria applied in awarding the Passport Agency's contract for passport issuing arrangements were:

  Security

  Continuity of Service

  Compatibility

  Management Information Systems

  Archive System

  Commercial and Technical Criteria

  Examining Support/Speed/Method/Customer Service

  Evergreening

  Cultural Compatibility

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates, since 1 April 1998 when(a) Ministers and (b) the Chief Executive of the Passport Agency met trade union representatives to discuss the introduction of new passport-issuing arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [89977]
  483
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1 April 1998, meetings with trade union representatives to discuss various issues, which may have included the introduction of new passport issuing arrangements, have been held on the following dates:With Ministers, on 19 October 1998, 15 March 1999, 27 May 1999 and 28 June 1999. A further meeting is scheduled for 8 July 1999. With the Chief Executive formally on 13 May 1998, 5 November 1998, 27 May 1999, 23 June 1999 and on an ad hoc basis on other occasions that are not formally recorded.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Civil Service trade unions since 1 April 1998 about the introduction and implementation of new passport issuing arrangements. [89978]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have met with the trade unions on four occasions since 1 April 1998 to discuss staffing issues, including the introduction and implementation of new passport issuing arrangements, in order to understand the trade unions' views and, where necessary, bring them to the attention of the Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Passport Agency. In early April 1999, I agreed that 300 extra staff should be recruited.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff at each passport office have transferred to Siemens Business Services. [89976]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 5 October 1998, 100 United Kingdom Passport Agency staff at Liverpool Passport Office (82 full time equivalents) transferred to Siemens Business Services.

  On 16 November 1998, 96 staff at Newport Passport Office (76 full time equivalents) transferred to Siemens Business Services.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his original target dates for the introduction of new passport-issuing arrangements at the(a) London, (b) Belfast, (c) Glasgow and (d) Peterborough offices of the Passport Agency and the dates when he decided not to implement those targets. [89975]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In order of implementation of the new system, the original target dates were:

  Target date

  Passport Office

  7 December 1998

  Peterborough

  18 January 1999

  Glasgow

  8 February 1999

  Belfast

  22 February 1999

  London

  The decision not to implement the system beyond the multi site pilot at Liverpool and Newport was taken on 18 November 1998.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts awarded in relation to computerisation of the Passport Agency, indicating in each case to whom it was awarded and on what date. [89882]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Contracts were awarded to Siemens Business Services and The Stationery Office (now Security Printing and Systems Ltd.) on 9 July 1997 and 13 June 1997 respectively.

  Visitor Processing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of installing and operating a system of recording the entry and departure of visitors to the United Kingdom. [89829]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We estimate that the additional staffing costs at ports would be about £10 million per annum in order to support a system of recording the entry and departure of all visitors. There would also be further significant cost implications for enhancement of the present record systems.

  Miss Sokcevic
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the travel documents for Miss Sokcevic (Immigration Reference No. S797486) will be produced. [89862]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The document was issued on Friday 2 July.

  Prisons (Mothers and Children)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the review of principles, policies, and procedures relating to mothers and babies/children in prison will be published. [90056]

  Mr. Straw
  The Prison Service report of the review of principles, policies and procedures on mothers and babies/ children in prison is published today and copies have been placed in the Library. There are 62 recommendations. The report concludes that the overriding principle guiding the provision of, and allocation of places in, mother and baby units should be in the best interests of the child. The Director General of the Prison Service accepts and welcomes the report and that conclusion specifically. A full action plan, setting out how it proposes to proceed on each of the recommendations will be published soon. A copy of that action plan will be placed in the Library.

  EU Corruption
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1999,Official Report, column 435, concerning the European Union Convention concerning corruption involving its officials, what parliamentary consideration it received. [88678]

  Kate Hoey
  The draft Convention and an Explanatory Note were sent to the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation, the House of Lords Select Committee on European Legislation and the Home Affairs Committee on 8 May 1996. The House of Lords Select Committee cleared the draft Convention from scrutiny on 6 June 1996. The House of Commons Select Committee did not have a formal role in the scrutiny of proposals falling under the Third Pillar (Justice and Home Affairs) until 17 November 1998.

  Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to ensure
  485
  that persons who have applied in time for renewal of exceptional leave to remain are not denied benefits due to delays in processing their applications. [90239]

  Mr. Straw
  Responsibility for deciding who is eligible to receive benefits is a matter for the Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency. An official in the Integrated Casework Directorate wrote to the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency on 27 April to clarify the immigration status of such applicants. In immigration law, provided a person with leave to remain applies for an extension before that leave expires, that person may remain lawfully in the United Kingdom after expiry of that leave until the application is decided, and of course beyond that date if the application is granted. The Chief Executive was advised that provided persons seeking benefits produced evidence to Benefits Agency staff that they had submitted an application for extension of leave before it had expired, then Benefits Agency staff could assume that they were here lawfully.

  It was suggested that the Chief Executive might wish to circulate this information widely among Benefits Agency staff, as the Immigration and Nationality Directorate were aware that some applicants were being refused benefits although they had submitted an application for an extension before expiry of their permitted leave.

  The delay in dealing with some applications owing to the reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is regretted. However, the situation is improving and output from the Integrated Casework Directorate has now recovered to about 80 per cent. of the level achieved during last year.

  European Elections
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of instruction material provided to(a) polling clerks and (b) returning officers for the European Elections on 10 June. [89972]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The cost of the training programme for electoral staff for the European Parliamentary elections was £4 million. Much of the material produced for returning officers and presiding officers was common to both so it is not possible to cost these elements separately.

  In addition, the Home Office produced a guidance manual for returning officers. The production and distribution costs were approximately £3,500.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations his Department carried out with organisations representing blind and visually-impaired people before publishing and distributing literature on the new proportional representation system for the 1999 European elections; [89748]

  (2) for what reason his Department's leaflet explaining the new proportional representation system for the 1999 European elections was not available in large print; [89749]

  (3) what steps his Department took to ensure that blind and visually impaired people were aware that his Department's leaflet explaining the new proportional representation system for the 1999 European elections was available in Braille and audio-cassette. [89750]
  486
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government's explanatory leaflet was produced using 14-point type which is the Royal National Institute for the Blind's (RNIB) minimum recommended size to make the text accessible to visually impaired people. The text of the leaflet was also included on teletext where it is normally possible to enlarge the text size.

  It is made clear in the leaflet that it was available in Braille and audio-cassette forms. In addition, advertisements about the leaflet were taken in seven RNIB publications. A press notice about the leaflet was sent to 40 disability oriented publications.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these.[89985]

  Mr. Straw
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the party and helping to brief party Members of Parliament. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

  European Council (Tampere)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 9, concerning the agenda items and related documents to be discussed at the additional European Council to be held in Tampere, Finland, in October, to consider the European Judicial Area, what criteria were used to determine which documents are inappropriate for publication; and what committees of either House of Parliament will be able to consider those published prior to that council meeting. [88690]

  Kate Hoey
  The draft Convention and an Explanatory Note were sent to the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation, the House of Lords Select Committee on European Legislation and the Home Affairs Committee on 1 June 1995. The House of Lords Select Committee cleared it from scrutiny on 13 June 1995.

  Prior to ratification of the Convention, the instrument of ratification is drafted, signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, sealed, bound and deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union.

  Styal Prison (Babies' Diet)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the daily allowance of fresh fruit and vegetables is for babies in Styal Prison. [89345]
  487
  Mr. George Howarth
  There is no specific allowance. Mothers in the mother and baby unit at Styal select and order ingredients for their children's meals from a list of available items and prepare them individually to suit the particular child. Fresh fruit and vegetables are always available.

  Police Manpower (Costs)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of increasing police force strength by 6,000 officers. [89360]

  Mr. Boateng
  The estimated annual cost of 6,000 additional constables would be around £150 million.

  Ministers have no direct control over police numbers. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for individual chief constables to determine the numbers of officers in their forces on the basis of the resources made available to them.

  Election Information
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish election information material in large print for partially-sighted people. [89374]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that visually impaired voters receive accessible information. We are currently reviewing our guidance on access by disabled people to electoral services following a recommendation in last year's interim report of the Working Party on Electoral Matters, which I am chairing, and will of course continue to keep under review the size of print in which future election material is produced.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of re-offending among those young offenders who are released on bail. [89363]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Home Office research in 1997 found that 38 per cent. of juveniles bailed by the police or courts committed offences while on bail. The relevant report is in the Library: Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No 72, "Offending on bail and police use of conditional bail 1998".

  The Government have since made up to £35 million available to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales for bail support and supervision schemes and other remand-related initiatives. Together with the Board and local youth justice services, they are also taking steps to speed up the operation of the youth justice system, which would reduce time spent on bail.

  Metropolitan Police Commissioner
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what selection criteria are used 488
  in determining the appointment of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. [89561]

  Mr. Straw
  An advertisement inviting applications for the post of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis was placed in the Police Review on 4 and 11 June. The advert invited applications from serving chief constables, equivalent police ranks and above.

  Shortlisting and interviews will be conducted in July by a panel chaired by my Permanent Secretary, David Omand and three members: Sir John Quinton, Chair of the Metropolitan Police Committee, Sir Roger Hum, Chairman of GEC and Sylvia Denman CBE, Chair of Camden and Islington Health Authority.

  The selection criteria for the new Commissioner will be based on the competency framework which was developed for the selection of chief officers of police in England and Wales using accepted techniques of job analysis. The competencies sought will include: judgment, self confidence, strategic perspective, achievement focus, communication, effective action on diversity, building teams and influencing others, building upon the professional experience of policing that the candidates will have already demonstrated.

  I will make the final selection based on the advice of the selection panel. I intend to announce the name of the successful candidate in August or early September this year. The successful applicant will be appointed in good time to replace the existing Commissioner who retires in January 2000. The appointment is expected to be for a term of five years.

HEALTH

  Social Workers
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the professional qualifications of the social care workforce. [88254]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to improving the education and training of the social care workforce, and the Government's specific proposals were outlined in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services." We are currently considering the outcome of the second stage of a fundamental review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. This review has addressed in detail the widespread concerns about the quality of training leading to professional qualifications in social work. We hope to be able to make an announcement as to the findings of this review and its implications for improving professional social work education and training later this year.

  Carlisle Hospital
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new district general hospital in Carlisle will be completed. [88255]

  Mr. Denham
  The contractual completion date is May 2000.

  Artificial Limbs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent of the choice of types of artificial limb available to NHS patients. [88256]

  Mr. Hutton
  The range of limbs and components available on the NHS Supplies contract is extensive and includes virtually all the products available. Health authorities can, however, provide a product outside the range generally available if clinicians judge that there is a clinical need to do so.

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial position of the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority. [88257]

  Mr. Denham
  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority has an allocation for 1999–2000 of £423 million, a 6.35 per cent. cash increase over last year. The Health Authority is forecasting a small surplus this year.

  Mental Health Services
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements he proposes to make to the quality and provision of mental health services. [88258]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Service Framework, to be published shortly, will set national standards and issue clear and robust guidance that will seek to address regional variations in the provision of clinical and cost effective treatments through the publication of service standards. The Framework will focus on consistent, quality care delivered by safe, sound and supportive services.

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds were available to admit new patients detained under the Mental Health Acts on 16, 17 and 18 May. [88829]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect information on the number of available beds on a daily basis. It requests data on the availability and occupancy of National Health Service beds in mental illness wards and, by way of the central return ICH03, produces information on an annual basis from each NHS trust.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the increase in gross expenditure in England on personal social services in the last year. [88259]

  Mr. Hutton
  The level of expenditure on personal social services is set by local authorities. Gross expenditure on personal social services in England in 1997–98 was £9,984 million, an increase of £721 million or just under 8 per cent. compared to 1996–97. Gross expenditure figures for later years are not available.

  Health Inequalities
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of current levels of health inequalities in England. [88260]

  Ms Jowell
  Reducing health inequalities is one of the main aims of our health strategy and a shared national priority for health and social services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed Sir Donald Acheson to lead an independent inquiry into inequalities in health which, among other things, reviewed the latest available information and summarised the evidence of inequalities. Sir Donald's report, published last November, has assisted the development of our health strategy which we shall be publishing as a White Paper, together with a report on action being taken across Government to reduce inequalities in health.

  Modernisation Fund
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the level of the NHS Modernisation Fund in the past year; and how much of the outgoings has been spent on waiting lists, capital investment, education, staff training, primary care and mental health. [88261]

  Mr. Denham
  This is the first year of the Modernisation Fund. It has been earmarked for modernising and developing the National Health Service.

  Over £1.2 billion has been allocated in 1999–2000. This includes:

  £320 million to help tackle waiting in the NHS;

  £170 million for capital investment, including £100 million from the Treasury Capital Modernisation Fund;

  £120 million to expand education and training opportunities for doctors and nurses;

  £320 million for Primary Care, including £54 million for the establishment of NHS Direct; and

  £50 million for mental health services.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what period of consultation he proposes on the draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising and Promotion) Regulations. [88263]

  Ms Jowell
  There will be eight weeks of public consultation on the draft regulations and accompanying draft Regulatory Impact Assessment. The consultation paper was published on 17 June and consultation will end on 13 August.

  Cancer
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for introducing a national cancer action team for the NHS. [88264]

  Mr. Hutton
  The establishment of a national Cancer Action Team was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20 May 1999,Official Report, columns 401–02, as part of a plan of action to tackle cancer and save lives. The Team will work with the National Health Service and other key organisations to raise the standard

  491
  of cancer care in all our hospitals to that which is already being achieved in our best. The Director of the Cancer Action Team will take up post in July.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the psychological problems suffered by cancer patients; and if he will make a statement. [89097]

  Mr. Hutton
  Psychological problems suffered by cancer patients have been extensively researched. The need for psychological support for cancer patients was acknowledged in the "Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services" published by the Department in 1995 (the Calman-Hine report). The Joint Collegiate Council for Oncology in May 1996 issued guidance to doctors on psychological support services for cancer patients and their families. The importance of psychological support has also been encompassed in the series "Improving Outcomes in Cancer" published by the National Health Service Executive since 1996.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has assessed on the usefulness of gemcitabine in treating patients with cancer of the pancreas; and how many health authorities are funding this treatment. [89082]

  Mr. Hutton
  Gemcitabine is licensed by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) for palliative treatment of advanced non-small cell lung and pancreas cancers. The MCA licenses drugs on the basis of quality, safety and efficacy. We do not have central information on which health authorities authorise hospitals to prescribe gemcitabine.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will commission a study into the impact on long-term survival rates for cancer patients of using the latest chemotherapy drugs; and if he will make a statement; [84237]

  (2) if he will commission a study into the relative cost effectiveness of using (a) drugs, (b) surgery, (c) chemotherapy, (d) radiography and (e) other methods in the treatment of cancers; and if he will make a statement. [84242]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department and the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, are already funding studies which evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for individual cancers. Details of projects supported by the Department can be found on the National Research Register available in the Library or on www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will also appraise the effectiveness of specific cancer drugs for use in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the findings of the report, "The Case for an Increase in Oncology Drug Expenditure in the UK", by the Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement; [84246]
  492
  (2) what guidance he has given to health authorities on oncology drug spending following the publication of the report by CERT on oncology drug expenditure in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [86624]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to equitable access to high quality care and have made the treatment of cancer one of our first priorities. Treatment decision, including the use of chemotherapy, should be evidence based and agreed jointly between doctor and patient. We will consider carefully the information contained in the Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment report as we take forward work to reduce variations in cancer care across the country.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those cancer treatment drugs most effective in treating each type of cancer in the past year. [84417]

  Mr. Hutton
  The British National Formulary lists all cancer drugs used for cancer treatment and side effects. It is for clinicians to decide the most appropriate and most effective treatment for individual patients.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Cancer Beacon will be assessed in terms of raising standards in cancer care; and if he will make a statement. [89071]

  Mr. Hutton
  The eight Cancer Beacons announced on 23 June are part of a wider programme to raise the quality of care provided by the National Health Service. Over the first two years, Cancer Beacons will focus on improving cancer care by demonstrating examples of a quality service. Each Cancer Beacon will receive £50,000 over two years to enable them to share good practice through networks and events organised through the NHS, such as exchange visits, open days and a new national 'service delivery practice' database on the NHS web to which all NHS organisations will have access. Cancer Beacons will agree with NHS Executive Regions on the education arrangements and dissemination of messages about their service and will produce an annual report on progress.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities which authorise GPs to prescribe(a) Irinorelbine for the treatment of lung cancer, (b) Irinotecan for the treatment of colorectal cancer and (c) Paclitaxel for the treatment of ovarian cancer. [89096]

  Mr. Hutton
  All cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs for the treatment of cancer are prescribed by hospital specialists and not by general practitioners in the community. We do not have central information on which health authorities authorise hospitals to prescribe these drugs. Irinorelbine has not yet been licensed by the Medicines Control Agency so we would expect it to be used only in the context of clinical research.

  Nurses
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage nurses to return to the NHS. [88265]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are supporting a number of initiatives to encourage nurses to return to practice in the National Health Service.
  493
  On 1 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £5 million nursing recruitment campaign outlining improved pay and conditions for nurses and targeting, in particular, trained nurses who are no longer working in the NHS. The campaign attracted a very encouraging response with over 53,000 inquiries, 5,000 of which were from potential returners. Since the campaign began, over 1,000 nurses have returned to employment in the NHS, in England.

  Doctor Training
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his plans to increase the number of medical doctors in training. [88266]

  Mr. Denham
  In July 1998 the Government accepted the proposal to increase medical student intake in the United Kingdom by about 1,000 places per year. 842 additional places have already been announced for medical students in England, with more to be allocated in due course. Numbers of postgraduate medical trainees are also increasing.

  Government Policies
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to explain their policies to the medical profession. [88267]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to effective communications with all stakeholders of the National Health Service. Members of the ministerial team and officials meet representatives of all health professions frequently. Specific examples of policy communications this year include: Primary Care Groups which involved the medical profession attending meetings, seminars and a major national conference on 13 April—"Primary Care: Turning the Vision into Reality"; "Primary Care Trusts: Establishing Better Services" provides answers to some of the initial questions about the establishment of Primary Care Trusts; "Clinical Governance: Quality in the New NHS" contains proposals for making quality of care the driving force for the development of health services in England; and "Working Together", a framework to secure a quality workforce.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are being made independently to audit the relevance and accuracy of NHS waiting list figures. [88268]

  Mr. Denham
  The management processes which support data management and their data outputs, including National Health Service waiting list data, are independently audited within Data Accreditation, which was launched in August 1997. Data Accreditation is currently voluntary but it is intended that elements of it should become mandatory from April 2000.

  Departmental statisticians working to their professional code of practice also carry out regular reviews of the needs for the statistics collected, which include the relevance of the data, and carry out validation checks on waiting list data before they are published.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish their strategy on NHS dentistry. [88270]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's strategy on National Health Service dentistry will be published later this year.

  Lancashire Health Authority
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what increase in revenue provision he is planning for Lancashire health authority for 2000–01. [88271]

  Mr. Denham
  Announcements on the unified allocations to health authorities for 2000–01 will be made later this year.

  Millennium Emergency Cover (Merseyside)
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that NHS trusts in Liverpool are able to meet the challenge of providing emergency cover over the millennium period. [88272]

  Mr. Denham
  A Liverpool and North Mersey Emergency Services Action Group has been established to develop further a whole systems strategy for primary and secondary services across Liverpool and North Merseyside to ensure that health authorities, National Health Service trusts and general practitioners work together cohesively and make best use of available resources during next winter and the millennium holiday period. Additionally, NHS Direct, the telephone advice service, is expected to be fully operational in Liverpool and North Merseyside in December and this will provide additional support to enable health care systems across Liverpool and North Merseyside to cope better next winter.

  Private Health Care
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure the effective regulation of private health care. [88273]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) today.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the retention of samples of smallpox-related material. [88274]

  Ms Jowell
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Casualty Services
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many casualty modernisation schemes are planned this year. [88275]

  Mr. Denham
  170 modernisation schemes in 149 hospitals are being funded this year through the accident and emergency modernisation programme. This is the
  495
  largest ever investment in the modernisation of accident and emergency departments in the National Health Service.

  Accident and Emergency Services (Wakefield)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the provision of acute and accident and emergency hospital services by Wakefield health authority. [88276]

  Mr. Denham
  Wakefield health authority is considering a range of options on the future delivery of health services. It expects to undergo consultation in August of this year.

  Out-patients
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many first out-patient appointments were seen by the NHS in the year to the end of March; and what the figure was in each of the two previous years. [88269]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures requested are set out in the table:

  Year

  First out-patients seen (all specialities)

  1996–97

  11,220,320

  1997–98

  11,496,788

  1998–1

  11,621,481

  1Provisional

  Oncology Drugs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of the total amount spent on oncology drugs in each of the past five years which has been paid for by private healthcare insurance; and what proportion of the total spending for each of these years has been spent within clinical studies. [86632]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Public Health
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the White Paper on public health. [87447]

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the White Paper "Our Healthier Nation" will be published; and if he will make a statement. [89090]

  Ms Jowell
  This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health launched "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", the White Paper setting out the Government's health strategy for England.

  NHS Trusts (Running Costs)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the running costs of NHS trusts, with particular reference to(a) cost and quality of service and (b) overheads, buildings and plant. [88390]
  496
  Mr. Denham
  No research has been specifically commissioned into the running costs of National Health Service trusts.

  There is no accepted definition for running costs of NHS trusts. The Department collects information from trusts on their management costs. This information is available from audited accounts and compiled in accordance with guidance issued by the NHS Executive. The definition of management costs has recently been tightened to ensure that all costs relating to clinical care are excluded, and all costs properly relating to management (including appropriate proportions of clinicians' time) are included.

  Carers
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent figures showing the number of people who are(a) carers and (b) receiving home care, in each of the regions covered by the new Regional Development Agencies in the age ranges (i) 0 to 8, (ii) 18 to 24, (iii) 25 to 50, (iv) 50 to 65, (v) 65 to 85 and (vi) 85 years and over. [88651]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available for carers aged less than 8. However, the estimated number of carers aged 8 to 17 in Great Britain, for 1996, was between 19 and 51 thousand. The estimated number of adult informal carers in Great Britain is 5.7 millions. Information on the number of(a) adult informal carers for 1995, the latest year for which details are available and (b) the number of households receiving home help or home care, for a survey week in 1998, are given in the tables. The requested information is not available for the new Regional Development Agency areas or for the precise age groups requested.

  In response to the National Carers' Strategy, a question is currently being tested for the 2001 Census. This will provide details of the number of carers for different geographical areas by age, and give the number of hours per week for which care is provided.

  Table (a): Estimates of adults (aged 16 or more) who were carers,

  1995, Great Britain

  Age group

  Estimates of those who were carers (millions)

  16–29

  0.7

  30–44

  1.2

  45–64

  2.6

  65 and over

  1.2

  16 and over

  5.7

  Source:

  1995 General Household Survey, mid-1995 population estimates

  Table (b): Number of households receiving home help or home

  care services, for a survey week in September 1998, England

  Age group of oldest client in household

  Number of households

  Under 18

  6,200

  18–64

  71,200

  65–74

  83,800

  75–84

  144,900

  85 and over

  139,800

  All ages

  445,900

  Source:

  Department of Health annual statistical return, HH1

  Breast Screening
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the findings of the pilot projects assessing the impact of extending routine breast screening to women aged 65 to 69 years will be published. [88660]

  Mr. Hutton
  The pilot studies are due to finish in 2000 and the results will be published once the data have been analysed and evaluated.

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the report of the Chief Medical Officer's working group on contingency plans for implementing the findings of the pilot studies on extending the routine call element of the breast screening programme to women aged 65 to 69 to be published. [88659]

  Mr. Hutton
  The working group set up by the Chief Medical Officer was asked to assess the extent and nature of both current and future workforce pressures in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme and identify possible ways in which these pressures could be eased. The Chief Medical Officer and Ministers are currently considering the working group's report and its recommendations, which will inform the ongoing work programme to ensure that the screening programme maintains the three year screening interval.

  Blood Product Screening
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) total national cost, (b) the average cost to health authorities and (c) the cost to Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority for the screening of blood products for CJD infection; if he will make a supplementary allocation from central health funds available to cover these costs; and if he will make a statement. [89016]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no test available at present for screening blood or blood products for Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease infection. However, the Government have instructed the National Blood Authority to leucodeplete (ie remove white blood cells) from blood for transfusion and not to use United Kingdom-sourced plasma in the manufacture of blood products for the time being. The estimated cost nationally to health authorities of these measures in 1999–2000 is £73.5 million. The cost to individual health authorities will vary depending on their usage of blood throughout the year, and information on the average cost to health authorities and to Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority is therefore not available centrally. Account was taken of this additional cost pressure when allocating additional resources to health authorities in 1999–2000.

  Patient Nutritional Screening
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts in England and Wales have in place a system of nutritional screening for newly admitted patients; and what advice his Department has given on the introduction of such systems. [88867]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no data available on the number of hospital trusts which have in place a system of nutritional screening for newly admitted patients as this information is not collected centrally. The Department commissioned a resource pack from the University of 498
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne which was published in 1997 and a copy was issued to all trusts. It is intended to help trusts to develop and implement a system for nutritional screening.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that good-quality food is provided for people in NHS care. [88247]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidance on delivering a good quality catering service and improving nutrition standards has been issued to the National Health Service in recent years. All NHS trusts have been asked to adopt a recommended framework for auditing and monitoring performance to ensure consistent standards.

  Morbidity Rates
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data his Department has collated on the change in morbidity en route to hospital when the journey is greater than eight miles. [88932]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. Recent work suggests that mortality may be greatest for total journey distances between three and six miles, and significantly less for shorter or longer total journeys. However a significant body of published research has established a causative link between the length of time from incident to treatment and morbidity/mortality. This is the measure used to set national performance standards for National Health Service ambulance services. Regardless of distance all ambulance services will be required to meet the response time targets set out in Health Circular 1999/091 "Modernisation of Ambulance Services" in 2001, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ambulance Journeys
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average mileage by ambulance from collection of the patient to the nearest accident department. [88931]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average round trip mileage for emergency ambulance journeys in England is 11.2 miles for urban services and 21.2 miles for rural services.

  Route Services
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts are reconfiguring acute services in England where they occupy more than one site, with particular reference to(a) maternity services, (b) intensive care and (c) accident and emergency services. [88933]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Centre for Policy on Ageing
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) publish and (b) implement the national standards for care homes developed for his Department by the Centre for Policy on Ageing. [89079]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are currently considering the Centre for Policy on Ageing' s report setting out their proposals for national regulatory standards for older people in care
  499
  homes. We will be issuing the CPA's proposed standards to a wide range of organisations and individuals for consultation nationally in the summer.

  We will carefully consider all the comments we receive on the CPA's report before finalising the standards and the arrangements for implementing them.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications and experience are required to be demonstrated by a person wishing to offer domiciliary care services. [89285]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently no requirements outside local contractual arrangements, but new standards are being developed as part of the new regulatory framework for domiciliary care which was outlined in the Social Services White Paper. These will address issues such as fit person criteria, references, checks and training for people offering domiciliary care services.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Government's consultation on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long-term Care to be concluded; and if he will make a statement. [89299]

  Mr. Hutton
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined in his statement to Parliament, the Royal Commission has produced a very detailed report in which the Commissioners themselves call for an informed debate on their recommendations. We expect that debate, which has already begun, to be an on-going one and to inform decisions we take on the Commission's recommendations.

  Sight Tests
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that sight-testing remains confined to medical practitioners and optometrists. [89465]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no plans to amend Section 24 of the Opticians Act 1989 which reserves the testing of sight to registered medical practitioners and ophthalmic opticians (optometrists).

  Doctor Registration
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that doctors who have been struck off the medical register abroad are not employed by NHS trusts and private hospitals in the UK. [89527]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service issued guidance "The Management of Health, Safety and Welfare Issues for NHS Staff' to all NHS employers in April 1998. This emphasised the need to ensure that references are thoroughly checked and career histories explored when recruiting staff. Private employers would be expected to carry out appropriate checks before recruiting medical staff. The National Health Service Executive is working on a proposed change to application forms for medical staff to include a declaration that a doctor has not been subject to disciplinary action by appropriate regulatory bodies anywhere in the world.

  Eastbourne District General Hospital
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the review of services at Eastbourne District General Hospital. [88262]

  Mr. Denham
  The review of nursing care at Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust is being carried out by the South East Regional Office of the NHS Executive.

  With strong independent membership, it will provide an objective assessment of the current position and provide recommendations which will form the basis of an agreed action plan for the trust. The review group's report will be published.

  The review group have now met and are presently collecting evidence from all parties concerned.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 24 May regarding a constituent (ref: POH(6)5608/25). [90065]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 5 July.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Meetings (Ireland)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations, the Ministers involved and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials in each case. [87432]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Since 1 January 1998, Ministers in my Department have held meetings with Ministers of the Irish Government on four occasions.

  The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham) met Mr. Joe Walsh the Irish Minister of Agriculture on 18 June 1998 in London and I met him on 13 November 1998 in Dublin.

  Lord Donoughue met Joe Walsh on 17–19 April 1998 in Dublin and on 17 June 1999 in London.

  In addition, informal discussions take place from time to time in the margins of Agriculture Councils.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on (i) the microbiological results of the Meat Hygiene Service's policy of requiring the trimming of contamination from freshly-dressed carcases, and (ii) if the Meat Hygiene Service procedure had resulted in an overall reduction in the incidence of E. coli 0157 in carcase meat. [88297]

  Mr. Rooker
  No such research has been commissioned or evaluated by my Department. The trimming of meat contaminated with faecal material from carcases will inevitably reduce the incidence of E. coli 0157 on carcase meat.
  501
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received on conversion qualifications to allow meat hygiene inspectors and environmental health officers to qualify as official veterinary surgeons. [88282]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received a number of such representations, including an outline proposal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health for a conversion course for environmental health graduates to enable them to take on the role of Suitably Qualified Officers for Veterinary Purposes at ports and in licensed fresh meat premises.

  However, current EU meat hygiene rules and the EU Directives on veterinary qualifications and training require that an official veterinary surgeon for meat hygiene purposes must be a veterinarian whose veterinary qualifications meet the requirements of the relevant Directives.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the level of official supervision in(a) meat processing plants supervised by local authorities and (b) cutting plants supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service. [88298]

  Mr. Rooker
  None. The specific requirements for official supervision in meat processing plants supervised by local authorities are laid down in the EU Minced Meat Preparations Directive (94/65/EC) and the Meat Products Directive (77/99/EEC, as amended). The frequency of official inspection in such premises is based on a risk assessment using the Inspection Rating in Annexe 1 to Code of Practice No. 9 under the Food Safety Act 1990.

  The level and frequency of official supervision of licensed fresh meat cutting plants is specified in the EU meat hygiene Directives (64/433/EEC, as amended; and 71/118/EEC, as amended).

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to ascertain whether, in respect of allegations being made as to contraventions by owners, managers or staff of slaughterhouses of the meat hygiene or specified risk material regulations, there are mitigating circumstances or other factors which would indicate that to continue or initiate proceedings would not be in the public interest. [88296]

  Mr. Rooker
  Any allegations which might result in criminal proceedings are thoroughly investigated by members of the Ministry's investigation section in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other relevant legislation. Such investigations inevitably include questions of whether there are mitigating circumstances. Their report is then sent to the Ministry's prosecution section who, when considering initiating proceedings, comply with the Code for Crown prosecutors and consider not only evidence that may substantiate the contravention but also potential defences and whether, in all the circumstances it is in the public interest for proceedings to be instituted.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will establish an independent inquiry, chaired by a senior lawyer, into the performance and activities of his Department's legal department, in respect of their proceedings against the 502
  owners, managers and staff of slaughterhouses for alleged contraventions of the meat hygiene and specified risk material regulations. [88293]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am not aware of any need for such an inquiry.

  Bovine Head-skinning
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the complete skinning of bovine heads is required in instances where no part is to be used for human consumption. [88284]

  Mr. Rooker
  The complete skinning of the heads of adult bovines is required by the EU Fresh Meat Directive (64/433/EEC, as amended), even when meat is not to be harvested for human consumption, to allow post-mortem inspection to be carried out hygienically.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with and what communication he has received from, EU Commission officials on the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. [88285]

  Mr. Rooker
  We and our officials maintain regular contact with the EU Commission over the full range of food safety and standards matters, including keeping it informed of the Government's plans for the Food Standards Agency.

  Genetically Modified Ingredients (Labelling)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in establishing a labelling regime for food genetically modified ingredients/additives and derivatives in human and animal feed. [89014]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are continuing to press the European Commission to publish proposals for labelling of GM additives and GM animal feeds as soon as possible. There are signs that proposals on the labelling of GM additives may be issued by the Commission shortly.

  Food Labelling
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make the labelling of food by country of origin compulsory; and if he will make a statement. [88854]

  Mr. Rooker
  Food labelling rules require country of origin labelling only where it is needed to avoid misleading consumers. Since these rules are harmonised throughout the European Community any additional requirements for country of origin labelling could be introduced only at European level. Retailers may, of course, provide country of origin information on a voluntary basis, provided what they give is true and not likely to mislead the consumer.

  Free-range Products
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the criteria which determine whether farmers may call their products free range. [89009]
  503
  Mr. Rooker
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to free-range egg and poultry meat production. Before eggs and poultry meat can be marketed as free range, EU Commission Regulations require, among other things, that poultry have continuous daytime access to open air runs, mainly covered with vegetation. They also specify maximum outdoor and indoor stocking densities.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the reform of hill livestock compensatory allowances. [88354]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Responses to the Ministry's initial consultation document on the reform of hill livestock compensatory allowances were requested by 25 June. We have received 67 responses from a wide range of interests. These are being analysed and will be made available for public scrutiny in accordance with normal Ministry procedures. A summary of the main points to emerge will be included in a further consultation paper setting out detailed proposals.

  Aspartame
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to restrict the use of aspartame in products aimed at children. [89158]

  Mr. Rooker
  Aspartame has been thoroughly assessed for safety by a number of scientific bodies world-wide including the UK's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and the EC Scientific Committee for Food, and an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) set. EC sweeteners legislation limits the use of this sweetener to specific food categories and to certain maximum levels of use in order to ensure that consumers, including children, do not regularly exceed the ADI. This legislation also prohibits the use of aspartame and other sweeteners in foods specifically designed for infants and young children. The Government have no plans at this time to seek further restrictions on the use of this sweetener.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the World Health Organisation concerning the recommended daily intake for aspartame; and what plans he has to amend this level. [89157]

  Mr. Rooker
  Aspartame has only been permitted for use in food after careful evaluation by independent expert committees in the UK, EU and internationally, including the World Health Organisation committee which deals with food additives. All of these committees have concluded that aspartame is safe for use in food and have set an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for this sweetener of 40 mg/kg body weight. The Government currently have no plans to seek an amendment to this level.

  Dioxin Contamination
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what levels of dioxin contamination in United Kingdom and imported fish and fish products have been identified; and if he will make a statement. [89294]
  504
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 July 1999]: The levels of dioxin found in the latest survey of marine fish are comparable to those reported in other published studies. Full results of this survey and advice from the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) will be published at the end of July in the MAFF Food Safety Information Bulletin and the accompanying Food Surveillance Information Sheet.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he has given to the establishment of farmers' markets; and if he will make a statement. [89554]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 1 July 1999,Official Report, column 266.

  Set-aside (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of agricultural land in Lancashire is currently subject to set-aside; and what was the annual cost to public funds in the last year for which figures are available. [89557]

  Mr. Rooker
  The area of set-aside in Lancashire on claims made in 1998 under the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) was 1,189 hectares. The comparable figure for 1999 is not yet available.

  At the 1998 payment rate for set-aside, the area payment for this area of set-aside would have been £359,000.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if British sovereign bases in Cyprus will be included in the list of countries to which the current quarantine arrangements will no longer apply for pets entering the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [89555]

  Mr. Rooker
  Discussions are underway with the Cypriot authorities to establish whether the island meets the criteria for rabies freedom set out by the Office International des Epizooties (0IE).

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries from which pets entering the United Kingdom will no longer be required to fulfil the current quarantine arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [89580]

  Mr. Rooker
  To be exempt from quarantine, pets will have to arrive from European Union and European Economic Area countries, Switzerland, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican and Gibraltar: or from islands outside Europe meeting the Office International des Epizooties definition of freedom from rabies. An announcement of which islands are eligible will be made in due course. The question of eligibility of animals from North America is still being considered.

  EC/Seychelles Fishing Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the
  505
  national shares allocated in the fishing agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles. [89712]

  Mr. Morley
  Fishing opportunities for EC vessels in Seychelles waters, for the period 18 January 1999 to 17 January 2002, have been allocated between member states as follows:(a) Tuna seiners

  Spain: 25 vessels

  France: 20 vessels

  Italy: 1 vessel

  UK: 1 vessel

  (b) Surface longliners

  Spain: 20 vessels

  France: 5 vessels

  Portugal: 7 vessels.

WALES

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through his Department, its agencies and non-department public bodies since May 1997 stating in each case whether or not the results were published. [89683]

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

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89991]

  Mr. Michael
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

SCOTLAND

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of statutory instruments introduced by his Department into Parliament in(a) 1998, (b)(c) 1985 and (d) 1973 had the European Union as their legislative source. [89172]

  Dr. Reid
  The total number of statutory instruments (SIs) registered as general instruments by my Department in 1998, 1992, 1985 and 1973 is listed.
  506

  Year

  Number of Scottish SIs

  1998

  213

  1992

  279

  1985

  159

  1972

  159

  It is not possible without incurring disproportionate cost to determine how many of these SIs were introduced to comply with European Community obligations.

  Parliamentary Questions (Scottish Parliament)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what proportion of(a) written and (b) oral questions, answered by his Department since 26 January, the reply contained an indication that this would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament after the transfer of functions. [89806]

  Dr. Reid
  Since 26 January, my Department has answered 798 written questions and 199 oral questions and sampling suggests that around three quarters and two thirds respectively indicated that either the subject matter or part of the subject matter would be for the Scottish Parliament after the transfer of functions.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89987]

  Dr. Reid
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the party and helping to brief party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Administration (Scotland)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the costs of creating a separate social security administration in Scotland; and if he will publish the assumptions made in these calculations. [89077]

  Mr. Timms
  Social security is reserved to Parliament and remains a Great Britain-wide scheme. Social security administration is integrated across GB and no detailed assessment has therefore been made of the annual costs of administering the present system separately in Scotland. We estimate that the costs of administering social security, child support and pensions in Scotland to be in the region of £600 million.

  The estimate assumes that the Department's fixed costs and the fixed costs of its agencies, including the cost of investing in new computer systems, have to be reproduced

  507
  separately in Scotland without the benefits of GB-wide economies of scale. It also includes the costs of operating the branch network.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of statutory instruments introduced by his Department into Parliament in(a) 1998, (b) 1992, (c) 1985 and (d) 1973 had the European Union as their legislative source. [89171]

  Mr. Timms
  No such statutory instruments had the European Union as their legislative source.

  All Work Test
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will produce the alternative to the all work test. [89180]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill contains provisions to replace the all work test with the Personal Capability Assessment. The Personal Capability Assessment will continue to determine, in the same way as now, whether a person meets the threshold of incapacity for entitlement to incapacity benefits. That threshold will not change but the Personal Capability Assessment will also be able to provide additional constructive information about what a person can do, despite their medical condition or disability. This additional information will help personal advisers give their clients the support they need to move back to work. Subject to the passage of the Bill, the Personal Capability Assessment will be included in the ONE service pilots from this Autumn.

  Pensions (Age Additions)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the cost of

  Percentage of households by amount of savings and gross weekly household income

  Gross weekly household income

  Capital

  Less than £100

  £100 but less than £200

  £200 but less than £300

  £300 but less than £400

  £400 but less than £500

  £500 but less than £600

  £600 but less than £700

  £700 or more

  Total households

  No savings

  43

  48

  39

  27

  21

  17

  13

  8

  30

  Less than £1,500

  17

  18

  22

  25

  29

  26

  23

  17

  22

  £1,500 but less than £3,000

  9

  7

  7

  9

  10

  10

  12

  9

  8

  £3,000 but less than £8,000

  12

  11

  10

  13

  14

  18

  20

  18

  14

  £8,000 but less than £10,000

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  4

  5

  3

  £10,000 but less than £16,000

  5

  4

  5

  6

  7

  7

  8

  10

  6

  £16,000 but less than £20,000

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  4

  5

  3

  £20,000 or more

  7

  7

  12

  14

  13

  15

  18

  28

  14

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  2. It should be noted that questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low level of response, and hence higher level of imputation, compared to other parts of the survey. Responses are imputed in around one in ten cases. Evidence also suggests some under reporting of capital by respondents, and figures for income from these sources for pensioners are lower on the FRS compared to other surveys such as the Family Expenditure Survey. In addition, the under reporting of capital is likely to lead to an underestimate of income from the investment and thus contribute to underestimating gross weekly household income.

  3. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer.

  Source:

  1997-98 Family Resources Survey (GB)
  508
  increasing the age additions within the basic state pension by (a) £3 a week for the over-75s and (b) £5 a week for the over-80s. [89376]

  Mr. Timms
  The net cost of introducing age addition of £3 per week for pensioners aged 75 to 79 and increasing the age addition paid to over-80's from £0.25 to £5.25 would be £640 million.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for Retirement Pension have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Means-tested benefit offsets have been estimated using the Income Support Simulation Model and the 1996/97 Family Resources Survey.

  3. Estimates are in current prices and benefit rates, and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total amount of housing benefit, in thousands of pounds per annum, payable to tenants(a) in each local authority, (b) in each region and (c) nationally, for 1998–99. [89586]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available for 1998-99. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Household Savings
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the percentages of households with(a) no savings, (b) savings up to £1,500, (c) savings between £1,500 and £3,000, (d) savings between £3,000 and £8,000, (e) savings between £8,000 and £10,000, (f) savings between £10,000 and £16,000, (g) savings between £16,000 and £20,000, (h) savings above £20,000, among households with gross weekly income of (i) less than £100, (ii) £100 to £200, (iii) £200 to £300, (iv) £300 to £400, (v) £400 to £500, (vi) £500 to £600, (vii) £600 to £700 and (viii) over £700. [89878]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89992]

  Mr. Timms
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the party and helping to brief party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

CABINET OFFICE

  Policy Co-ordination (Sport)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to co-ordinate Government policy for sports matters between departments. [88497]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government policy on sports matter is co-ordinated through the Cabinet Committee on Home and Social Affairs; specific questions might be dealt with by other Committees as appropriate.

  Additionally the Sports Cabinet, which I chair, provides for a collective policy discussion of most strategic priorities for UK sport. The Ministers with responsibilities which affect sport in England also keep in close touch, and will continue to do so.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Records
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Government will ensure that the retention for non-administrative reasons of departmental records over 30 years old is justified under the same criteria as those which justify extended closure of records over 30 years old at the Public Record Office. [89634]

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Government will take action to ensure that the retention for non-administrative reasons of departmental records over 30 years old will be justified under the same criteria as those which justify extended closure of records over 30 years old at the Public Record Office. [89637]

  Mr. Vaz
  The current system for the retention by Government departments of records over 30 years old is explained in the White Paper "Open Government" (1993, Cm 2290), particularly paragraphs 9.8 and 9.23–9.27. Grounds for retention are laid out in paragraphs 9.23 and 9.26.
  510
  When departments make applications to retain records, they are required to give clear and explicit reasons, making clear in each case what harm would be caused by release. These reasons are considered by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records before being submitted to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor permits departments to retain records for no more than 10 years before they must either release the records or submit another application for retention.

  The withholding of public records for a period longer than 30 years is currently the subject of public consultation as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Freedom of Information Bill.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Government will review the criteria against which the extended closure of records over 30 years old, under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, must be justified, with particular reference to(a) the definition of national security, (b) protection of the identities of confidential informants and (c) protection of those mentioned, or their relatives, from substantial distress or endangerment. [89632]

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Government will review the criteria against which the extended closure of records under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 must be justified, with special reference to(a) the definition of national security, (b) protection of the identities of confidential informants and (c) protection of those mentioned or their relatives from substantial distress and endangerment. [89635]

  Mr. Vaz
  Revised criteria for the closure of records are included in the draft Freedom of Information Bill which is currently the subject of public consultation.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Government will publish the guidelines given to departmental record officers on judging whether the release of a document is likely to cause substantial distress or endangerment to a person mentioned in that document or to relatives of such a person. [89633]

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Government will publish the guidelines given to departmental record officers on judging whether the release of a document is likely to cause substantial distress or endangerment to a person mentioned in that document or to relatives of such a person. [89636]

  Mr. Vaz
  After an initial consultation draft in 1994, the Public Record Office produced guidance for departmental record officers in 1995. Copies of that guidance will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The guidance is currently being revised as part of the development of a Manual on Access to Public Records which will be issued
  511
  in September 1999. It is proposed that this manual should be available to the public.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his special advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89984]
  512
  Mr. Vaz
  Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Universities (Doctorates)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many academics who held doctorates at the time when recruited were in post in UK universities in the latest year for which the information is available and in each of the previous 10 years, broken down by (i) subject and (ii) domicile. [88689]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information available, covering the years 1994–95 to 1998–99, is shown in the following table. Information for previous years is not held centrally.

  Number of academics1, with doctorate qualifications of uk and other EU institutions, in post in UK higher education institutions, by subject group taught and domicile2

  Subject group taught

  Home

  Overseas

  Total

  1994–95

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,128

  368

  2,496

  Subjects allied to medicine

  2,102

  368

  2,470

  Biological sciences

  7,210

  1,223

  8,433

  Veterinary science

  179

  15

  194

  Agriculture and related subs

  356

  45

  401

  Physical sciences

  7,327

  1,511

  8,838

  Mathematical sciences

  1,855

  382

  2,237

  Computer science

  905

  285

  1,190

  Engineering and Technology

  3,881

  1,411

  5,292

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  251

  56

  307

  Social, economic and political science

  3,808

  830

  4,638

  Law

  253

  93

  346

  Business and Administrative studies

  727

  194

  921

  Librarianship and Information science

  97

  24

  121

  Languages

  2,215

  483

  2,698

  Humanities

  2,363

  426

  2,789

  Creative arts and design

  344

  63

  407

  Education

  603

  49

  652

  Combined

  485

  315

  800

  Total

  37,089

  8,141

  45,230

  1995–96

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,153

  409

  2,562

  Subjects allied to medicine

  2,360

  361

  2,721

  Biological sciences

  8,328

  1,345

  9,673

  Veterinary science

  210

  22

  232

  Agriculture and related subs

  415

  43

  458

  Physical sciences

  8,264

  1,572

  9,836

  Mathematical sciences

  2,080

  397

  2,477

  Computer science

  971

  317

  1,288

  Engineering and Technology

  4,265

  1,501

  5,766

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  259

  70

  329

  Social, economic and political science

  4,340

  1,031

  5,371

  Law

  302

  97

  399

  Business and Administrative studies

  801

  206

  1,007

  Librarianship and Information science

  92

  31

  123

  Languages

  2,525

  602

  3,127

  Humanities

  2,736

  512

  3,248

  Creative arts and design

  419

  76

  495

  Education

  662

  63

  725

  Combined

  431

  85

  516

  Total

  41,613

  8,740

  50,353

  1996–97

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,362

  463

  2,825

  Subjects allied to medicine

  2,549

  433

  2,982

  Biological sciences

  8,704

  1,568

  10,272

  514

  Number of academics1, with doctorate qualifications of UK and other EU institutions, in post in UK higher education institutions, by subject group taught and domicile 2

  Subject group taught

  Home

  Overseas

  Total

  Veterinary science

  217

  24

  241

  Agriculture and related subs

  452

  57

  509

  Physical sciences

  8,383

  1,691

  10,074

  Mathematical sciences

  2,085

  387

  2,472

  Computer science

  990

  339

  1,329

  Engineering and Technology

  4,304

  1,485

  5,789

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  252

  82

  334

  Social, economic and political science

  4,482

  1,060

  5,542

  Law

  317

  106

  423

  Business and Administrative studies

  798

  234

  1,032

  Librarianship and Information science

  95

  39

  134

  Languages

  2,635

  576

  3,211

  Humanities

  2,812

  530

  3,342

  Creative arts and design

  460

  83

  543

  Education

  685

  61

  746

  Combined

  551

  99

  650

  Total

  4,133

  9,317

  52,450

  1997–98

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,338

  417

  2,755

  Subjects allied to medicine

  2,696

  376

  3,072

  Biological sciences

  8,977

  1,338

  10,315

  Veterinary science

  210

  22

  232

  Agriculture and related subs

  458

  45

  503

  Physical sciences

  8,460

  1,415

  9,875

  Mathematical sciences

  2,125

  312

  2,437

  Computer science

  1,086

  321

  1,407

  Engineering and Technology

  4,340

  1,205

  5,545

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  287

  62

  349

  Social, economic and political science

  4,919

  816

  5,735

  Law

  343

  97

  440

  Business and Administrative studies

  919

  186

  1,105

  Librarianship and Information science

  124

  36

  160

  Languages

  2,780

  453

  32,233

  Humanities

  2,963

  418

  33,381

  Creative arts and design

  528

  62

  590

  Education

  741

  41

  782

  Combined

  468

  86

  554

  Total

  44,762

  77,708

  52,470

  1Includes staff on fixed-term research contracts;

  2'Home' students are UK domiciled; 'overseas' students are domiciled in other EU and other overseas countries.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many PhD students were in their first year of research and taught courses in UK universities in the latest year for which the information is available and in each of the previous 10 years, broken down by (i) subject and (ii) domicile. [88687]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information available, covering the years 1994–95 to 1998–99, is shown in the following table. Information for previous years is not held centrally.
  515

  First year students on doctorate degree courses in UK higher education institutions, by subject group and domicile1

  Mainly by research

  Not mainly by research

  Subject

  Home

  Overseas

  Total

  Home

  Overseas

  Total

  1994–95

  Medicine and Dentistry

  824

  146

  970

  0

  0

  0

  Subjects allied to medicine

  527

  111

  638

  5

  0

  5

  Biological Sciences

  1,332

  303

  1,635

  70

  2

  72

  Veterinary Science

  37

  21

  58

  0

  0

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  109

  93

  202

  0

  0

  0

  Physical Sciences

  1,524

  338

  1,862

  16

  15

  31

  Mathematical Sciences

  269

  109

  378

  0

  3

  3

  Computer Science

  315

  186

  501

  0

  0

  0

  Engineering and Technology

  1,234

  661

  1,895

  3

  0

  3

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  113

  46

  159

  2

  0

  2

  Social, economic and political studies

  783

  423

  1,206

  4

  7

  11

  Law

  100

  59

  159

  0

  0

  0

  Business and Administrative studies

  393

  233

  626

  0

  2

  2

  Librarianship and Information Science

  44

  24

  68

  0

  0

  0

  Languages

  488

  264

  752

  0

  9

  9

  Humanities

  487

  202

  689

  0

  0

  0

  Creative Arts and Designs

  197

  59

  256

  0

  0

  0

  Education

  384

  149

  533

  0

  0

  0

  Combined

  195

  30

  225

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  9,335

  3,457

  12,812

  100

  38

  138

  1995–96

  Medicine and Dentistry

  721

  142

  863

  9

  0

  9

  Subjects allied to medicine

  456

  157

  613

  14

  0

  14

  Biological Sciences

  1,243

  382

  1,625

  132

  13

  145

  Veterinary Science

  47

  13

  60

  0

  0

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  91

  79

  170

  0

  0

  0

  Physical Sciences

  1,595

  422

  2017

  11

  8

  19

  Mathematical Sciences

  266

  160

  426

  0

  3

  3

  Computer Science

  270

  169

  439

  0

  2

  2

  Engineering and Technology

  1,187

  817

  2,004

  2

  0

  2

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  115

  67

  182

  0

  0

  0

  Social, economic and political studies

  801

  468

  1,269

  6

  4

  10

  Law

  103

  90

  193

  6

  0

  6

  Business and Administrative Studies

  361

  272

  633

  5

  6

  11

  Librarianship and Information Science

  56

  28

  84

  0

  0

  0

  Languages

  505

  344

  849

  2

  9

  11

  Humanities

  560

  263

  823

  0

  0

  0

  Creative Arts and Design

  167

  50

  217

  4

  1

  5

  Education

  388

  140

  528

  14

  0

  14

  Combined

  181

  47

  228

  0

  2

  2

  Total

  9,113

  4,110

  13,223

  205

  48

  253

  1996–97

  Medicine and Dentistry

  666

  135

  801

  33

  0

  33

  Subjects allied to medicine

  387

  137

  524

  3

  2

  5

  Biological Sciences

  1,409

  402

  1811

  98

  3

  101

  Veterinary Science

  32

  15

  47

  0

  0

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  108

  111

  219

  0

  0

  0

  Physical Sciences

  1,418

  430

  1,848

  0

  0

  0

  Mathematical Sciences

  247

  123

  370

  0

  0

  0

  Computer Science

  240

  143

  383

  1

  0

  1

  Engineering and Technology

  1,085

  803

  1,888

  4

  1

  5

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  84

  68

  152

  2

  0

  2

  Social, economic and political studies

  710

  507

  1,217

  2

  2

  4

  Law

  110

  117

  227

  26

  1

  27

  Business and Administrative Studies

  328

  241

  569

  1

  0

  1

  Librarianship and Information Science

  41

  22

  63

  0

  0

  0

  Languages

  495

  372

  867

  0

  0

  0

  Humanities

  549

  245

  794

  8

  2

  10

  Creative Arts and Design

  155

  55

  210

  5

  0

  5

  Education

  332

  229

  561

  144

  3

  147

  Combined

  182

  44

  226

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  8,578

  4,199

  12,777

  327

  14

  341

  1997–98

  Medicine and Dentistry

  646

  151

  797

  27

  0

  27

  Subjects allied to medicine

  411

  146

  557

  7

  0

  7

  Biological Sciences

  1,368

  439

  1807

  98

  5

  103

  Veterinary Science

  29

  12

  41

  0

  0

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  110

  96

  206

  0

  0

  0

  Physical Sciences

  1,368

  454

  1,822

  0

  0

  0

  Mathematical Sciences

  245

  148

  393

  0

  0

  0

  516 517

  First year students on doctorate degree courses in UK higher education institutions, by subject group and domicile1

  Mainly by research

  Not mainly by research

  Subject

  Home

  Overseas

  Total

  Home

  Overseas

  Total

  Computer Science

  202

  175

  377

  0

  0

  0

  Engineering and Technology

  909

  780

  1,689

  0

  0

  0

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  92

  63

  155

  0

  0

  0

  Social, economic and political studies

  652

  434

  1,086

  10

  1

  11

  Law

  83

  84

  167

  0

  0

  0

  Business and Administrative Studies

  336

  287

  623

  2

  2

  4

  Librarianship and Information Science

  44

  30

  74

  0

  0

  0

  Languages

  490

  330

  820

  0

  0

  0

  Humanities

  525

  276

  801

  3

  2

  5

  Creative Arts and Design

  155

  50

  205

  5

  0

  5

  Education

  424

  204

  628

  64

  8

  72

  Combined

  331

  128

  459

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  8,420

  4,287

  12,707

  216

  18

  234

  1998–99

  Medicine and Dentistry

  753

  197

  950

  31

  0

  31

  Subjects allied to medicine

  432

  147

  579

  9

  0

  9

  Biological Sciences

  1,422

  413

  1,835

  102

  0

  102

  Veterinary Science

  29

  15

  44

  0

  0

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  115

  98

  213

  0

  0

  0

  Physical Sciences

  1,240

  492

  1,732

  0

  0

  0

  Mathematical Sciences

  196

  147

  343

  0

  0

  0

  Computer Science

  178

  81

  259

  0

  0

  0

  Engineering and Technology

  469

  285

  754

  3

  2

  5

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  91

  63

  154

  0

  0

  0

  Social, economic and political studies

  614

  569

  1,183

  14

  1

  15

  Law

  76

  108

  184

  0

  0

  0

  Business and Administrative Studies

  349

  316

  665

  10

  6

  16

  Librarianship and Information Science

  51

  31

  82

  0

  0

  0

  Languages

  436

  339

  775

  0

  0

  0

  Humanities

  190

  179

  369

  0

  0

  0

  Creative Arts and Design

  441

  267

  708

  44

  11

  55

  Education

  871

  828

  1,699

  12

  1

  13

  Combined

  165

  76

  241

  1

  0

  1

  Total

  8,118

  4,651

  12,769

  226

  21

  247

  1'Home' students are UK domiciled; 'overseas' students are domiciled in other EU and other overseas countries.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how may PhDs were awarded to students in UK universities in the latest year for which the information is available and in each of the previous 10 years, broken down by (i) subject and (ii) domicile. [88685]

  Students in UK HEIs awarded PhDs by domicile1 and subject

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Home

  O'seas

  Total

  Home

  O'seas

  Total

  Home

  O'seas

  Total

  Home

  O'seas

  Total

  Medicine and Dentistry

  427

  117

  544

  526

  202

  728

  674

  224

  898

  706

  201

  907

  Subjects allied to medicine

  246

  104

  350

  329

  125

  454

  378

  136

  514

  382

  142

  524

  Biological Sciences

  848

  266

  1,114

  1,112

  372

  1,484

  1194

  386

  1,580

  1,296

  378

  1,674

  Veterinary Science

  34

  21

  55

  44

  22

  66

  50

  28

  78

  65

  39

  104

  Agriculture and related subjects

  95

  121

  216

  137

  148

  285

  106

  140

  246

  98

  190

  288

  Physical Sciences

  1,115

  342

  1,457

  1,440

  435

  1,875

  1369

  441

  1,810

  1,485

  466

  1,951

  Mathematical Sciences

  147

  85

  232

  204

  117

  321

  212

  133

  345

  162

  140

  302

  Computer Science

  136

  86

  222

  164

  117

  281

  138

  103

  241

  154

  109

  263

  Engineering and Technology

  721

  606

  1,327

  792

  765

  1,557

  1010

  745

  1,755

  1,016

  821

  1,837

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  57

  36

  93

  29

  52

  81

  53

  59

  112

  51

  83

  134

  Social, economic and political studies

  248

  253

  501

  305

  341

  646

  394

  307

  701

  439

  377

  816

  Law

  27

  49

  76

  38

  70

  108

  39

  74

  113

  34

  68

  102

  Business and Administrative Studies

  131

  84

  215

  201

  141

  342

  143

  142

  285

  150

  174

  324

  Librarianship and Information Science

  14

  13

  27

  10

  18

  28

  14

  16

  30

  16

  24

  40

  Languages

  242

  144

  386

  302

  190

  492

  303

  190

  493

  336

  230

  566

  Humanities

  225

  164

  389

  336

  188

  524

  342

  183

  525

  344

  246

  590

  Creative Arts and Design

  45

  15

  60

  50

  18

  68

  53

  31

  84

  72

  23

  95

  Education

  106

  64

  170

  110

  88

  198

  174

  99

  273

  217

  121

  338

  Combined

  105

  20

  125

  186

  37

  223

  95

  36

  131

  95

  43

  138

  Total

  4,864

  2,570

  7,434

  6,129

  3,409

  9,538

  6,646

  3,437

  1,083

  7,023

  3,832

  1,855

  1'Home' students are UK domiciled; 'overseas' students are domiciled in other EU and other overseas countries.

  518
  Mr. Mudie
  Information on a consistent basis is not available centrally for the full ten year period. Available information covering UK HE institutions for the years 1994–95 to 1997–98 is shown in the table.
  519
  Available information for the years prior to 1994–95 is that published by the University Statistical Record (USR) for the University Funding Council funded institutions in

  PhDs awarded in UFC funded institutions in Great Britain

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Medicine and dentistry

  437

  456

  473

  578

  643

  Studies allied to medicine

  352

  330

  336

  403

  412

  Biological sciences

  1,154

  1,276

  1,213

  1,226

  1,346

  Veterinary science, agriculture and related studies

  229

  228

  232

  265

  275

  Physical sciences

  1,625

  1,659

  1,788

  1,663

  1,671

  Mathematical sciences

  407

  465

  530

  504

  528

  Engineering and technology

  1,282

  1,463

  1,440

  1,294

  1,522

  Architecture and related studies

  63

  69

  82

  68

  78

  Social sciences

  732

  683

  718

  675

  735

  Business and financial studies

  153

  150

  145

  167

  171

  Librarianship and information science

  29

  28

  30

  24

  30

  Languages and related studies

  387

  426

  427

  453

  477

  Humanities

  463

  464

  443

  489

  512

  Creative arts

  54

  42

  52

  44

  54

  Education

  208

  207

  195

  216

  203

  Multi-disciplinary studies

  70

  63

  54

  61

  60

  Total

  7,645

  8,009

  8,158

  8,130

  8,717

  There were, additionally, a small number of PhD awards reported in the non-UFC funded English HE institutions prior to 1994–95 amounting to 118 in 1993–94, 81 in 1992–93 and 45 in 1991–92. No awards are recorded before this time.

  School Cricket
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many state schools have(a) cricket nets, (b) cricket squares and (c) inter-school cricket fixtures. [88935]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department does not collect this information.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the percentage of leavers from the 18 to 24 New Deal by each unit of delivery in the United Kingdom from April 1998 to the latest date for which the figures are available(a) whose destination was unsubsidised employment and (b) whose destination was unknown. [89377]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The table shows the percentages of young people leaving New Deal for unsubsidised employment and for whom no destination is recorded for the period April 1998 to April 1999, by each Employment Service Unit of Delivery. In addition to these figures for unsubsidised jobs, the independent research report on leavers with unknown destinations published last month showed that 43 per cent. of respondents said they had left the New Deal for paid employment.

  Percentage

  Destination on leaving

  Revised units of delivery

  Unsubsidised employment

  Not known

  Tayside

  44

  32

  Ayrshire

  47

  28

  Borders

  49

  34

  Dumfries and Galloway

  46

  32

  Dunbarton

  52

  26

  520
  Great Britain and are given in the table. Such data were not published by domicile

  Percentage

  Destination on leaving

  Revised units of delivery

  Unsubsidised employment

  Not known

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  44

  30

  Fife

  43

  36

  Forth valley

  56

  24

  Glasgow

  38

  32

  Grampian

  39

  34

  Moray, Strathspay and Badenoch

  54

  27

  Lanarkshire

  49

  24

  Renfrewshire

  46

  27

  West Lothian

  49

  29

  Argyll and The Islands

  56

  28

  Caithness and Sutherland

  52

  27

  Inverness and Nairn

  49

  30

  Lochaber

  58

  35

  Western Isles

  49

  35

  Orkney

  72

  22

  Ross and Cromarty

  59

  26

  Shetland

  45

  45

  Skye and Lochalsh

  44

  50

  Newcastle, Gateshead and South Tyneside

  38

  35

  Northumberland

  49

  26

  Tyneside North

  48

  28

  Durham North and Durham South

  47

  28

  City of Sunderland formerly Wearside

  47

  23

  Tees North and Tees South

  41

  30

  Cumbria

  48

  29

  Wirral

  42

  38

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre

  43

  36

  Bolton

  41

  34

  Bury

  43

  35

  Central Lancashire

  46

  28

  Cheshire

  46

  31

  City Pride Manchester

  40

  36

  East Lancashire

  42

  33

  Halton and Warrington

  48

  31

  Knowsley

  38

  29

  Liverpool

  39

  32

  North Lancashire

  48

  31

  Oldham

  47

  31

  Rochdale

  44

  31

  Sefton

  50

  26

  St. Helens

  44

  28

  Stockport

  45

  31

  West Lancashire

  49

  19

  Wigan

  49

  30

  Sheffield

  39

  42

  521

  Percentage

  Destination on leaving

  Revised units of delivery

  Unsubsidised employment

  Not known

  Rotherham

  39

  37

  South Humber

  53

  26

  Calderdale and Kirlees

  40

  34

  Barnsley and The Dearne

  44

  27

  Bradford

  39

  37

  Hull and East Coast formerly Hull

  49

  27

  Leeds

  37

  42

  North Yorkshire

  45

  34

  Wakefield and Doncaster

  42

  35

  West Wales

  47

  29

  Swansea

  45

  31

  North West Wales

  57

  24

  Powys

  44

  34

  Ceredigion

  53

  22

  North East Wales formerly Flintshire and Wrexham

  50

  27

  North Wales Coast

  41

  33

  Cardiff and Vale

  42

  34

  Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys

  45

  26

  Heads of the Valley and Caerphilly

  48

  26

  Newport, Torfaen and Monmouth

  45

  32

  Black Country

  43

  33

  Birmingham

  35

  39

  Solihull

  36

  39

  Staffordshire

  45

  32

  Hereford and Worcester

  51

  31

  Coventry

  40

  39

  Warwickshire

  47

  36

  Shropshire

  49

  30

  Southern Derbyshire

  44

  32

  Cambridge TTWA

  52

  31

  North Derbyshire

  47

  31

  Leicestershire

  42

  38

  Lincolnshire

  46

  33

  Norfolk

  51

  30

  West Norfolk

  60

  23

  Northamptonshire

  43

  40

  Greater Nottingham

  40

  36

  North Nottinghamshire

  48

  29

  Peterborough

  44

  37

  Suffolk

  53

  25

  Waveney

  56

  23

  Cornwall

  51

  34

  Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset

  53

  29

  Bristol and South Gloucestershire formerly Central Bristol

  45

  34

  Dorset

  47

  36

  Exeter and East Devon

  49

  27

  Torbay and South Devon formerly South Devon

  54

  28

  North Devon

  49

  32

  Gloucestershire

  47

  33

  Plymouth

  48

  31

  Somerset

  52

  31

  Wiltshire and Swindon formerly Wiltshire

  50

  30

  Eastbourne and Hastings formerly Eastbourne

  43

  40

  Lambeth

  35

  48

  Percentage

  Scotland

  Northern

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Wales

  West Midlands

  East Mids and Eastern

  South West

  London and South East

  Those leaving before having a first interview

  44

  46

  38

  38

  44

  37

  41

  43

  30

  Those leaving during the gateway

  48

  47

  46

  45

  49

  44

  49

  53

  45

  Those leaving from an option

  45

  39

  44

  40

  45

  37

  39

  44

  37

  Those leaving from follow-through

  31

  32

  30

  31

  33

  36

  34

  40

  34

  522

  Percentage

  Destination on leaving

  Revised units of delivery

  Unsubsidised employment

  Not known

  Harlow

  39

  42

  Hackney and City

  32

  46

  Hertfordshire

  50

  33

  Brighton

  43

  36

  Canterbury

  43

  39

  Channel

  52

  30

  Chatham

  48

  33

  Crawley

  44

  40

  Croydon and Bromley

  41

  43

  Guildford

  50

  36

  Lewisham

  41

  41

  Maidstone, Dartford and West Kent

  50

  33

  Southwark

  35

  41

  Greenwich

  43

  36

  Bexley

  49

  34

  Sutton, Merton, Esher, Kingston, Epsom

  45

  38

  Wandsworth

  36

  43

  West Sussex Coastal Plain

  50

  32

  South Essex

  51

  26

  North Essex formerly North and Mid Essex

  53

  30

  Edgware and Leaside

  37

  43

  North East London

  38

  43

  Havering, Barking and Dagneham

  41

  41

  Newham

  34

  45

  Tower Hamlets

  38

  42

  Camden and North Islington

  37

  47

  Ealing and Hillingdon formerly Ealing

  41

  42

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  40

  41

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  41

  41

  Mid Hants

  47

  37

  Oxfordshire

  42

  39

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  45

  37

  Isle of Wight

  48

  33

  Reading

  43

  41

  Slough

  43

  41

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  45

  37

  Wembley

  38

  44

  Westminster

  32

  48

  Hounslow and Richmond

  38

  43

  Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea

  37

  43

  Total

  44

  34

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each region the proportion of all those who left the 18 to 24 New Deal for unsubsidised employment who left at each stage of the New Deal process between April 1998 and April 1999. [89371]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The table shows the number of young people leaving each stage of New Deal and the proportion of them who went into unsubsidised employment between April 1998 and April 1999, by each Employment Service region.
  523
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 25 June 1999,Official Report, columns 467—68 on the New Deal, what assessment he has made of the reliability of the survey of young people leaving the New Deal for unknown destinations [89394]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The recently published survey on leavers with unknown destinations was carried out by a reputable independent organisation under careful management from the Employment Service. It was produced and released in accordance with the Government Statistical Service Code of Practice and I am, therefore, satisfied that the survey results are reliable.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal scheme for those aged under 25 years in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [89379]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical figures to the end of April 1999 show that 1,284 people have entered the New Deal for Young People in the Shropshire Unit of Delivery which cover Shrewsbury and Atcham. Statistics from the New Deal are not available yet for individual constituencies; rather they are broken down by Unit of Delivery. I am very encouraged by the progress being made in Shropshire and pleased to see that they are currently in the top quartile in the New Deal Core Performance tables for the proportion of people moving from the New Deal into jobs.

  Teaching Days
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many days pupils in the state primary and secondary schools will be taught in the 1998–99 academic year; and what were the comparable figures for 10, 20 and 30 years previously. [89823]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Regulations require there to be 380 half-day sessions during any school year. This provision is consistent with the 190 days a year on which teachers may be required under their statutory conditions of service to teach children.

  Football Study Support Centres
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effect of attendance at football study support centres on the educational standards of the children concerned. [89719]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In June 1998, the Department commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to evaluate the first six centres in order to provide early indications of their effectiveness and to inform future development plans. NFER's report is very positive about the impact of the centres and will be published in September 1999. A more extensive evaluation of all Playing for Success centres will begin in August 1999.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the cost per pupil of a pupil attending a football study support centre. [89720]
  524
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Precise figures are not yet available. Most centres are still in the early stages of development and are adjusting module lengths, pupil numbers and infrastructure arrangements in the light of experience. However, the Department estimates the average cost per pupil at approximately £150.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding for football study support centres has been obtained from(a) sponsors and (b) football clubs. [89723]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The amount of sponsorship for Playing for Success is substantial, and sponsors have equipped some centres with full suites of IT hardware. The Department is in the process of quantifying the total sponsorship sum. Each football club is required to contribute one third of the total costs, estimated at £110,000 per annum, in cash or kind.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which children who are(a) disaffected with school and (b) likely to become disaffected have joined football study support centres. [89718]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Playing for Success initiative is specifically targeted at those young people who are disaffected or who are identified as in danger of becoming so. The schools involved are the best judges of which pupils fall into those categories and select pupils who are most likely to benefit from attendance at the centres.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the Premier League and Division One football clubs providing study support centres in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000; and how many children are (i) attending and (ii) planned to attend such centres in the case of each football club. [89721]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details are shown in the table. Expected opening dates are provisional and the numbers of children taking part are estimated.

  Clubs committed

  Pupil numbers (estimated)

  Arsenal

  1—

  Expected to open in 2000

  Barnsley

  200

  Open

  Birmingham City

  2—

  Expected to open in 1999

  Blackburn Rovers

  550

  Open

  Bolton Wanderers

  300

  Open

  Bradford City

  1—

  Expected to open in 2000

  Bristol City

  2—

  Expected to open in 1999

  Charlton Athletic

  540

  Open

  Crystal Palace

  1,000

  Open

  Derby County

  1,500

  Open

  Everton

  1—

  Expected to open in 2000

  Huddersfield Town

  240

  Open

  Leeds United

  360

  Open

  Leicester City

  720

  Open

  Liverpool

  2—

  Expected to open in 1999

  Manchester City

  160

  Open

  Manchester United

  2—

  Expected to open in 1999

  Middlesbrough

  800

  Open

  Newcastle United

  5,000

  Open

  Norwich City

  160

  Expected to open in 1999

  Nottingham Forest

  180

  Open

  Port Vale

  150

  Open

  Queens Park Rangers

  675

  Open

  Reading

  1—

  Expected to open in 2000

  525

  Clubs committed

  Pupil numbers (estimated)

  Sheffield United

  240

  Open

  Sheffield Wednesday

  560

  Open

  Southampton

  2—

  Expected to open in 1999

  Stoke City

  210

  Open

  Stockport County

  2—

  Expected to open in 1999

  Sunderland

  350

  Open

  Swindon Town

  575

  Open

  Tottenham Hotspur

  1—

  Expected to open in 2000

  Watford

  1—

  Expected to open in 2000

  West Bromwich Albion

  2—

  Expected to open in 1999

  West Ham United

  1,160

  Open

  Wolverhampton Wanderers

  120

  Open

  1Not applicable

  2Not Known

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of girls attending football study support centres. [89722]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The national evaluation report of the first six centres by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) found girls attended in equal numbers to boys. Feedback from individual Playing for Success centre managers, who monitor attendance by gender, confirms this pattern.

  Local Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in establishing boundaries for local Learning and Skills Councils, how he will ensure that the boundaries fit with local travel-to-work and travel-to-study patterns and are within regional development agency/Government office boundaries in cases where local travel-to-work and travel-to-study patterns cross the RDA/Government office boundaries. [90086]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have asked the regional development agencies (RDAs) and the London Development Partnership for advice on the boundaries of the local Learning and Skills Councils within each region. In drawing up their advice, we have proposed a set of 526
  principles which RDAs need to follow. These include that boundaries must fit within RDA/Government office boundaries and should take into account best fit with travel-to-work and travel-to-study areas. They should also be consistent with other key local economic or social units and partnerships—especially with local authorities. We will take decisions on boundaries on the basis of these criteria and the advice of RDAs.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the maximum number of local Learning and Skills Councils in each regional development agency/Government office boundary consistent with the Government's objectives of having no more than 50 such councils nationally. [90064]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have asked regional development agencies (RDAs) and the London Development Partnership to make proposals on the boundaries for local Learning and Skills Councils by the end of September. We have not set a maximum number for each region, but have set some key principles which will underpin the RDAs' considerations and our decisions on the boundaries. These include a minimum residential population of 0.5 million.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 336, on nursery education, what percentage of three-year-olds in each of the local education authorities listed (a) currently have (i) free full-time early education places and (ii) free part-time early education places and (b) will have (i) free full-time early education places and (ii) free part-time early education places when the promised additional places are provided. [89751]

  Ms Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. Participation rates for individual ages cannot be provided at local education authority level as the underlying population estimates are not sufficiently reliable.

  Each three-year-old offered one of the additional free places will be eligible to receive five sessions of early education per week.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORI) CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

University Research: Project Decisions
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is a proper function of a university to carry out research which involves recruiting and paying 600 homosexual males to have anal intercourse.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, universities have procedures involving ethics committees which take decisions on whether experiments, investigations or procedures using human or animal subjects are appropriate.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister agree it is odd that a university with no medical research department should have embarked upon this project? Will the Minister agree that many students are impecunious and that some may view this as an easy way to earn £40? Does the Minister realise that the students are aware of the project and that their parents are extremely worried? Can she tell the House what insurance or compensation is available to young men who contract Aids through such a scheme?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness some reassurance about the project. No students at City University or elsewhere are involved in the project. The participants are recruited through gay organisations. I do not believe that this raises an insurance issue, as the project involves clinical trials which will concern protecting the health of homosexual men.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, why does the noble Baroness not condemn this as a perfectly appalling practice? Why does she not say that it is not the proper function of a university to carry out research of this nature?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as a Member of this House for many years, the noble Earl ought to know that Ministers have no powers to intervene in such matters. Under Section 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, universities are independent, autonomous institutions, responsible for determining their own educational and research priorities. The House has always held that matter dear. I believe that it is something that the Government and others should respect.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, will the Minister agree that in upholding the right to free academic inquiry, vice-chancellors are vulnerable to public opinion and to public criticism if the project simultaneously involves
716
personal risk—in this case such things as rectal injury—and can also be represented as little more than commercially sponsored testing of a commercial product?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this is a clinical trial. Frequently, universities undertake contract research that involves clinical trials. Of course, vice-chancellors have a difficult role to play, particularly if it is put about that the research is in some way dubious. All the evidence I have before me suggests that this is properly conducted research, which has been carefully considered by the ethics committee of the university concerned. I believe that we should respect the view taken by that committee.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness in her private capacity may or may not have strong feelings on this subject. Will she confirm that not everything on which we have strong feelings is a matter on which a Minister is accountable to the House?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that comment. He has hit the nail on the head. This matter should be left to the discretion of universities. I have every confidence that all the necessary care was taken before this particularly sensitive piece of research was undertaken. I repeat that we should respect the decision that was made.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, will the Minister agree that we would be treading a rocky path if it 'were suggested that the Minister should take powers to intervene in the research decisions of British universities?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend. Were that to happen, we would be treading an extremely dangerous road where political views of all kinds—and personal views—would start to affect the independence of our universities to undertake properly conducted, thoughtful research.
Baroness Young: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the cost of such research is to the taxpayer?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that the project is contract research, paid for entirely by the private sector organisation sponsoring it.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are many who would courageously say that such research is not simply quite wrong, but unethical from a Christian standpoint? It is surprising that there are homosexual men prepared to do such a peculiar thing.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course, I respect the views of the noble Lord. I suspect that there are 300 personal views in the House. However, I do not believe that our personal views are pertinent to the issue.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the Minister was correct, in her first answer, to point out that this piece of research had been before a research ethics committee. Is the whole trial to take place within the area of one university, and therefore within the

717
area of one ethics committee, or is it to take place across the country? The numbers involved suggest it may involve other centres. If that is so, does the Minister know of the decisions of the ethics committees in the other areas? A serious issue is raised if an ethics committee has found one way in one place and another way elsewhere, as sometimes happens.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Baroness says; that is, that where research is carried out by several universities, particularly sensitive research of this kind, it is important that the ethics committees of those universities work closely together and reach a common decision. I can confirm that in this case the research was undertaken by a single university. It is not a large piece of research since only 300 gay couples are involved. It is not a piece of research involving thousands of people.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it purely incidental that no student from this university is involved in the research, or is there a ruling that they should not be?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that before the research was undertaken the decision was taken that no student at the university should be involved. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, talked of payments. Each participant receives £20—a small sum of money—at the end of the research for answering 10 long questionnaires. It is standard practice in clinical trials of this sort to pay a small sum to compensate people for giving up substantial amounts of time.

Turkey: Human Rights
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they draw from the 130 cases brought against Turkey to the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, and in particular those of Mentes v. Turkey, Akdivar v. Turkey and Selcuk and Asker v. Turkey, concerning the destruction and depopulation of villages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly made clear their condemnation of so-called "village clearances". We welcome the fact that such forced evacuations have virtually ceased since 1996.
On the basis of those cases where the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled against Turkey, Her Majesty's Government conclude that the instances of forced evacuations of villages were at odds with Turkey's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We have repeatedly urged the Turkish Government to comply fully with rulings of the ECHR.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and particularly for her condemnation of what has
718
taken place. However, does she fully appreciate the scale on which these activities took place? Is it not the case that 3,000 villages were completely cleared, displacing approximately 3 million people? That is slightly more than the total population of Kosovo.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that over 3,000 villages and hamlets were forcibly evacuated in the course of the conflicts between the Turkish security forces and the PKK. We condemned the brutal and counter-productive policy behind those evacuations. But criticism alone will not bring about the improvements that we want to see in Turkey's performance over human rights. That is why we continue to encourage the Turks to implement a package of measures which is aimed at improving their record on human rights. For example, we have been giving them help in training lawyers and police and raising their standards to international levels.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister says that village clearances have virtually ceased. But does she appreciate that in 1998, according to the IHD—the foremost Turkish human rights organisation—30 villages were demolished? Does she agree that the Home Office figure of 500,000 people being displaced by these clearances, which was quoted in the assessment used by the Home Office for immigration and asylum purposes, does not stack up with the 3 million mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and endorsed by such British authorities as David McDowall? Is the displacement of these people who are now living in shanty towns outside Diyarbakir and in the slums of western Turkish cities the reason why the Turkish authorities did not invite the OSCE to monitor their recent elections, knowing that it would discover that all these people were disenfranchised?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made clear in robust terms to the House the views of Her Majesty's Government on these village clearances. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury—as did the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—quoted the figure of 3 million. I am given to understand that the figure was some 500,000. I do not want to bandy figures with noble Lords. These are enormous numbers of people. This was a lamentable piece of policy. The recent rulings of the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that position and Her Majesty's Government have no hesitation in criticising that record. As I understand it, there was a considerable slow-down of village evacuations after 1996 and the current position is that the Turkish Government are encouraging those who were evacuated from the villages—that is, the Kurdish population—to return to those villages. We are doing our best to encourage them in that endeavour.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many of us are encouraged by the robust terms in which she has replied to this Question? Indeed, we should like to congratulate the Government on the firm stand that they are taking. However, if NATO is to have increasing responsibility in making an effective stand for human rights in various parts of the world, does my noble friend

719
agree that issues may be raised about how far it is possible to co-operate in such action with a nation state which has a record of this kind?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understand why there is an implicit suggestion—I put it no higher than that—in my noble friend's Question that there is an analogy, if I may put it that way, with the situation in Kosovo; namely—and I paraphrase what my noble friend said—that for one of our own allies to have been in this position does not bear a great deal of scrutiny. When looking at this Question I, too, raised that issue. But having looked at what has actually happened, I really do not believe that the comparison stands up. It is not sustainable to argue that the Turks have pursued what might be described as a "Serbian-style policy" of ethnic cleansing against the Kurds. They have not sought to expel ethnic Kurds, who are Turkish citizens, beyond their borders; nor has there been any attempt, since the clearances, to re-settle ethnic Turks into the villages which were evacuated. However, nothing in that detracts from the robust criticisms that Her Majesty's Government have made of these village clearances or our continuing criticisms of Turkey's record on human rights.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell us what difference the exchanges in your Lordships' House this afternoon have made to the Government's attitude to Turkey's application to join the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government always listen with very great interest to the wisdom that your Lordships are able to bring to bear on a whole range of different issues. However, the Government have pursued the right policies in encouraging our friends in Turkey to improve their record on human rights. Her Majesty's Government do that not only through our contacts in relation to the European Union; indeed, we have also done so through a series of practical measures of help on human rights issues—for example, helping to establish an independent police complaints authority, a young lawyers' exchange scheme, and a pilot on citizens advice bureaux. We shall shortly be announcing a further package when my right honourable friend Miss Quin visits Turkey later this month. We listen; of course, we do. However, it is also important that noble Lords should be aware of the measures that are going forward to try to help Turkey improve.

Motorways: Abnormal Loads
2.52 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Highways Agency is responsible for authorising the timing, route and lane occupancy of wide loads on motorways and whether compensation is payable by the operator to other drivers for any delay such movements may cause.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Highways Agency plays no part in the authorisation of abnormal loads, The movement of most such loads is authorised by the police, who can vary the date, time and route of the load. The movement of certain extremely large loads must be authorised by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. An operator who is lawfully using a vehicle to carry an abnormally wide load on a motorway will, in the absence of negligence on the part of the driver, not normally be liable to pay compensation to other users of the motorway.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. My Question arose after mine was one of probably about 5.000 cars which were delayed for an estimated two hours on the M.25 one Saturday morning. Can my noble friend tell me why the police do not require these vehicles to travel at night when the motorways are much less congested? Although the operator may not be paying compensation, I should point out that that is not the case with the railways. If you are delayed for two hours when travelling on the railways, you might even get some compensation. I suggest that that should, perhaps, be looked at.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I realise the apparent attraction of moving all abnormal loads at night. However, that would mean the concentration of a scarce police resource within the eight to 10 night-time hours. Very often routine and major motorway programmes, in terms of repair and rebuilding, are planned during night-time hours. Essentially, this has to be something within the discretion of the local chief constable.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that over 1.5 million movements of wide loads in England and Wales are noted by the police each year, and that 10 per cent of these require police escorts? Moreover, I gather that the cost involved must be borne by the police. Surely that cannot be right. What is the view of the Home Office on the matter?
Further, before my noble friend jumps up to the Dispatch Box to reply, can he tell us what are the Transport Association's views on night movements only? Has the association made representations to the Home Office? Similarly, has the Police Community Liaison Committee done likewise?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a vast number of abnormal load movements using the motorway network. Of course, these movements are necessary to enable manufacturing industry and other industrial sectors to carry out their work and thereby provide employment and produce profit. In response to my noble friend's specific question, I can tell him that we have put out a consultation document relating to proposals to introduce private escorts for abnormal loads on motorways. That document was produced in the latter part of last year. The report has been circulated

721
for consultation and we expect preliminary conclusions to be going to Ministers in the autumn of this year. I can also tell my noble friend that we consulted 258 organisations and consultees, and many of the road haulage associations and related bodies have replied.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether in France, or other countries, the company whose load is being accompanied by the police pays for the cost of that escort?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my understanding is that on certain motorways in France the person requiring the escort does indeed have to pay the charge that the noble Lord indicated.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, bearing in mind the unfortunate episode experienced by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is the Minister aware that the M.25 and the M.23 are essential for many travellers to Heathrow and Gatwick airports who have to take flights and travel some distances? Is he further aware that the kind of delay that his noble friend mentioned could have meant that a great many people missed their flights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I sympathise with people in those circumstances. Indeed, speaking from recent, bitter personal experience, I am well aware of the delays on the M.25. Obviously, these are matters which chief constables must take into account. By and large, bearing in mind the general picture painted by my noble friend Lord Mason, I think that they do this remarkably well.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether these rules apply to combine harvesters, which very often travel many miles along a road with, perhaps, a 10-mile queue behind them? Are they subject to the same rules?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it depends on their size and dimensions. If a load is wider than 4.3 metres and/or longer than 18.3 metres and/or weighs more than 41,000 kilograms in total, then it falls within the abnormal load categories which have to be notified. If the noble Lord has been following a small combine harvester, that information will not be of help to him; but if he has been following a very big one it should be of enormous assistance. However, one is frequently delayed by other road users. Quite often, for example, a man with a donkey may be travelling along a road. That is not an abnormal load and one just has to put up with it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before putting my questions, I should first declare an interest as I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. Is the Minister aware that, in trying to overcome the difficulties of long delays, operators are being hit with a double whammy of the working time directive that limits how long crews can afford to wait for a police escort and the minimum wage
722
which affects imaginative pay schemes? Further, can the Minister confirm that private escorts have already been successfully put on trial by the police?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not a double whammy at all. Working time directives are an essential part of public safety protection. It is foolish to think that a driver of a large vehicle ought to be allowed to drive without any limitation. Moreover, when one looks at the level of the minimum wage, it is clear that it is no more than a decent gesture to those who work for other people's profit. The private escorts are part of the scheme that I mentioned. Consultation documents have been put out and the Heavy Transport Association mentioned by the noble Earl—indeed, he was courteous enough to indicate to me other interests that he has—is one of the consultees which has responded.

Student Loan Scheme: Residence
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether pupils from British schools in the European Union who qualify for places at British universities are excluded from the student loan scheme.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, not all students at British schools in the European Union are British. Nevertheless those students who can demonstrate a residential connection with this country and meet the other eligibility criteria will be eligible for loans. If students have no recent history of residence in the United Kingdom, it is right that they should be excluded from the loans scheme. These residence conditions have remained broadly unchanged for many years.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. This is an extremely important issue for British students in British schools in the European Union who, as the noble Baroness knows, follow a British curriculum, take British exams and qualify for British universities. There is uncertainty as to whether or not they are eligible for the student loan scheme. This is a serious deterrent to some of them getting to a university at all. Will the noble Baroness look at this question and clarify the situation? We are not talking about students who are not British.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's Question because this is a matter that we should look at in terms of providing good, clear information to British students in British schools in the European Union. I certainly would not want any student who is eligible on other grounds—that is, with ability and the right qualifications—to decide not to go to university because he or she is unclear about the arrangements. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that it is important that we set down proper residence criteria. It would not be right for us to open up the student loan scheme to people, whether

723
British or not, who have, for example, lived in the United States for many years and have few connections with the UK.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify whether British students who are studying in international schools in European countries not in the Union, such as Switzerland, would be eligible for such loans if coming to UK universities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, exactly the same provisions apply to them whether they are in an international school in Switzerland, in the United States or anywhere in the world. The student loans regulations relate to residence qualifications. As I have said, that criterion has been in place for many years. However, I am certainly willing to look at the guidance and information that we provide on this matter.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if students living in another European country are intelligent enough to go to a British university, they are surely intelligent enough to know whether they are entitled to a student loan?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, they ought to be but sometimes even I have difficulty in understanding complicated government circulars and regulations of this kind. I am sure that is true of many other Members of your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that it is deeply unfair that students from other European countries other than England, Wales and Northern Ireland receive preferential treatment in relation to the waiving of fees for university courses and yet our British subjects are subject to such unfairness?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, students from the European Union do not receive preferential treatment in relation to fees. The situation with respect to fees is exactly the same as regards the eligibility criteria for the student loan scheme. They are based on residence qualifications.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I really must come back on that. A student from France attending a Scottish university will have the fees waived whereas a student from England attending the same Scottish university will not.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have been through this on many previous occasions. I think that the noble Baroness is well aware that an independent inquiry on this issue under the chairmanship of Sir George Quigley is under way. It will report to Parliament no later than April 2000.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I ask for clarification because there is a difference of interpretation as regards whether a student is "resident". Some authorities will not allow student loans even if the students concerned
724
are on the electoral roll of an area. I think that there is a great deal of confusion on this issue and someone needs to look into it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the issue of the electoral roll is a complicated one. The reason the Government have never accepted that being on an electoral roll should make one automatically eligible for a student loan is that Commonwealth citizens can be on an electoral roll. That includes Commonwealth students who are not permanently resident in the UK. If we opened up that particular route, I think that there would be quite a lot of abuse.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that one of the tenets of the European Union is the free movement of labour, and bearing in mind that the different rules and costs that apply to the education of workers' children—whether they are at school or university—will inhibit that free movement of labour, do the Government monitor the different funding and regulatory regimes that apply in the different countries of the European Union? Does my noble friend have any discussions with her counterparts in the European Union to see what common standards and financial regimes might be achieved?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is for each independent member of the European Union to have its own system for student support. That is how I believe it should remain. However, of course the Government are constantly in touch with what is happening in other countries, not just in the European Union but elsewhere around the world because we can sometimes learn from what other countries are doing in this difficult and complicated area. Only yesterday I had a meeting with the Dutch Minister of Education during which we discussed this issue, among others.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on public health.

Employment Relations Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 3,

725

Clauses 5 to 9,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 10 to 15,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 16 to 26,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 27 and 28,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 29 to 36,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 37 to 39.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Effect of bankruptcy on pension rights: approved arrangements]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 22, at end insert—
("(5A) No pension rights of any person shall however vest in his trustee of bankruptcy if they were acquired or secured during a period when the arrangement was approved.")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 38, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 which are consequential. Before we discuss the highly emotive issues of war widows' pensions or the higher reaches of pensions policy which are reflected in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, there are one or two rather technical amendments whereby we seek to establish the Government's position.
As Clause 11 stands, our understanding is that it could have retrospective effect. The whole concept of retrospection has always been a difficult one and many different definitions of retrospection have been put forward. As I understand the position, if the Inland Revenue were to decide to disapprove a pension scheme, that could have a retrospective effect as regards the protection of those assets from the trustee in bankruptcy being removed. Although we understand the reasons why the Government think that it is appropriate to change the situation with regard to future arrangements, we believe that there is some danger of retrospection here.
This matter was debated on 16th March in a Standing Committee of another place, where it was suggested that the matter could be solved by an exercise of ministerial discretion so far as concerns protecting the assets in the circumstances I have described. That would not seem to be a very satisfactory arrangement. It is less watertight
726
than if it were on the face of the Bill. But these are complicated matters and it would be helpful for the Committee to have an explanation of them from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The measures in Clause 11 of the Bill will protect a person's rights in a tax-approved pension scheme in the event of their bankruptcy. The same amendments were raised in Committee in another place. Before I go on to discuss them, perhaps it will be helpful if I give an outline of how the measures will work.
When a person becomes bankrupt his or her assets are generally taken over by the trustee in bankruptcy. However the current treatment of people's pension rights on bankruptcy is inconsistent. Pension rights in occupational pension schemes are usually safeguarded, whereas rights in personal pensions are at risk of falling into the hands of the trustee in bankruptcy. It is common ground that that is unfair. Not only that, it acts against one of the major principles of our programme of welfare reform; that is, security in retirement.
Clause 11 of the Bill provides that on bankruptcy an individual's rights in a tax-approved pension scheme will be protected from the trustee in bankruptcy by virtue of being excluded from the bankrupt's estate. I understand this was supported by Conservative Members in another place. This new statutory protection will not, however, extend to pension rights held in unapproved pension arrangements. Such arrangements are usually used by the very well off to top up an approved pension arrangement. As I am sure the noble Lord will agree, it would be inappropriate to apply the automatic protection provided by these new measures to such arrangements.
Perhaps I may now turn to the individual amendments and the clear case made out for them by the noble Lord. He is concerned about the position of people in an approved pension scheme which has had its tax approval withdrawn and that people lose protection for rights accrued while the scheme was approved. I share the noble Lord's concern about innocent members of a pension scheme being inadvertently penalised. However, for two reasons, I hope to be able to reassure him that this will not happen.
First, tax approval for pension schemes is not withdrawn unless there are very good grounds for doing so and is done rarely. I shall let the noble Lord have the figures for the number of cases in which it occurs. Tax approval is withdrawn only if a scheme is in breach of the Inland Revenue requirements. If it comes to the Inland Revenue's attention that a scheme is in breach in a particular area, the Inland Revenue will write to the scheme about the matter. The pension scheme is then given every opportunity to put the matter right, with assistance and advice if needed. Withdrawal of approval is a major step; in every case the final decision is taken only after consideration at a senior level.
When considering withdrawal of approval, the Inland Revenue pays particular attention to the interests of members of the scheme who have not been involved in any irregularity. They are allowed to transfer their rights

727
to another approved pension scheme. Of course, if they do so, their pensions rights will continue to receive the automatic protections provided by Clause 11.
In any one year, the Inland Revenue withdraws approval from about 75 pension schemes. The overwhelming majority of those schemes are what are known as small self-administered schemes, set up for the benefit of company directors. In practice, the schemes tend to have only two or three members, all of whom are trustees. Unlike other pension schemes, small self-administered schemes are allowed to use scheme assets to secure loans to the employer or to invest directly in the employer, up to a single limit of 50 per cent of the scheme's assets. I am sure that the noble Lord can see the scope for that kind of scheme falling short of the Inland Revenue requirements.
Secondly, there is an additional safeguard, which some noble Lords might regard as a belt and braces approach. Clause 12 gives the court the power to exclude an individual's pension rights in an unapproved scheme from his or her estate on bankruptcy. This will give the same protection from creditors as if they were rights under an approved scheme. The grounds for the court's consideration will be that the rights in the unapproved pension scheme represent the individual's only, or only significant, pension provision. That is a safety net provision for those who have made pension provision only via an unapproved arrangement. It will also apply in those cases where tax approval is withdrawn from a scheme and—although it would be highly unusual—the individual in question decides not to transfer his or her rights to another scheme.
The noble Lord asked me whether this was not retrospective legislation. The treatment of pension rights under Clause 11 is determined by the reference to the true tax status of the scheme at the time of the bankruptcy order, not the date on which tax approval was withdrawn from the scheme. So it is not retrospective legislation but legislation which addresses the circumstances of the case. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: The Committee will be grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. As he rightly points out, there is much common ground in relation to these rather unusual schemes. I was a little concerned when the Minister said that the change takes place at the date of the bankruptcy order rather than the date when the scheme is disapproved. Is it the case that the contributions which have already been made before the date when the scheme is disapproved will not be adversely affected by the subsequent events and the subsequent fact that the scheme is no longer approved by the Inland Revenue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The clause has effect only in relation to the pension rights of a person who is made bankrupt after the commencement of the clause. So in that sense it is certainly not retrospective. In so far as the clause bites—in other words, someone is made bankrupt after the commencement of the clause—all the
728
other protections, such as a transfer to an approved scheme or the belt and braces protection of Clause 12, will apply.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister. On the basis of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. He has also covered very largely the contents of Clauses 11 and 12.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Compensating occupational pension schemes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Buscombe: Having reviewed Clause 17 in some detail and having received representations from a number of organisations on it, I should be grateful if the Minister could give some indication of the Government's thinking behind the clause. It is our understanding that the clause extends the eligibility for compensation under the pension compensation provisions in the Pensions Act 1995, through the Pensions Compensation Board. In addition, it increases the maximum amount of compensation that can be paid to a scheme if the assets are lost through theft or fraud and if the employer is insolvent.
However, it also creates a distinction between scheme members; that is, it distinguishes between those who are already in receipt of a pension and retired, together with those who are within 10 years of retirement age—all of whom will enjoy 100 per cent protection against losses through theft, fraud and if the employer is insolvent—and those who are working and more than 10 years from retirement, who will, in turn, have 90 per cent protection.
In theory the differential seems laudable; it fully protects those who will not have the opportunity to rebuild their provision. However, in practice, surety to offer 100 per cent protection—that is, complete protection—thereby negates any need or duty at all on the part of the beneficiary to ensure that the scheme is being properly run. I make this point with particular regard to those beneficiaries who are managers and trustees and therefore should be accountable in their fiduciary responsibility.
We further suggest that this clause, as I understand it, is inconsistent with other parts of the Bill. It appears entirely to relieve managers and trustees of a scheme for the benefit of a retired person or one within 10 years of pensionable age, of their responsibility, if that scheme ends up being underfunded. Perhaps I may explain what I mean by inconsistent. It is, we understand, the Government's intention to make pension provision fairer, which includes being tough on those who do not carry out their responsibilities properly. For example, Clause 10 of the Bill, which deals with late payments by employers, refers to the possible civil or criminal consequences of late payment.

729
In contrast, is a manager or trustee of a pension fund to be entirely protected while an employer should, in the event of late payment, be subject to the full force of the law? Again, I should be grateful if the Minister could give us an indication as to the Government's thinking behind the clause and what the Government hope to achieve in practical terms by the inclusion of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her difficulties with Clause 17. I hope that I shall be able to reassure her. Clause 17 is virtually entirely benign. When I say "virtually" I mean that my only hesitation is because it includes a somewhat greater demand on the compensation fund which is paid for by all schemes.
Clause 17 improves access to the compensation provisions. It does not take away any compensation provisions from anyone. It also increases the maximum amount of compensation that can be paid to a scheme if assets are lost through theft or fraud and the employer is insolvent. It means that all scheme members will receive a higher proportion of their pension entitlement than under the existing provisions.
At present, the value of the assets of a scheme must have been reduced to less than 90 per cent of its liabilities before a claim for compensation can be made. A compensation payment at present cannot restore the fund above the level required to meet 90 per cent of its liabilities, calculated using the minimum funding valuation method.
But this does not mean that all members will at present receive 90 per cent of their pension benefits. The first priority is to maintain pensions that are already in payment. This means that younger members in a scheme with a high number of pensioners could lose a large proportion of their benefits, in order to make up the compensation payment to those who are already pensioners.
Our proposals recognise that this is unfair. Under Clause 17, compensation will be paid to restore a scheme's assets to meet 100 per cent of its liabilities for older scheme members. That means that more money will be available in the scheme to compensate people who are below pension age if their pension fund is lost through theft or fraud. The calculation will also include an expense allowance to take account of the cost of winding up the scheme, and 90 per cent of the value of liabilities in respect of younger members. Overall these younger scheme members will receive more than under the current system. It is not the scheme which gets compensation; it is the trustees on behalf of the members of the scheme. Therefore, those who have committed any theft or fraud do not receive any benefit from it.
I believe that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will agree that no members of the scheme lose out through the provisions in Clause 17. Those who are most in need—existing pensioners—will get 100 per cent
730
compensation, as they would have done, but that will not be at the expense of younger members of the scheme. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for that full explanation. I do not suggest that members would lose out. All I suggest is that we must be careful when it comes to ensuring that fiduciary responsibility remains with those who are responsible for running the scheme. I thank the Minister. I take note of what has been said and shall read it in Hansard.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Baroness Fookes Baroness Fookes moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
WAR PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS: ENTITLEMENT
(" .—(1) In determining whether a pension is payable to a person as a widow under any of the enactments in subsection (2), no account may be taken of the fact that the widow has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a person of the opposite sex.
(2) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,

(b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,

(c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army. Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),

(d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.")

The noble Baroness said: In the unavoidable absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, I was asked to move the amendment which stands in her name, that of my noble friend Lady Gardner and myself. It is a somewhat daunting prospect to stand in the shoes of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, because she is well known as a doughty champion and supporter of war widows. I hope that I can do justice to her sentiments in the matter.
The general thrust of the amendment is to ensure that a war widow who remarries or lives as the wife of someone to whom she is not married should not lose her entitlement to a war pension. It is felt that in other pension schemes this is not happening. It therefore seems particularly unjust that it should happen in the case of a woman who loses her husband as a result of war.
However, I appreciate that this is a complex matter. As I understand it, war widows receive their pension from two entirely different sources. They are entirely different schemes administered by two entirely different departments of state. One is the Ministry of Defence, where it is effectively an occupational pension; the other is the DSS, where it is an indication of the loss widows have suffered as a result of war.
I appreciate, therefore, that what I seek may go beyond the scope of the Bill, but I hope that at the least we could open up the whole subject and get things moving in at any rate one department, if not the other. If I sound a little dubious, it is because, having been a Member of Parliament, I have had dealings with the MoD in the past. The department is extraordinarily stiff-necked when it comes to any matter of benefits. The tendency seems to be to give less rather than more, if that is possible. Maybe it has the Treasury standing behind it—that I would not know. All I know is that it is a great job to get it to move, but I realise that this Bill may not be the appropriate place to force that movement.
Nevertheless, an important principle is at stake. I am therefore pleased to move the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, whom, incidentally, I still prefer to regard as my noble friend. She believes that the number of people who might be affected, if this came into operation, would be in the order of 2,700 war widows. That does not count any who may subsequently become widows as a result of any other conflicts in which we may be involved. It is not likely that all 2,700 would remarry. However, the principle is important and therefore I have pleasure in moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for facilitating this important debate by tabling Amendment No. 41, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for moving it with such clarity. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is held in the highest regard by war widows, and rightly so. At Second Reading, she said that she knew my noble friend Lady Hollis would argue that,
"this Bill does not affect war widows".—[Official Report, 10/6/99; col. 1626.]
For her part, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said that she believed there to be a connection. To make doubly sure, she tabled her amendment. It addresses what Jenny Green, writing for the War Widows Association of Great Britain, described as the "iniquity" of treating war widows who remarry less favourably than they would be treated if their pensions were paid under other schemes.
In the report of his team's review of the Armed Forces' manpower, career and remuneration arrangements, Sir Michael Bett recommended that spouses' attributable pensions should be awarded for life and not withdrawn on remarriage in line with what had become standard private sector occupational pension scheme practice. The Goode report had previously made the same recommendation. Today that recommendation is even more relevant, since the award of spouses' pensions for life has now also been introduced into a major public service pension scheme; namely, that for local government officers.
I speak as the former chairman for 14 years of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension scheme and of the House of Commons Members' Fund. It is accepted in the parliamentary scheme that remarriage should not cost a widow her pension. I am sure there will be noble Lords on both sides of this House who think that war and service widows are as deserving of treatment no less favourable
732
than that of those for whose pensions I used to be responsible in chairing the parliamentary contributory pension fund.
Of all the duties that it falls to Parliament to discharge, none is of more compelling priority than our bounden duty to act justly to men and women who were prepared to lay down their lives for this country and to the dependants of those who did so. That is the case for urgent consideration of the anomaly to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has drawn our attention and which has been criticised so strongly by Jenny Green and the War Widows Association. I am sure my noble friend, who battled long and hard for war widows in opposition in close alliance with the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will want to reply as helpfully as she can to this debate.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I merely raise a point for clarification. In proposing the new clause, my noble friend spoke about those who are widows as the result of war, and about the possibility of another war. My understanding is that he expression "war widows" covers a whole further range—that is to say, the widows of servicemen who have died in peacetime on Armed Forces duty in this country. A figure of 2,700 was mentioned. My estimate is that well over half would have been in that category and not involved in any way in a war. That does not make them any the less deserving of the intention behind this clause. The media and the public are sometimes unintentionally misled by that term, and also by the expression "war pensioners". I know from my own experience, and from research with the help of officials, that more than half of those who are termed "war pensioners" have never been anywhere near a war; their disabilities have usually been caused by firing their own weapons on ranges in this country in peacetime. But again, they deserve a pension.
As I have said, the terms "war pensioner" and "war widow" are misleading. "War pensioner" ought to be replaced by "Armed Forces disability pensioner". Then, the matter would be clearer. I sympathise entirely with the purpose of the new clause. It is merely a question of being clear about the group to whom we are referring. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will confirm what I have said.
Earl Russell: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who is detained in a meeting of the Freedom of Information Committee, and for my own part, I strongly support the amendment. Wearing my other hat, in the course of research I have had the experience of reading the wills of innumerable 17th century gentlemen. One after another, they made settlements on their wives, "on condition that she shall live sole, chaste and unmarried". I know that in the course of doing research one must sit on one's emotions, but one does not stop having them. Every time I read those words, I am struck with the reflex, "What an impertinence!". I use the word "impertinence" in both its abusive and its technical sense. Once the man is dead, it is simply none of his business. If it were his business, he might well hope that the woman would be privileged to find happiness, as one hopes, for a second time.

733
If that were not enough, the world has changed. Our perceptions have changed. Support for a widow is not a badge of ownership. It is not a dog collar and lead. It is a recognition of her having put a share into the running of a household. Therefore, support is owed to the woman in justice and equity because of what she has done during the period of the marriage, regardless of what she may see fit to do thereafter.
The case of war widows is of particular importance. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, about "war widowers" is also well taken and will be supported by the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not think that any woman's consent to her husband going off and risking his life in war is happily given. It may be freely given; and it is our national fortune sometimes that it is. But for it to be given happily is extremely rare. That that consent should be given is nationally vital. If there is not an adequate arrangement for the support of the widow, that consent will be rather harder to come by. It is to our national benefit.
Finally, in this, as in child support and many other issues, there is a Treasury interest to be considered. If the Treasury considers its own interest with proper enlightenment—that is a considerable proviso—we might find, for once, that the Treasury is on the side of the angels—because a widow not properly supported by the Treasury will inevitably become dependent on income support. We know that that is not what the Minister wants, and we do not want it either.
Lord Higgins: As so often in this House, one speaks with diffidence on certain issues because of the long-standing commitment of other Members of this place. In opening the debate, my noble friend Lady Fookes referred to the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, in regard to war widows. That is of considerable significance.
As has rightly been pointed out, there are two separate types of pension. There is the pension administered by the DSS, and there is that administered by the Ministry of Defence. I listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, regarding the position of the Treasury. Its record on war widows over the years has been somewhat varied.
The crucial point that underlies these amendments is remarriage. In effect, if in present circumstances someone remarries the Treasury gains as a result because the pension that it has previously paid will cease. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Government made a general statement about their policy with regard to pensions and remarriage. The ramifications go a good deal wider than war widows, of whatever type. As my noble friend Lord Campbell pointed out, from time to time that definition can cover people in rather different circumstances. What is the position of the Government in regard to pensions and remarriage?
In the course of the debate it was said that the normal practice in regard to occupational pensions was that if someone remarried she retained the pension. That slightly surprises me. My impression is that, while that
734
may be true of a number of occupational pension schemes, in a considerable number of cases where a widow remarries she loses that pension. The same applies to different kinds of pension.
There is also the complication that nowadays the status of marriage is supplemented—that is not the right word—by those who live as husband and wife without being formally married, as the amendment suggests. The amendment seeks to cover both circumstances. In many other areas the Treasury, Inland Revenue and so on carry out extensive investigations to determine the exact position. I am not at all clear whether, if a war widow has not formally remarried but is living in a relationship, which is described in the amendment as "husband and wife", she loses the pension. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that particular point.
This matter gives rise to a broad issue of policy, and it would be of assistance to know the attitude of the Government with regard to remarriage and the definition of those circumstances in which a war widow's pension may be withdrawn. More broadly, I would have thought it undesirable from the point of view of public policy to create a situation in which effectively there is a deterrence to marriage. As the noble Earl pointed out, someone who has been widowed may want to remarry but the financial disadvantages can be substantial.
A further problem may arise if, having remarried, she is widowed a second time. It may be that the second husband, in contrast to the first, has little or no pension rights. Therefore, if she decides to remarry not only does she lose her own pension but if her new husband is older than herself, as may well be the case, she may suffer a considerable disadvantage in later life in that she has neither her own pension nor a pension of any great significance from her second husband. I believe that the Committee would be assisted if the Minister could set the whole of this issue in the broader context of remarriage and pensions.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall try. Like other Members of the Committee, I pay tribute to the work of the War Widows Association, with which I have worked closely over the past couple of years as both a Minister and in opposition. The association has always been eloquent, reasoned, consensual and persuasive in its arguments. A good deal of Treasury stiffening is required to resist a number of amendments for which the association argues. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who moved the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, referred to the latter as "my noble friend". I am sorry that the noble Baroness cannot be here. I, too, hope that outside the Chamber, particularly when it comes to espousing widows' causes, we are indeed her friend and she ours.
We all accept, as movingly described by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the change in status from marriage to widowhood, especially war widowhood, is not easy. It is traumatic if one's husband is a serviceman and every day one lives with the fear of widowhood, particularly when, as now, so many of our Armed Forces are deployed in the Balkans. I have met many

735
widows who have been helped by the War Widows Association and are extraordinarily grateful for the generosity, warmth, concern and support of that body, which understands the trauma and can help people through it. The association is also tireless in fighting for improvements in the various pension schemes which make provision for servicemen's widows, on whose behalf my noble friend Lord Morris has always been a powerful advocate.
This amendment is an example of the improvements sought by the association. It seeks to provide a war widow's pension from government funds during the lifetime of a war widow regardless of the particular family circumstances following remarriage. In effect, it would introduce government-funded tax-free supplements to the incomes of the second families of war widows which do not take into account the income levels enjoyed by those families. As it stands, the amendment refers to the DSS war widow's pension. The fundamental principle of that pension is that it compensates the widow for the loss of financial maintenance by a husband who has died as a result of service. It is not an occupational pension.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, I cannot comment on the position of the Ministry of Defence. But a pension that is paid by the DSS as a result of widowhood stops when the individual ceases to be a widow. Therefore, in so far as it affects the DSS the Government cannot accept the amendment. Should a war widow be unfortunate enough to become widowed again, or a second marriage ends in divorce, she is eligible to have her war widow's pension reinstated. That amendment to the Pensions Act 1995 was fought for by many in this Chamber, led by the Cross-Benchers. That principle was established for the DSS scheme and therefore applies also to the MoD scheme. The department took on board the decision of this Chamber that a war widow should be able to resume a war widow's DSS pension, and therefore it also applies to the occupational pension. My understanding is that the War Widows Association did not seek to amend the DSS war widows' scheme—it wrote to us to that effect—but to probe the situation with regard to the MoD"s occupational pension scheme, even though, technically, that is perhaps slightly beyond the scope of this Bill.
Cessation of widows' pensions on remarriage, with discretion to restore on second widowhood, is a feature of most public service pensions. I was pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about how widespread was the ability of a widow to retain an occupational pension on remarriage. The position differs from scheme to scheme. It is much more likely to apply in the private sector. My information is that in the public sector it ceases on remarriage or cohabitation—which are treated as the same—in the police service, the fire service, the National Health Service, the Civil Service, unless an additional premium is paid, and for MPs, but not for local government, where the position has recently changed, or universities. The vast majority of public sector schemes do not allow an individual to continue to retain an occupational pension once she ceases to be a
736
widow. But the world is changing: the local government scheme has recently changed and others may follow suit.
My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced last September that the Armed Forces pension scheme would be the subject of a major review. We expect recommendations to emerge around the turn of the year and to be the subject of public consultation. These points and others will be taken up in that review. I have no doubt that the War Widows Association will contribute to that consultation, and I shall draw this debate to the attention of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. Their work will examine widows' pensions, including the question of whether they should continue to be withdrawn on remarriage.
Given that the original intent of the amendment was to probe the Government's thinking on MoD pensions and whether we were reviewing the situation, I can assure the Committee that we are. The amendment was not originally intended to apply to the Department of Social Security, although the DSS tends to follow movement elsewhere. At the moment, it is separate. I hope that in the light of the explanation and assurances I have given, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I wonder whether the Minister could clarify whether the group we are discussing—war widows—covers those widows whose husbands were servicemen on duty when they died, but who were not involved in a war. For example, if a husband fell off a ladder on duty in barracks in Britain in peacetime, his widow rightly deserves a generous pension. As I understand it, she is automatically classified as a "war widow".
The issue is important because, fortunately, we have not had a major war involving many battle casualties since Korea, nearly 50 years ago. Therefore, there are far more service widows whose husbands have died during peacetime activities. They are the ones whose numbers matter now and are more likely to be of an age to remarry.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister replies to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will she bear in mind in defining "peacetime" the declining frequency of the declaration of war and the increasing use of the Army, as we saw the day before yesterday, in circumstances involving civil disturbance?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord and the noble Earl are both right. It is true that most war pensions are received not because of service in the Falklands or in Northern Ireland, but because of injuries incurred in training, ranging from sports injuries to noise-induced hearing loss, associated with not having protective clothing during weapons training. Pensions may also be paid as a result of accidents, such as those involving jeeps.
In so far as a war injury has occurred for a serviceman or a war pension has been paid to a service widow, if the injury occurred because the serviceman was in service at the time, the pension is paid. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is right.

737
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is also right. It is not easy to make a clean distinction between war and peace when so many of the demands made on today's Army relate to peacekeeping. Much of the Army's activities involve keeping the peace, and any injury or death incurred is properly covered by the arrangements.
Baroness Fookes: I am grateful to the Minister for the generous tribute she paid to my noble friend Lady Strange and to the work of the War Widows Association. I am sure that my noble friend will be delighted to learn about the review that is to take place within the Ministry of Defence, and no doubt she will wish to give her trenchant views to that body.
I would not dare to second-guess what my noble friend might do subsequently in the Bill, but for the time being, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
4 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 44A:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SERPS
(" .—(1) Contributors or prospective contributors to a pension scheme, whether an occupational pension scheme or stakeholder pension or a personal pension shall be given the option of contributing to the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme as enacted in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 or to such modification of it as may be prescribed.
(2) To enable prospective contributors in exercising this option the Secretary of State shall publish comparative tables of the contributions required to produce specified benefits in each case including the charges levied on the contributions or on the accumulated fund in each case and the portability of each pension.")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is clear: it is to give all people a genuine choice between the various options of pension provision that are open to them and will be open to them under the Government's policies. In seeking to give people that choice, I include the provision of SERPS, with which the Committee is by now familiar.
The Government's policy is to phase out SERPS gradually as an option and in the mean time to encourage contributors to adopt other forms of pension. The Minister has made it clear in previous discussions that she considers SERPS provision inferior to the Government's state second pension, for example, for certain categories of income groups. I urge the Committee to accept that the merits of SERPS have been sufficiently recorded by a wide range of people, including Members of the Government, for it to be wrong to remove it as an option for those who wish to choose it. We need to give people a genuine choice.
The merits of SERPS have frequently been pointed out. It is a defined pension, so people know what they will get when they have contributed. It is a pension that is paid as of right and it is inflation proofed, which does
738
not apply to every scheme offered as an alternative. SERPS is also completely portable. We have a highly flexible labour market, but SERPS can be moved with no difficulty at all from one job to another because employees are still members of the same fund—the National Insurance Fund. It has also been acknowledged on all sides that the administrative expenses of SERPS are lower than those of any other pension scheme. So why phase it out?
The Minister has advanced two arguments against the continuation of SERPS. The first is that it is earnings related. I was surprised to hear the Government use that argument. Has it suddenly become a crime for a pension scheme to be earnings related? If so, what are the Government doing introducing a stakeholder pension scheme, which will be earnings related? Why suddenly applaud the merits of flat-rate pensions?
The second argument that the Minister has advanced is that SERPS does least for those who earn the least. Of course, that is true of any earnings-related scheme, although the scale of income involved may be different. One cannot have an earnings-related scheme that equally benefits people regardless of their income. The Government must make up their mind. If relating pensions to earnings is a crime, they should drop that from the stakeholder pension scheme or from the state second pension. Of course, the Minister will tell me that that is exactly what the Government will do with the second state pension. As the stakeholder pension emerges more strongly into the limelight, the Government will make the SSP a flat rate. That, they say, will do far more for those on the lowest incomes.
I am the first to admit that one of the best bits in the Government's policy provision which they have set out is the decision to "credit in" some of the lowest income groups as though they were earning £9,000 a year. So those on £3,000 or £4,000 a year will be treated as though they are earning £9,000 a year. Wonderful! I welcome that. After all, £3,000 or £4,000 a year is about a quarter of the average national earnings. So they will be credited into half average national earnings. It is not exactly the dawn of a great affluent millennium, but it is an improvement on the present situation.
I ask the Government this question. If that is their concern, why do they not inject that provision into SERPS to add to its many other qualities which I have enumerated and which the Government have time and again accepted? I tell noble Lords why. It is because, without a word of explanation to any of us, the Government have gone overboard for funded pension schemes—pay-as-you-go schemes—although it is by definition impossible to have a defined pension if one has a funded scheme. That is a choice that people should be given.
All I ask is for choice. I do not ask for the abolition of any of the Government's proposed alternatives. I am suspending my judgment with bated breath until we know more about the stakeholder pension, the details of which at present are blissfully obscure. I am a fair minded woman. I am willing to hold back any bombshell of destruction on the stakeholder pension until I know what it involves.
All I ask the Government to do is to allow people to choose. I though: that this Government believed in choice. Let it remain among the range of options. But of course if people are to make a real choice, they must have the information to enable them to do so. We are all being made dizzy by the Minister's brilliant spin statistics. She is brilliant at it, is she not? But penetrate the glossy magazines and try to find verification of the claims that are made. I shall expand on that point on the next amendment.
In this amendment we ask the Government to have the courage not to put before the people of this country glossy generalisations but precise information to enable the people of this country to make a free choice. Is that not what democracy is about? They need to know. There must be a comparison. No doubt you are much cleverer than I am on this, but I do not know whether any of you can tell me in precise terms to what degree, if at all, the alternatives will be inflation proof; or exactly what the charges will be. We have had a discussion about that; we shall return to it. It is apparently still a matter of argument with those whom the Government are trying to entice to introduce stakeholder pensions. But these matters can profoundly affect the reliability of the pension which people draw at the end of their contributory period. We ask for comparative tables. What will people get for how many contributions in each case?
Over personal pension schemes, we discovered that when it came to their final pension contributors were losing £1 out of every £4 that they had carefully saved. We are told, "We shall not repeat that on the stakeholder pension, or anything else". But the Government have not spelt out by exactly how much each person's final pension will be reduced by the charges that have been levied.
Again we have the question of portability. I know that the Government are appreciative of the importance of that. They tell us about the flexible labour market in which we live, and how we have to adjust, and so on. But let people choose between the absolute portability which SERPS offers, as Eagle Star, has pointed out, and the as yet undefined and unequal portability of other schemes.
I ask the Government to do a very reasonable thing. I ask them to say, "Yes, we acknowledge the strengths of SERPS as everyone else has done. We shall not try to force people out of a state second pension into their earnings related stakeholder pension. State pensions will be flat rate, and we shall then deliver blessings to the very poor". I should hate to feel that this Government, with all their worthwhile ambitions to raise workers and incomes out of poverty, should be visualising that over the next half century there might be people living on £3,000 or £4,000 a year. I hope that our minimum income policy will have done something; if it is not doing something it should be increased. No one in this country should have to earn a living to the tune of £3,000 to £4,000 a year. Instead of tailoring our pensions provision to the existence of pay poverty, we should proudly declare, just as we have clone about child
740
poverty—and we all welcome it—that this Government are determined to abolish pay poverty; and let who will squeal.
I ask the Government: please consider very carefully the need for choice; and the need for that choice to be informed. We do not want any mis-selling of government alternatives through lack of information; and I am sure that this Minister will rise to the challenge that I throw down at her. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: It is a delight to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn. When she tells us that we are all so much more intelligent than she, she says exactly what Einstein said to the postgraduate—and she deserves to be believed just about as much. I first listened to the noble Baroness 41 years ago, I think, and her ability as a speaker has done nothing but improve since then.
I must admit that, when I begin to think about SERPS, I start feeling like Laocoon. I will not make a speech about SERPS now because I think that the Minister is about to do that. It is possible that we might agree with some of the Minister's comments; I will listen to him and find out.
I will take up just one thing that the noble Baroness said. She gave us a very ruthless either/or about the earnings-related principle: either it is a good thing or it is not. I do not think that it is quite that simple. The earnings-related principle is a bit like driving at 70 miles an hour: it is perfectly all right on an open road, but in a dense crowd it carries risks. I think that such a distinction is legitimate.
I want to address the last part of the first paragraph of the noble Baroness's amendment, which says,
"as enacted in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 or to such modification of it as may be prescribed".
I am sure that the Minister knows exactly what I will say about those words. I appreciate that, in order to get things on to the agenda and the Order Paper of the House, one includes open-ended statements of that sort. However, that paragraph says that the Secretary of State may do whatever he or she likes.
The noble Baroness has been Secretary of State, and I am sure that she understands that Secretaries of State should not be led into temptation. These open-ended powers mean that, were this matter to be put to the vote on some future occasion, we would be authorising absolutely anything. If there is any question of the measure being put to the vote—perhaps later in our proceedings—I hope that that paragraph will no longer be included.
Lord Higgins: Listening to the persuasive speech of the noble Baroness, I begin to wonder how I have disagreed with her so much for so long. As the noble Earl pointed out, the noble Baroness's eloquence has, if anything, improved over the years. Certainly what we have heard this afternoon could reasonably be described as vintage Castle.
The noble Baroness made a rather persuasive speech and I disagreed with only one part of it. She suggested at one stage that one could not have a funded final salary

741
scheme, whereas several occupational schemes are like that. However, they have a very different structure from SERPS. The noble Baroness complained about spin doctors and I began to wonder whether she had been engaged in a little spin doctoring herself. An article in The Independent on Sunday and the front page of yesterday's edition of The Times carried headlines such as "Blair facing defeat over leftover pensions". Members of Labour's influential National Policy Forum are to force a vote on the party's policy on pensions, and I am not sure about the outcome of those deliberations.
The noble Baroness made the point about keeping options open. In their document Partnership in Pensions, the Government spend a considerable amount of time spelling out the many advantages of SERPS—which were recapitulated by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks. For example, the Government point out the low administrative costs involved—and that is an important issue. The noble Baroness rightly pointed to the issues of portability and inflation proofing.
In their paper Partnership in Pensions the Government go to considerable lengths to say that they will substitute for SERPS a state second pension—although the extent to which that state second pension will have the advantages that the noble Baroness outlined for SERPS remains extremely uncertain. In particular, the Government do not propose to introduce the state second pension in one step; they propose to delay it for some considerable time. In the meantime, SERPS will presumably continue as it is.
The noble Baroness made the crucial point that, if the Government intend to introduce a state second pension—which may, in its own right, be desirable—and if they intend to introduce stakeholder pensions, they have not explained why the option of SERPS should not remain open to those who wish to continue with that arrangement. I do not know that we have really had an explanation, but no doubt the Minister will give us one this evening.
Another important point made in the opening speech is that it is crucial that people are able to evaluate one pension option against another. If one were to do that, SERPS is clearly more advantageous in a number of areas. The argument that this is an earnings-related pension is, as has already been pointed out, not a reasonable argument for its abandonment—not least because the stakeholder pension will clearly be in the same position.
The Committee requires a reasoned argument as to why SERPS should not be advanced as a continuing option for those who wish to make the kind of provision with the advantages that SERPS offers—which were outlined clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend Lady Castle is notoriously resistant to flattery—indeed, she is scornful of it, as television interviewers have found to their cost on many occasions. However, she is entitled to recognition, and she must be recognised for
742
the fact that her legislation of 1978 introduced a wonderful scheme. I was as angry as she and many other Members were when it was cut and diminished in its effectiveness and its justice by the Conservative government in 1986. I feel as angry about that now as I did at the time—I shall never get over it.
The then Conservative government changed the scheme from an entitlement based on the best 20 years of working life to an average over the whole of working life—from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. of reckonable earnings. That was immensely damaging. To the extent that my noble friend defends what she introduced originally, I agree entirely with her comments.
However, what we propose is better than returning to the 1978 version of SERPS. My noble friend's amendment would give individuals the choice of contributing to the state earnings-related pension scheme as originally enacted in 1975. This would be an additional choice available alongside the Government's proposal for the state second pension and existing contracting-out arrangements. It seems to me that my noble friend is suggesting another form of concurrent pension scheme membership—an issue on which we had much debate when we considered the proposal for stakeholder pensions.
As to what I think are the secondary issues of the complexity of the scheme and choice, I must stress that such a system would be extremely complex for the state and for pension providers to operate. It would also be difficult for individuals to understand. It would be costly both to the state and to individual contributors. It would mean double provision by the state: the state would provide two separate second-tier pension arrangements—SERPS and the state second pension—and the facility to contract out would remain so that rebates would be payable. That is not the best way to encourage saving for old age, and the cost implications for the state would be enormous. It will come as no surprise that individuals opting for this choice would have to pay a much higher level of contribution than that proposed under the new state second pension arrangements. SERPS was significantly more costly than the state second pension will be.
For those, I admit, secondary reasons, we are not attracted to the idea of opening up another choice or of going back to the original SERPS before it was diminished by the Conservative amendments to it.
However, there is a much more important reason. It is that what we are proposing is a better solution particularly for those most in need. The Government's approach is to build a modern and affordable pensions system which will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to achieve a decent income in retirement. We are committed to helping those in most need, which is why we are reforming SERPS and introducing a state second pension which targets help at those on low incomes in a way that SERPS never did. My noble friend Lady Castle acknowledged that under our proposals any employee with earnings below £9,000 will receive a pension as though he or she were earning £9,000, provided that he first earned over the lower earnings limit.

743
The provision relates not only to those who are earning in the ordinary sense. Carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records will also receive flat rate credits to the state second pension, which for many will be worth far more than the original best 20 years provision in SERPS; not just better than SERF'S is now, but better than SERFS even as it was when my noble friend introduced it.
Those earning up to £9,000 and who have contributed for a full working life will be about £50 a week better off under the state second pension. Those earning between £9,000 and £18,000 a year will receive a more modest increase. Those earning more than £18,000 will not receive an increase.
That is targeting with a vengeance. It is using the available resources far more for those in need than would ever be provided under the SERPS scheme. My answer to those who ask why we do not provide the extra choice is not only technical in that it would be confusing and unnecessary to have an extra choice, but that the choice would not be real or valuable to those most in need about whom those of us on this side of the committee are most concerned.
Together with our proposal for stakeholder pensions, this more accurately reflects the current labour market conditions and can therefore go much further in achieving security and decency of pro vision in old age in a way that SERPS—even 1998 SERPS—can no longer do.
My noble friend made a number of points which I want to answer. She said that our pensions are not inflation-proof. All occupational and personal pensions accrued since April 1997 are inflation proof in line with prices up to a cap of 5 per cent, which is well above the current inflation rates. All contracted-out pensions are inflation-proof. As regards choice, the Government never tried to tell individuals which form of pensions vehicle was best for them. We believed that they should be given the right advice so that they can make the right choices. But the decision is a matter for individuals and their independent financial advisers. We are committed to offering choice, but not a choice which would be too complex in the way she suggested.
My noble friend said that our policy is to phase out SERPS. On the contrary, SERPS will be improved by giving more help to the low paid, to carers and to the long-term disabled with broken work records. In stage two of the state second pension, benefits will be flat rate, but no one will be forced to join a privately funded pension. In other words, there is a place for flat-rate pensions and there is a place for earnings-related pensions. That choice will be different for different people.
My noble friend asked about the rules for the state second pension on revaluation and indexation. Earnings on pensions which have accrued will be revalued in line with average earnings up to the point of retirement. When state second pensions are awarded and in payment they will be indexed in line with prices.
My noble friend complained about the lack of information. The Government are working on a range of proposals which will enable individuals to gain a better
744
idea of their prospective rights. We intend to introduce a combined annual statement of their overall provision which is clear and easy to understand.
The second part of my noble friend's amendment deals with the suggestion that the Secretary of State should publish tables to help individuals choose if they want to make contributions to the state scheme. I acknowledge that that sounds sensible, but in fact it is riddled with difficulties. We would have to collect the information. We would have to establish from every pension administrator or provider the specific level of contribution required to produce a certain level of benefit, which would be a huge burden on business. The information would quickly become out of date, and it would be unreliable in money purchase arrangements because the level of the fund depends crucially on market performance. In salary-related schemes, it would be more difficult because of the redistributive nature of the provision and the fact that pension levels depend of the level of salary and not on the level of contribution.
I as much as anyone in the Chamber appreciate and sympathise with the motivation behind the amendment. I hope that I have been able to convince my noble friend that what we are producing builds on the original SERPS and produces something which is better for those most in need. To go back to SERPS as an alternative at this time would be regressive rather than progressive in taxation terms.
Lord Higgins: I listened with great interest to what the Minister said and want to make a couple of points. He spoke of the 1998 SERPS; that is, the existing situation. Will he clarify the position of those in that scheme as the second state pension is gradually introduced? A number of people will want to stay in SERPS. At what stage will they be deprived of that option and what will be the situation of those who have not yet retired and those who have already retired?
Secondly, what will be the cost of the proposed arrangements for a state second pension—leaving on one side the issue of discounting the future value—compared with the cost of continuing SERPS in its present form?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer to the noble Lord's first question is that when a state second pension is implemented SERPS will end in the sense that no further pension will be accrued under it. However, pension rights already accrued under SERPS will be protected and paid in full. Therefore, any individual who works and contributes to both SERPS and the state second pension will receive a second pension based on both schemes on retirement.
As regards costs, the table is complicated and I do not have the ability to explain it at this Dispatch Box. Some of it is almost three-dimensional. Will the noble Lord allow me to write to him and place a copy in the Library of the House?
Lord Higgins: Yes, of course. I would be happy to do that. On the noble Lord's first point, am I to

745
understand that effectively SERPS will become what one might call a paid-up pension and that the whole operation ceases at that point?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. No further pension will be accrued under SERPS when the S2P comes in, which is not until April 2002.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: The silence of large sections of the Committee on this issue just shows how complicated the whole pensions field is.
It has interested me, hearing Lord McIntosh's reply to me, to see how obscure and difficult the Government find telling the facts. May I on this point please ask Lord McIntosh if he will send me a copy of the relative costs that he is going to give to Lord Higgins? I would be delighted. If he can give them in a letter, for heaven's sake why can he not give them to the people at large? That is what I am asking; I am asking that everybody should be able to make these comparisons, and of course they cannot. I do not think even the Ministers can, or at least they will not.
I am not going to pursue the argument at this stage. It would be an abuse of the kindness of the Committee to make this a one-woman debate. I will therefore withdraw my amendment at this stage, unsatisfied as I am, and return to the matter later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Public Health
4.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, the new White Paper which I am presenting to the House today is called Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation; and that is exactly what it is about. It spells out how we want to save lives by stopping people getting ill in the first place.
"We are aiming to save 300,000 lives between now and the year 2010, by reducing the death rate from cancer in people under 75 by at least one-fifth; by reducing the death rate from coronary heart disease and stroke in people under 75 by at least two-fifths; by reducing the death rate from accidents by one-fifth; and by reducing the death rate from suicide by one-fifth.
746
"Those are ambitious targets which should mean that we become a healthier nation. They are bigger reductions than we suggested in the Green Paper; and unlike the Green Paper, these tough targets now apply not to people aged under 65 but to people under 75.
"They are targets backed by action: on cancer—action against smoking, action to improve diet, action to improve screening uptake and quality, action to modernise cancer scanners and equipment, and action to improve treatment; on heart disease and strokes—action on smoking, diet, blood pressure, and exercise, action to cut heart attacks, and action to improve rehabilitation.
"But that is only part of the story. We are not only setting tougher targets than the last government; we are explicitly aiming to do something quite different. Poor people are ill more often and die sooner. So we are going to tackle the inequalities in health which grew under the last government. Our policies are designed to improve most of all the health of the least healthy. The National Health Service has a big part to play, but our strategy requires a three-way partnership between the whole government, local communities, and families and individuals. None can succeed without the others. We reject the idea that individuals are powerless victims of their fate. But we also reject the Tory idea that individuals are entirely to blame for their own poor health.
"We need to use all the means at our disposal to make it possible for everyone to lead healthier lives. Unemployment, low wages, poor housing, crime and disorder, lack of education and environmental pollution all make people ill. The Government are taking action to tackle them all. The windfall levy, opposed by both Tories and Liberals, is providing jobs and training for young people; and 400,000 more people are now in work. Low pay is a health hazard—so we will improve the health of over 2 million people and their families by our introduction of the national minimum wage. This autumn those families and many others will be helped further by the working families' tax credit. Many thousands more will benefit from having a decent home to live in as a result of our increased investment in new and better homes for people who are badly housed. And improved educational standards are providing economic opportunity and pathways out of social exclusion.
"So the Government will play their part, but so too must communities. In some areas whole neighbourhoods are made unhealthy by poverty, pollution, crime and disorder. So we must target effort on those neighbourhoods. The most deprived areas are being helped by the extra effort and extra funding that flow from regeneration schemes, from health action zones and education action zones, from lottery funds going into healthy living centres, from the replacement of sub-standard GP premises, from the Sure Start programme for children, from the Healthy Schools project and from our £96 million Public Health Development Fund.

747
"We want to work with community organisations, local councils and health bodies to make sure these programmes are delivered on the ground. Every health authority will have to draw up and implement a health improvement programme which identifies and meets the particular health and healthcare needs of its area.
"That is because priorities differ in different parts of the country, with different individuals and groups having different problems; for example, respiratory disease in areas of heavy industry or the higher incidence of heart disease or cancer in certain ethnic groups. Local councils, businesses and voluntary organisations will all be involved in developing and implementing these plans.
"Fluoridation illustrates the new approach. The White Paper makes it clear that we will conduct an independent expert review of the safety and benefits of fluoridation. If it shows that fluoridation is beneficial, local authorities will be given new powers to require water companies to fluoridate where there is local support for doing so.
"We also propose to strengthen the public health profession and to develop extended roles for health visitors, community and school nurses and midwives.
"The new primary care groups will also enable GPs and practice nurses to draw upon their unique relationships with patients to help to promote better health. That is what many are doing already.
"So we want action by government and action by communities. But that cannot be the end of the story. Individuals and families must also play their part. Smoking is the biggest single cause of avoidable death and the biggest single cause of inequalities in health. We have a twin-track strategy to stop the tobacco companies recruiting new smokers, and to help existing smokers to give up the habit. Unlike the Tories, we accept the overwhelming evidence that tobacco advertising helps to get children addicted—so the Government intend to play their part by banning advertising from December. But we also accept that individuals need help giving up. That is why we are making nicotine replacement therapy available free to poor smokers who want to give up.
"This is a recognition of the fact that up to now most health promotion strategies have actually widened the health gap, because the better off have taken more notice than the worst off. We need to develop strategies which have most impact on the least healthy, and that is one reason why the White Paper announces our decision to replace the Health Education Authority with a new hard-hitting health development agency, with a much bigger role in working out and delivering those approaches that will work best.
"Individuals and families can help one another. That is why we are launching a health skills programme that will give young people first aid skills and health information. It is why we are launching our expert patients programme to help people with chronic diseases like asthma and diabetes to manage their conditions better.
748
"This will be good for the NHS and good for patients, as fewer complications mean better health and less demand on GPs and hospitals, with resources used to tackle the highest priorities.
"This White Paper sets out long-term plans for improving the health of the nation and reducing inequalities in health; and these really are long-term plans. Their full benefits will only show up in a decade or more. That is the time-scale involved, but that is no reason for delay. It is all the more reason for getting on with it: 300,000 lives saved—300,000 reasons for action.
"Fifty-one years ago this week the National Health Service, which Nye Bevan founded, came into operation. We all benefit from the far-sightedness of that Labour government. They cut inequalities in access to healthcare but, by themselves, they could not reduce inequalities in health, but common justice requires that we do.
"Members opposite representing areas where people are comfortably off and pretty healthy should recognise that ours is a simple but difficult aim. We want to help to make sure that the standard of health of the people they represent in Surrey or Sutton Coldfield is shared by the people we represent in Barnsley or Bethnal Green. That is what we mean when we say we want to end the divisions which mar our society—a genuine "one nation". I believe that that is what all decent people want to see, wherever they live and whatever their own state of health. That is why I commend this White Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.39 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which I welcome, as I do the evident seriousness of purpose with which the Government are addressing those important issues.
I should say at the outset that I believe the Government are right to regard poor health as something which originates from a range of social and socio-economic factors such as housing as well as from causes which are more directly health related, such as smoking. Any credible plan to tackle public health must look across government as a whole and must involve society at every level.
In the short time that I have had to study the White Paper, it is rather difficult for me to comment on the detail of it. However, I should like to pick up on one or two points arising from what the noble Baroness said.
The Green Paper issued in February last year laid some considerable emphasis on the role of government, local government and individual responsibility. I was rather sorry that the Statement sought to portray the policy of the last government as focusing exclusively on the third of those matters. Incidentally, I do not know whether I am alone in finding the presence of barbed party political comments in the Government's Statement to be somewhat out of place. But we seem to be seeing rather a lot of those, in particular from the Department of Health.

749
It is surely right for government to promote better health and to require health authorities to set appropriate targets in health improvement programmes. That very much follows the path set by the last government in The Health of the Nation White Paper of 1992. Nevertheless, without a recognition on the part of individuals that it is their choice of lifestyle which will have a major bearing on their own state of health, the whole exercise will inevitably falter.
The Green Paper spoke in terms of a national contract for better health. I wonder whether the Minister will enlarge on that concept today. In particular, what does the White Paper say about some of the major underlying causes of better health, such as good diet, food safety, exercise, moderate alcohol intake, sexual hygiene and so on?
The executive summary is critical of what it describes as the scattergun approach of the last government. But it was surely absolutely right for that government to lay emphasis, as they did, on the key causes of better health. I am unclear as to the extent to which the present Government's approach will permit that emphasis to be renewed. The fact is that the last government set themselves targets in 21 areas. Today's White Paper reduces that number to four.
The Government are to be commended on targeting their efforts most strongly on less affluent areas of the country. However, will the Minister say what that implies for the transfer of resources from what is termed middle England to poorer urban areas? How much money is to be retargeted from one to the other?
Again, in passing, I cannot help regretting the assumption in the Statement that Conservative Members of Parliament only represent healthier and wealthier areas of the country and are therefore, by implication, ignorant of the difficulties that tend to characterise poorer areas. Conservative MPs are aware of and sensitive to those issues, as are MPs of any party. Conservative MPs represent many deprived areas and, on this side of the House, we have every wish to see the nation as a whole benefiting from those initiatives. However, I believe that we are entitled to ask what the Government's policies will mean in practice in terms of the redistribution of the Department of Health's budget.
In taking through the recent Health Bill, now the Health Act, Ministers laid considerable stress on the need to iron out health inequalities, a theme which the Statement picks up. In answer to that point, on this side, we are all in favour of such an ironing out, as I said before, so long as it involves a levelling up.
It is somewhat ironic that as a result of devolution, we are likely to see three different standards of health implemented in the three countries of the Union outside Northern Ireland. Does the Minister recognise that one of the measures most conducive to the process of levelling out would be a government commitment to ensure that the availability of certain key groups of medicines is not prejudiced by unnecessary barriers? I am thinking in particular of statins, which is a class of drugs which has a proven value in reducing the risk of heart attack, atypical antipsychotics for the treatment
750
of schizophrenia and cytotoxic drugs. For all of those, there is a marked disparity around the country in terms of the funding made available for them by health authorities.
The Secretary of State expressed the ambition in May to make our cancer services the best in the world and he added:
"We know this will cost money".
I applaud those sentiments but the inescapable fact is that the level of spending per head in the USA on cytotoxic drugs is about five times that in the UK. In Germany, it is over twice as much; and in France, nearly three times as much as in this country. The equivalent comparison for statins is equally stark. Will the Minister tell the House what more the Government propose to do to ensure that patients receive the drugs they need when they need them?
Osteoporosis is another important area of concern. The UK has the lowest number of bone density scanners in the European Union, a situation described by the National Osteoporosis Society as vastly inadequate. Will the Minister comment on that and say what action the Government propose to take?
Will she comment also on the targets for mental health? In particular, will she correct me if I am wrong in interpreting the targets set out in the White Paper as implicitly equating the state of mental health in this country with the incidence of suicides and that suicides and what are termed "undetermined injuries" are the only worthwhile measures in that area? I find that proposition instinctively difficult to accept. Finally, will the noble Baroness say what further primary legislation is implied by this White Paper?
I am supportive of the Government in the ambitions that they have articulated in the White Paper and wish them success in achieving the targets that they have set. I have no doubt that noble Lords will wish to hold the Government to account as the months and years pass and we see the fruits of the Government's efforts.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl in saying that I too have a great deal more reading to do of the White Paper and the attendant response to Sir Donald Acheson. But I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Although the White Paper is making a belated appearance, nevertheless it is making an extremely welcome appearance. In particular on these Benches we welcome the fact that public health is now being treated as core to the health department. We welcome too some of the imaginative initiatives set out in the White Paper.
The Secretary of State said recently that promoting better health is not just a matter for the NHS or for social services; this is a job for the whole Government. The White Paper re-emphasises that, saying that it requires a three-way partnership between government, local communities and families and individuals. We welcome that partnership.
We also welcome the fact that there is indeed a new landscape. I believe that the treatment of public health issues is different under this Government. They link

751
public health with social conditions. That was not done explicitly by the previous government. Therefore, I give this Government credit for that.
Health inequalities have widened over the past 20 years. However, the test is the implementation of the Acheson report and its 39 recommendations. Obviously, at a glance there is a great deal of response in the White Paper to the Acheson report's recommendations. But will the Minister be explicit as to which of the 39 recommendations have been accepted by the Government? They cover a wide range of areas; for example, tackling poverty, education, employment and transport. That is a wide variety of tasks which the Government are setting themselves.
In his report Sir Donald wanted the Government, above all, to put women and children first. Last week the BMA published a report which showed that the United Kingdom ranked 18th for deaths in early childhood. It is quite clear that public health policies should concentrate in particular on the first five years of life. There are correlations between low birthweight babies, future poverty, under-achievement and crime. Those are serious links.
Despite talk of joined-up government, however, the key question is whether the Treasury and the DHS will buy into the Acheson agenda. Is the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill really working to improve public health? How did the withdrawal of benefit from lone parents contribute to improvement in public health?
We welcome the extension of some of the targets such as those for cancer and the other three areas. But why are there no national targets in other areas despite the responses to the Green Paper and the key issues raised by Sir Donald Acheson, such as the reduction of income inequality? If there is no target for a particular aspect of public health policy do we not risk being unable to measure progress? Therefore, does not the Acheson report risk the fate of the original Black report? Do we not need targets to understand what kind of vision the Government have in all areas?
As regards existing targets, what are the financial implications, particularly concerning cancer? It was recently estimated by CERT that in order to put the original targets in place a minimum of an extra £170 million was needed. The same is true for other targets such as coronary heart disease, mental illness and accidents.
We particularly welcome the development of health action zones and health improvement plans, which we discussed as the Health Bill went through this House. That means that we shall not be repeating some of the mistakes of The Health of the Nation which, despite many good intentions at government level, did not really reach down to grassroots level. I believe that the health action zones and the health improvement plans will do a great deal to make sure that the targets, limited though they may be, will reach the levels required. Those targets need to be locally owned. There are some signs that the voluntary sector is not becoming involved in the health action zones as they should be. I believe that East London and Hackney health action zones are a particular case. Will the Minister comment on that?
752
We welcome the health development agency, as far as it goes. But does it mean that it is effectively a public health commission? For instance, will it have relationships with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the public health area? Will it be charged not just with overseeing best practice in England, but also best practice across the country? Who will now carry out health promotion campaigns? Will the agency also spread best practice between health action zones, which is so important in order to make sure that resources are used in the most effective way?
The White Paper mentions primary care groups. But will public health doctors be involved in the formulation of policy and its implementation in those primary care groups? We welcome the introduction of health impact assessments. But will they operate right across the board for all national government policies, and who will carry them out? I wonder what that will show if we subject it to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and a public health assessment.
We welcome the fact that the Government have expanded their policy on children's safety. Although widely trailed, sports medicine is not contained in the White Paper. Can the Minister comment as to whether a sports strategy will be provided later in the year? One of the key areas for accidents is those caused during sporting activities.
A key aspect of public health is risk management and the communication of risk. We need to have a communications policy in place. That also was trailed, but I can see no sign of it in the White Paper. Can the Minister comment on whether the department will be taking on board the work done by the previous Chief Medical Officer as regards the language of risk? That would help enormously in terms of avoiding future problems such as BSE, E.coli and GM foods.
Finally, in common with the noble Earl, I suggest that a number of elements require legislation. What undertakings can the Minister give as regards early legislation? I thank her in advance for her reply. I realise that I have raised a number of questions. I would not like the Minister to believe that we do not welcome many aspects of the White Paper. We have started down a road which is quite a long one. The results may not be evident for some years, but it is very important that we set off in the right way with a very clear understanding of what the Government are trying to achieve.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Earl and the noble Lord and, perhaps most of all, for the recognition by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that he raised a wide range of questions. I shall do my best to answer the broad issues raised by both speakers.
As regards his remarks about inequality, that ties in with the issue that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised about there being real differences in approach to those matters. We cannot avoid recognising those differences. They are reflected in the attitude of previous Conservative governments to the Black report and of this Government to the Acheson report.

753
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about work to take forward the health inequalities agenda together with the White Paper, which makes it quite clear that we have dual aims for a public health strategy. One is improving the health of the whole population and the other is improving the health of those who are worst off and most deprived so that we narrow the gap that has been widening in previous years.
Together with the White Paper we have published another action report on reducing health inequalities. It recognises in particular the range of government activity necessary if we are to make a real impact on poor health as well as on health services. That means work to tackle poverty and deprivation, poor housing, lack of facilities, and providing access to fresh food at reasonable prices and decent public transport. In those areas people suffer from multiple deprivation which is reflected in ill health. That is why we have a separate and parallel publication on the action that we are taking.
For example, the social exclusion unit concerned with teenage pregnancies recognises the need to tie up issues concerned with social security, financial support, access to work as well as access to information and services. For example, investment in education can have an enormous effect on the health of individuals.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether it was a matter of women and children first. Women are certainly key determinants as regards the health of families. There is much international evidence that investment in the education of women results in the improvement of health of children and populations. That is something that we have to recognise. The Sure Start programme reflects that recognition. It is recognised in the targeting of work within health action zones and in the funding for smoking cessation services. There we find the answers to the questions of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about targeting resources to the areas where there is most need. I agree with him that we are here seeking to level up rather than level down.
The noble Lord also asked about equality of access to effective medicines. We are taking action, for example, on psychotropic drugs in terms of reference to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to make sure that the same evidence base is used by health authorities. On the issue of statins, we have the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. Looking at the National Service Framework for Mental Health, we see that we recognise the need to focus on a whole range of services to improve mental health.
The noble Lord made the point that reducing suicides is a rather crude measure of improvement in mental health services. The National Service Framework for Mental Health will address the unacceptable variations in service across the country. However, we recognise that health services alone cannot prevent suicides.
This is a clear, focused document on saving lives. The interim report of the national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness, directed by Professor Louis Appleby, found that there is scope for improvement in providing services which are integrated and which do not leave people suffering from
754
mental illness unsupported at times when they are most vulnerable. Having a suicide reduction target will require a concerted effort towards primary prevention, secondary prevention and treatment which I believe will have an effect throughout the provision of care for those suffering from mental illness.
On the issue of whether there are too few targets at national level, it is our belief that four national targets, focusing on the four major causes of premature death and avoidable ill health, will be tougher for the Government but that it is right to focus on delivering on those. If we are to deliver on clear targets, it is necessary to work across a whole range of activities.
I recognise that the White Paper is a big document which people have not had a long time to study, but it clearly shows, in the partnership that we are seeking, how the allocation of responsibility between the individual, the local community effort and national government will be tied together. However, there is scope in local health improvement programmes to set targets that address the specific local health issues that arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether there would be a sports strategy. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is developing a sports strategy, to be published later this year, to promote greater scope for participation in sport and physical activity for all. I believe that the noble Lord was approaching the problem from a different viewpoint. I was looking at the issue of exercise as an important determinant of good health; he was looking at the risks in exercise and sport in terms of causing injury.
That leads to another element in the strategy which is the improvement in the first aid skills of the population as a whole, which can be as applicable on the sports field as at home or in school. Out-of-hospital care delivered by people who know the basics, at least, of first aid will be a tremendous help in a variety of situations.
As the noble Lord suggests, risk is a difficult area. It is included in the White Paper. Currently, the department is developing principles for producing policy and is using risk analysis to interpret information. Earlier the noble Lord mentioned the extremely important initiative to try to ensure that departments across Whitehall—including the Department of Health—and individuals can base their personal decisions, as well as government decisions, on well evidenced information. I believe that the communication of risk is one of the biggest challenges for our scientific and political communities. At the moment, that is not carried out in a consistent manner.
As regards the issue of legislation, the White Paper will be followed by secondary legislation to convert the Health Education Authority into a new health development agency. It is not our belief that other legislation is necessary to implement the White Paper. A great deal of other actions by a wide range of people are required in order to do that, but they do not depend on legislation.
5.06 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the issue of fluoridation is mentioned on page four of the Statement. At a time when 2.5 million fewer people have National Health Service dentistry than when the Government came into power, at a time when the most under-privileged children have deplorable dental health and suffer unnecessary pain from decaying teeth, why are the Government suggesting an independent expert review; yet another review? Can the Minister tell us what form that review will take and whether it will include any pilot studies? How long will that delay the introduction of fluoridation? Will the matter be settled before the next general election? How can the Minister say,
"Fluoridation illustrates the new approach"?
Is the new approach to avoid decision-making, to delay again and to review again and again? When shall we see such legislation and help for the desperately unhappy children suffering dental pain?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I respect the commitment of the noble Baroness to this area. I believe that she knows that I personally share her views on the benefits of fluoridation. However, we should deceive ourselves if we thought that our views were shared by everybody. We want to tackle dental health inequalities and we want to end the current legislative impasse. It is no good pretending that everything has been working satisfactorily up to now.
Since 1985, 55 requests from health authorities have been turned down and nothing more has happened. We want to overcome that. There is a view that the evidence on the safety of fluoride is based on studies conducted some time ago. That is why we have asked Professor Jos Kleinen at the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York to lead the review. The report is due early next year. Once we have that report, and if there is no doubt about the safely of fluoridation, we can take the kind of action that we believe would be effective.
At an optimum level of one part per million fluoride, dental decay in children is reduced by between one-third and one-half. We want a targeted programme to tackle dental health inequalities. Some 25 local authority areas now fluoridate their water. If another 25 local authorities fluoridated their water—say, in the North-West, East London, East Midlands, Southampton and Bristol—we would make an enormous impact on the problem. No other oral health promotion measure is anywhere near capable of reducing the rates of tooth decay in deprived areas to the levels in affluent areas. That is why we believe that we have to find a way of negotiating ourselves out of what has been an impasse for many years and take effective action. If the matter takes a few more months but produces more legitimacy for the policies of the future, I believe that will be worth while.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is the turn of the other side.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are another 17 minutes. I believe it is the turn of this side.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I want to speak on fluoridation. Are noble Lords in agreement? The Government say that they will give local authorities power to force independent water companies to fluoridate water if the local community agrees. I agree with my noble friend and with the Minister that that is highly desirable, but as the Minister says, opinions differ. Does that mean that local authorities will be able to conduct surveys on the matter? If at present a water company fluoridates water, but the local community does not want its water fluoridated, will local government be able to force that company to stop fluoridating the water?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I may have preferred the question from this side!
It is important that we understand the different levels of consultation that will have to be gone through. First, we shall have to undertake a review and make sure that the evidence exists. Then we must make sure that local authorities rather than health authorities—they have not so far been a successful mechanism in this regard—have the powers to take forward fluoridation. Also, because the water company and local authority boundaries are not the same, we must discuss with the national body which represents water undertakers the technical implications of taking forward this policy in areas where, for example, the majority are opposed to it.
We need to break the deadlock that presently exists. Also, when we transfer from health to local authorities, the form of public consultation on fluoridating the local water supply will have to be decided. We intend to introduce a legal obligation on water companies to fluoridate where strong local support exists for doing so.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most welcome aspects of this far-reaching and welcome White Paper is the extension of the age range that it covers to those who are under 75? Does she agree also that old people can benefit just as much from health education, from fitness programmes and better nutrition as younger people, but too often are ignored and expected to deal with their ailments as a consequence of old age? In her response, can the Minister also assure me that the provision of better health for older people will include their mental health as depression, leading to self-neglect and even suicide, is more common in older people than is currently acknowledged?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that we have extended the age range in terms of targets. We must recognise that there is not a sudden point in terms of age after which people can no longer benefit, either from health education—there are many important ways in which people can be given the information to enable them to improve their health—or from a range of services. Again, the extent of the importance of exercise and access to it in maintaining good health may differ in nature and scale depending on one's age, but exercise can be an important component for the elderly as well as for schoolchildren. My noble

757
friend is also right to point out the mental health aspects that can affect older people. Targeting policies to reduce suicides covers all age groups.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Statement was surely correct that low pay is a health hazard. Will the Government therefore consider the hypothesis that no pay is a greater health hazard? To that end, when they conduct their health impact assessment, will they collect information on the health of those disentitled to social security benefits?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Acheson inquiry into inequalities in health showed that poor health is associated with low income; that is, low income whether from benefit or in terms of a low wage.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I said "disentitled" to social security benefit, not "on benefit".
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. That takes us into the area of looking at entitlement to benefit as a potential health hazard.
We have said that the health impact assessment programme will be carried out across the board, assessing major policies for their impact on health and health inequalities. We are already applying that assessment to policies assessing fuel poverty and the New Deal for 18 to 24 year-olds. I shall ensure that disentitlement to benefit and its potential impact on health assessment is taken into account by my colleagues in the Department of Social Security.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I share the distaste expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench for the unpleasant "barbs" which the Secretary of State saw fit to include in his Statement, which was otherwise positive and forward-looking? Can the noble Baroness point to any other Statement by any former Secretary of State for Health in which it was argued that health inequalities were the fault of the poor? That is a monstrous accusation to address to anybody.
Is the noble Baroness also aware that I regard the Acheson report as a great improvement on the rather unfortunate Black report which I had to receive a good many years ago? Its research was sadly flawed and its remedies, I was advised, appeared to involve the spending of billions of pounds on abolishing the class system. Is the Minister aware that I regard the detailed proposals in the White Paper as a great deal more practical than the Black report and that I hope that they will succeed? If the Minister is right in arguing that it will take many years, I am sure that is wise. In the mean time, can she describe to the House what measures the Government will put in place to monitor the targets she announced?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we need to monitor progress. We are setting ourselves interim targets and every health improvement area will contain specific targets. There were targets in the tobacco White Paper
758
for reducing the number of people in this country who smoke. We shall be evaluating progress at a regional and local level in regard to the different targets.
I do not want to enter into a spat across the Dispatch Box in relation to the relative commitment of individuals to good health. We made explicit our commitment not only to improve the health of individuals across the board, but also to reduce the existing inequalities—not a phrase that was popular or acceptable in the Department of Health for many years. Those inequalities have increased rather than reduced over the past 18 years.
Lord Bruce of Donnington: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on reasserting the undoubted experience of society as a whole. The health of the individual, while depending in part on the efforts to maintain good health made by the individuals themselves, is fundamentally dependent on society as a whole; and society as a whole is fundamentally involved in the health of the individual. At last, after many years of experiments—no doubt conducted in good faith—into the way in which the health service should be organised, we have an examination of the fundamental causes which reside in society. Aneurin Bevan himself pointed that out in much detail in that very great work of his, In Place of Fear, which was published in 1952.
We now have the opportunity to reassert the priorities in the nation as a whole as regards maintaining good health. Plans to relieve poverty and the fundamental causes of poverty and ill health are now matters for our consideration. I am very proud to be on the same Benches as a government who are now going to make this effort to emphasise the real priorities and give people some purpose in living again; indeed, to give them a fundamental sense of security in place of fear.
There will have to be a reassertion of priorities. One will not have to pay too much regard to private interests which are inevitably involved in the provision of, for example, pharmaceuticals or even ordinary diets. All these things will have to be reassessed. I am very glad that we have reasserted this. I am also very glad, as I am sure we all will be in due course, that perhaps some purpose in life has been restored.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not think that I need answer the specifics of my noble friend's contribution. However, I believe that the whole House recognises that he has perhaps a longer time-frame and perspective on the National Health Service through personal experience; and, indeed, as I remember, through being in Parliament with Aneurin Bevan when the original legislation to establish the National Health Service was introduced. We are now 51 years on from that time, but it has transformed the social landscape of this country in many ways. It has transformed the way in which we think of ourselves as a society.
The challenge that this White Paper and the inequalities that still exist give to this Government goes beyond the provision of service to the question of access to good health for all our citizens. It is an enormous challenge and one which demands action covering a wide range of people from the individual, through local

759
communities, to government. But there are enormous prizes to be won because there is much deprivation to be fought.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I was most interested in what the Minister said about international examples in respect of the benefit to be obtained by educating women. I have had some experience of that myself in one of the most deprived countries in the world. Does the noble Baroness agree that one way to ensure that individual women get the messages that they need to receive for the improvement of the health of their families is to work at the lowest level, on an absolutely face-to-face basis, with individuals? Can the Minister tell us what aspects of the Government's programme would respond to that need; in other words, to what I would call the "outreach element" of such measures?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, a range of activities in the White Paper would respond to that particular need. Some of them relate to the development of healthy living centres, not as buildings and bricks and mortar but as regards inter-community access to health information. It is fascinating to see the uptake of NHS Direct from women, including from women with young children; indeed, an enormously high proportion of callers are looking for information and advice.
Most of all, I would answer the noble Baroness by focusing on the role of community nurses, health visitors, school nurses and midwives. They gain great respect from the people with whom they deal. They have tremendous opportunities, often at very crucial times in people's lives, for making interventions which have real impact. A whole range of areas is important in this respect, although not especially mentioned in the White Paper. I refer, for example, to the provision of prison health services, especially those for women in prison. There is the opportunity to make a difference there. That is also the case in schools, where children can be introduced to the concept of cooking healthily, or to the concept of taking responsibility for their own health—be it sexual health or health in relation to drugs and alcohol—or the health of others by knowing the fundamentals of first aid. Those are very individual people-oriented activities, which can make an enormous difference.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
5.25 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 44AB:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
MINIMUM LEVEL OF PENSION
(" . In section 44(4) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, for "£66.75" there shall be substituted "£75".")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Turner. As
760
Members of the Committee will soon appreciate, this is an extremely modest amendment. I quite genuinely hope that my noble friend the Minister will take it seriously in the light of its potential for evening-out the pensions provision in this country.
The amendment provides that the basic state pension, which we know is payable as of right to its contributors, shall be raised from its present figure of £66.75 to £75 a week. We have done this because the basic pension has slipped back badly since the days when Labour were in office in 1974. The introduction of the earnings link by that government for the operating of that basic pension meant that, by this year, the pension would be worth £90.50 per week. It would have been so if the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had not abolished that earnings link.
I am not pretending that any government can afford to restore to pensioners at a stroke the whole of the extra money of which they were then robbed. We are not asking for that; the amendment does not bring us anywhere near to restoring to pensioners the figure that they would have had. Indeed, it only goes one-third of the way. We have done this because we are realists. We know that governments have economic difficulties and that they must act economically realistically. But this is not just an arbitrary figure that we have picked out of a hat. As my noble friend the Minister well knows, it is the figure that the Government say ought to be paid when basic pension additions are means tested.
The Government have said that no pensioner can be expected to live on less than that figure, but they are not prepared to say that pensioners should, as of right, have at least £75 a week restored to them. We are not talking about the £90.50 that they would otherwise have received; we are talking about a mere £75 a week. We have taken the Government's figure and this is what should be paid to pensioners under a means-test assessment of pensioners' needs. Of course, it would be theirs of right.
The Government have always said that their aim is to target what money is available to those who need it most; in other words, to the poorest pensioners. But I remind the Minister that by the Government's own admission—by some of her own admissions—the poorest pensioners are not getting the £75 to which the Government have attached the income support figure. Why is that? It is because on the Government's own figures 1 million pensioners have refused to accept, or apply for, the income support to which they are entitled. This quite rightly alarmed the Government and alarmed the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, myself, and I am sure many other Members of this Chamber. These poorest pensioners are some of the most elderly, the most frail and the most in need of the money. Why are they not claiming it?
Last year the Government told us that they would inquire into this and try to solve the puzzle of why 1 million of the poorest pensioners in this country were not claiming the £75 a week income support to which they were entitled. Last year in another place Harriet Harman, then Secretary of State for Social Security, told the Chamber that the Government took

761
this problem so seriously that they were going to appoint a whole team of personal advisers who were going to sit down with each individual pensioner and help them to fill in the forms. That must be because the pensioners could not fill in the forms. Having seen some of those forms, I would not be surprised if that was part of the answer to the mystery. But where are those personal advisers? Are any in post yet, and what would be the cost?
What staggers me is the way the Government are always ready to find money to prevent some people getting it. They are prepared to pay an extra £5 per recipient per week for the administration and means-tested benefits over and above what it costs to administer the basic pension. That is to stop some people getting it as a right although they may have contributed to it. We on this side—most of us anyway—think that the Government have a contract when they set up a contributory scheme and tell people that they are obliged by law to contribute to their upkeep when they are old. If people have fulfilled their part of the legal obligation, the Government must fulfil their part; namely, to give them that for which they thought they were contributing. But some of them are not to get that, so that—the Government say—all the money can go to the poorest.
I asked some questions about this in the Chamber at an earlier stage. I asked what the Government are doing to discover the answer to the mystery. I have no doubt at all what the answer is. Part of the answer is that even poor people have their dignity. Even poor people do not like the stigma of dependency and of charity. They like to feel that they have earned something as of right. I said that I thought that was part of the answer; but if the Government had a better one, why did they not tell us what it was? We were told last year that the Government were setting up nine pilot schemes to study what was preventing people applying. I hope that today the Minister will tell us what has happened to those pilot schemes. The reports will, of course, be published. I hope that we will not just be given the Government's spin-doctored analysis of the findings. Let us see what those pilot scheme reports say. We are not children. We have a right to judge for ourselves what the answer is. Personal advisers have vanished into thin air. Pilot schemes lie shrouded in mystery. We do not know what the Government are spending on them. We do not know when we will get them. Questions were asked in another place—I think it was yesterday—about what was happening and the answers were astonishingly evasive.
I should like something definite from the Minister this evening. We are told that we cannot afford it and that it is fine having fine principles but that if we are to spend money wisely, it must be "targeted". Incidentally, that was a favourite word of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. She must be listening to it with delight. We shall be told perhaps by the Minister—I hope not, as this is getting a little tattered and irrelevant—that to restore the pension to the level it was before the earnings link was dropped would be prohibitive and that the Government have better uses for the money. But I am not asking for that. Will the Minister please not answer
762
with one of her prepared solutions? Will she answer my amendment which states that we want pensioners to have £75 a week as of right? I shall tell her where the money could come from. The Government Actuary has published a recent report—I have forgotten the exact date—about this year's uprating of the basic pension. The Government Actuary announced that the National Insurance Fund had a surplus over and above what the Government Actuary thought was necessary of no less than £5.9 billion. So how dare the Government say that the money is not there?
Let us not forget that that money was contributed by the very people who are now asking the Government to fulfil their part of the bargain, or at least a modest section of it. That £5.9 billion would more than cover the cost of what this amendment is seeking. In fact, it would take only half that £5.9 billion to increase the basic pension to £75 a week. So how can anybody who believes in restoring human dignity to everyone not want to see those million poorest pensioners brought into the glow of this financial improvement? How can anybody who lectures us about the need to get rid of the dependency culture dare to insist that we have to make that £75 a week means-tested because we cannot afford it? I hope I have convinced the Minister that we can and that she will therefore accept this amendment gladly. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Baroness has explained, the purpose of the amendment is clear. It would immediately increase the basic state retirement pension to £75. As the pension paid to a married woman on the basis of her husband's contributions is linked to the rate of the basic pension, this would also be increased to £45, giving a total rate for a couple of £120 per week. As my noble friend said, this would increase the pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee which this Government introduced to help the poorest pensioners from this April.
I think the Committee will understand why the noble Baroness tabled this amendment. But I am sure that the Committee will also understand that the key problem with this amendment is that it will give extra money to people who do not need it. Much of the money would go to well-off pensioners—many of whom, I suggest, are sitting in your Lordships' House today—who do not need more—and at a time when we all know that there are many pensioners in Britain who need help far more.
Given that the purpose of the amendment is to increase the basic pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee, while better-off pensioners would gain, the poorest—those on income support—would see no gain at all. As my noble friend said, we would be spending some £3.8 billion—and every penny of that would be going to better-off pensioners and not one penny would be going to the poorest pensioners, who currently get their income topped up to £75 a week in any case.
My noble friend was contemptuous of the word "targeting". I can understand that; the word has a history with which many of us feel unhappy. But it was her

763
noble friend, my noble friend and her colleague in the first Labour government of 1945 who said that socialism is about priorities. Targeting is about priorities; and priorities are about targeting. If my noble friend believes in priorities, she must accept that there comes a time when one has to prioritise, to target, and to put money where the need is greatest; and that is with the poorest pensioners.
As a result of the minimum income guarantee, from April single pensioners who have savings of less than £3,000 and an income below £75 a week have their income topped up to the £75 a week level. The guarantee is higher for older pensioners: £77.30 for single pensioners over 75, and £82 for single pensioners over 80. As a result, about 65,000 pensioners who have been just above the level of income support until now are eligible for this extra help for the first time.
Perfectly properly, my noble friend put two specific questions to me. The first question was what has happened to the missing poorest pensioners. No one in the Committee would dispute that their needs are greatest, but we are not getting the response for the take-up of income support that we wish. Currently, some 76 per cent of eligible pensioners claim the income support entitlement; we should like to see that figure considerably improved.
Our research from the nine pilot studies and from the experience of personal advisers shows that part of the reason for lack of take-up is that many more pensioners than we anticipated have capital which takes them above the capital rules, even though their income may be below income support levels. As a result, about half a million pensioners have capital, and half of them have capital of over £20,000. In other words, it is their choice; it is an understandable choice—they are choosing not to draw on their capital to make good their income. But their capital disqualifies them from income support because the income support rules cut out at £8,000 for a single pensioner. So the first reason is that many pensioners have substantial capital which they are reluctant to touch. But it is there for a rainy day and it could be argued that it is appropriate to expect them to draw on their capital rather than to expect taxpayers to raise that income.
We are aware also—my noble friend is right—that there are problems about complexity; that there are problems about ignorance of the benefit; and that there is a dislike of officialdom. People have sometimes applied in the past for a different benefit—for housing benefit or the like—have been rebuffed and feel that there is no benefit available to them. That is why we have been working to see whether key events, trigger events—for example, reaching a certain birthday or receiving attendance allowance and so on—will allow us to piggy-back entitlement to income support on those key events.
We expect to publish the pilot results that my noble friend asked for in the autumn. We shall look at the implications at that stage. I hope very much that we shall have my noble friend's experience to draw on when we come to see how best we can encourage take-up.
764
My noble friend's second question was that the £3.8 billion, which would be the cost of her amendment, could be afforded because of a surplus in the National Insurance Fund. The independent Government Actuary recommends that the fund should carry a minimum balance at all times of no less than 17 per cent of benefit expenditure. That effectively works out at about £8 billion. The current surplus is about £5 billion. Given that, I hope that my noble friend will accept that we are not inappropriately storing up money which could be distributed to pensioners across the board, irrespective of their income, irrespective of their need.
We have also said that we expect to update the level of the minimum income guarantee over time in line not with prices but with earnings, so that the poorest pensioners remain, so to speak, in the slipstream of the general increase of national prosperity, and rightly so. In the Budget the Chancellor announced that in a year's time that will be precisely so. That will mean that another 20,000 pensioners who are at present just above the threshold for income support will become entitled to it.
We believe that these are substantial improvements. We can only make a difference to the poorest pensioners. For example, a pensioner couple over 80 years-old will be more than £8 a week better off in real terms over the two-year period. We can only make this kind of improvement and this kind of difference because we are concentrating the extra help on those who need it most, rather than giving money to those who already have perfectly adequate second pensions.
I know that my noble friend does not agree with the Government's approach. She would like a general increase across the board, irrespective of need. If that happened, we could not at the same time lift the poorest and seek to reduce some of the inequalities between poor and rich that have grown over the past 20 years, particularly among pensioners. We believe that the right way is to target the poorest pensioners—or, in my noble friend's words perhaps, to prioritise the poorest pensioners. We believe that is the right way to help them and I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask her a question. She put considerable weight on pensioners having savings above the capital limits; can she tell the Committee when those capital limits were last uprated?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The alignment for going into residential care and so on was raised about two or three years ago—in 1995, I think—by Kenneth Clarke when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The capital limits for other areas of income support affecting pensioners were last raised in, I think, the late 1980s.
Lord Higgins: This has been an illuminating debate in many respects. Perhaps I may put two specific points to the Minister. She well knows our objections to some aspects of the minimum income guarantee; can she tell the Committee to what extent she believes that people

765
will now be in receipt of the minimum income guarantee who did not previously take up the basic pension plus the same amount of income support?
My second point runs with that made by the noble Earl. I have raised it frequently, recently on the Tax Credits Bill. As she rightly said, a large number of people do not take up their pension entitlement or, more accurately, their income support entitlement, because of the capital limits. But the whole set of capital limits across the Government's social security policy—right the way through to the ones we discussed a few days ago in relation to the working families' tax credit—are seriously out of line with each other. If the Minister wants more people to take up their benefits, that is probably the most important aspect. One knows full well that when some people are down to £3,000—or, at the most, £8,000—they are very reluctant to give that up because it gives them finally an aspect of security for which they have saved all their lives. So far as concerns this side of social security, the limits are way out of line with the rest of the structure.
Lord Haskel: It is unfortunate that my noble friend Lady Castle should attack the Minister on the take-up of income support. My noble friend the Minister has fought very hard to try to get income support taken up by everyone. She was instrumental in raising the matter when in opposition, and in government she has worked diligently to see why people are not taking up this benefit and to encourage them to do so. So one should speak up in her defence.
Speaking as a potential recipient of the extra £10 proposed by my noble friend, of course we should all like to have the extra amount. I think I understand and sympathise with what my noble friend is attempting to do. She is attempting to restore matters to what they might have been. We should all like to turn the clock back; certainly the Government would like circumstances to be different. But we have to deal with things as they are, not as they ought to be. At present, the poorest people need to have their low level of pension topped up by means of income support. A minimum income guarantee will be in place next year; and there will be arrangements for a second pension. So it is to be hoped that this situation will not arise in the distant future. But meanwhile, these are the ways in which poor people can presently benefit. It is a very sensible way to handle matters.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not expect to return to the Dispatch Box on this matter. However, this is Committee stage, and I was invited to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
On the first point, we seek to increase the take-up of pensioners' entitlement to income support by repackaging it, relabelling it, calling it a "pensioners' entitlement" and so forth, because we want people to claim what is their entitlement. As I said, our best estimate is that the current take-up is about 76 per cent. We should like to be able to deliver, by means of the minimum income guarantee, a take-up of at least 85 per cent. Beyond that level it may be very hard to reach
766
people. That is the measure by which we are seeking, through the minimum income guarantee, to make a difference to the current arrangements under income support.
The noble Lord's second point related to capital limits. He asked whether I agreed that they were out of date. I can confirm the dates that I gave to the House. The residential homes limit was raised by Kenneth Clarke in 1996, but the upper limit to the income support capital rule was increased from £6,000 in 1988 to £8,000 by 1990. So our memories were correct. It is one of the situations that the Government are keeping under review.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: First, I should like to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I am the first to admit that the Government and the Minister are trying extremely hard to get the million poorest pensioners to take up income support. They made a great point of their poverty in the election, the manifesto and indeed in another place in a speech by Harriet Harman a year ago. "We must never", she declared, "forget the very poorest pensioners. So we are setting up pilot schemes", and the rest of it.
But I would also say this to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Various Labour governments of whom I was a member—1964, 1966 and 1974—were equally concerned with the problem of take-up. We went to all sorts of effort. We changed the name from "national assistance" to "supplementary benefit"; we looked into what might be holding people up. Margaret Herbison, the Secretary of State at the time, was a most warm-hearted woman who poured all her energies into trying to get a better take-up. But it was because we came up against the difficulty of people saying, "We don't want your daft means test", that we decided that we had to move progressively towards lifting pensioners above the need to apply for means-testing—hence the earnings link and SERPS.
Without keeping the Committee too long, I also want to say this to the Minister. I have always admired her powers as a magician. She can pull more rabbits out of hats than anybody I have ever seen on the Front Bench. She did it again today: "Oh, we do know one of the reasons", she told us—"probably one of the main reasons, why the poorest pensioners"—"poorest" is the Government's word—"are not taking up their entitlements. It's because they've got all this capital stashed away". Why have we not heard that argument before? It is the first time I have heard it—that in fact these desperately poor pensioners have behind them such funds and they do not want to have to eat into them. So I am withdrawing the amendment; and I warn the Minister that we shall return to the attack.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Pensions: miscellaneous amendments]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 44B:
Page 93, line 41, at end insert—
("13A. Section 150 of the Administration Act shall be amended as follows.

(1) In subsection (1), after "prices" insert "or earnings".

767

(2) In subsection (2), for "Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the general level of prices" substitute "Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the general level of prices or earnings".

(3) In subsection (2)(a), after "beginning" insert "and, in the case of the first of the sums specified in section 44(4) of the Contributions and Benefits Act and the sum specified in column 3 of paragraph 5 of Part IV of Schedule 4 to the Contributions and Benefits Act, not less than the percentage by which the general level of earnings is greater at the end of the period than it was at the beginning".")

The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn. Again, we are returning more thoroughly to the whole issue of the earnings link.
The value of the basic pension is crucial for today's pensioners. As we know, it had been intended originally that it should rise in line with the wages index. It was a basic element in the Castle Plan introduced by my noble friend in the mid-1970s. Since 1980, however, the earnings link has been broken. As a result, the basic pension fell from 22.6 per cent of average earnings in 1980 to 17.4 per cent in April 1996. It is set to fall to 10.8 per cent by 2020, when many of today's pensioners will still be alive.
Nevertheless, the basic pension is the biggest element in many pensioners' incomes today. The fall in the relative value of the basic pension during the years of retirement would matter less if pensioners' other incomes could be expected to rise in line with earnings. However, occupational pensions, once in payment, are seldom increased by more than the rate of inflation and in most schemes even that is not guaranteed. It is only the basic pension that has ever been linked to earnings. The restoration of that link is the only practicable way of ensuring that all pensioners will receive a share of increased prosperity, which was the original intention. It would also fun the manifesto pledge that the basic pension will be retained as the foundation of pension provision.
The point may be made, as it was in regard to the previous amendment, that to increase the basic pension in this way would not only benefit the poorer pensioners; everyone would stand to benefit. Yes, but of course pension incomes are subject to tax and the better-off would have to pay tax on it. Moreover, an increase in the basic pension would obviate the need for means-testing, which as my noble friend Lady Castle has indicated, has been a major drawback in getting poorer pensioners to apply for means-tested benefits such as income support. Other alternative methods of increasing pensioner incomes would not deal with the issue of getting people to apply for means-tested benefits.
We are really talking about the social insurance scheme. The intention of social insurance was originally that everyone would benefit, everyone would pay a contribution and there would be a minimum benefit for everyone. We have, moved away from that. We are certainly moving very far away from it if we are now concerned only with providing increases for poorer pensioners and expecting other people to provide for themselves, ultimately through the private insurance system.
We may be told that other countries in the EU—notably Germany—are looking at pension provision and seek to emulate what we have been doing in this country. However, I suspect that Herr Schroder in Germany will have a tough fight on his hands if he seeks to alter the present generous pension provision for which his citizens have paid. I believe that there is a case for returning to the original Castle Plan concept. As doing it all at once might be too much, a phased approach could be adopted because, as my noble friend Lady Castle said, no one expects the Government or any government to make up the difference all in one go.
Nevertheless, the principle is important. We are now talking basically about a system of social insurance instead of a system in which there is special provision for poorer pensioners and in the end everyone else is expected to provide for themselves through the private insurance market. Ultimately that will not prove to be a satisfactory scheme. In the mean time, the poorer pensioners do not benefit as much as they ought and are reduced to looking at possible means of supporting their income through means-tested benefits which many find unacceptable. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Baroness made a case with which we are familiar and sympathetic, as everyone must be in view of the poverty of many people who are of pensionable age, particularly those who are well past that age.
However, my party was persuaded some years ago that the earnings link was no longer sustainable. We published a policy paper in 1993 which accepted that. I refer to the report of a working party which I chaired and of which my noble friend Lord Russell was a member. We accepted that the earnings link could not remain. The demographic figures were not acceptable. There is expected to be a continuing increase in the proportion of the population who are of pensionable age. There has already been a considerable increase and, so far as one can tell, it is likely to continue. It is due in part to longer life-spans and in part to a relative fall in the birth-rate which means that there will be fewer people to support those in old age.
We reached that conclusion with considerable regret, but nothing that has happened in the past few years has led us to change our minds. Therefore, reluctantly we accept that we cannot go back to the pre-1980 situation, even when one takes into account the increase in the pensionable age for women which will equalise pensions at the age of 65 for both sexes.
On the other hand, we also believe that it is not possible simply to leave matters on the footing that there will be a basic pension which will be maintained in real terms and will form a smaller and smaller proportion of average earnings, topped up, if necessary, by a minimum income guarantee which is, arguably, a disguised form of income support.
That is why we regard it as a matter of considerable importance that alternative arrangements be made. I am anxious to know, first, what the Government see as the likely level of pension that will be paid to someone who

769
has qualified with full contributions for the proposed state second pension. We hope that it will be fixed at a level above the present basic pension. As I understand it, it is the Government's intention that the level of the state second pension should be linked to earnings rather than prices.
It is also why we believe that it is important that people should be encouraged and, where appropriate, required to take out funded pensions, the stakeholder pension being an appropriate vehicle; that they should be required to contribute themselves, and that employers should also be required to contribute to the stakeholder pensions. Only through such a structure will it be possible to provide an adequate level of pension for those on low or lower-middle incomes.
Therefore, while we do not feel able to support the noble Baroness's amendment, we are also unhappy with the alternatives that have so far been promised by the Government. In particular, we are unhappy at the fact that taking out a stakeholder pension will not be compulsory and therefore it will not be possible to require employers to make contributions to the pension.
Lord Higgins: I first debated the concepts which underlie the amendment as long ago as 1964. In my maiden speech in another place, I put forward the idea that, although the contributory principle was important, a group of people had been left out of the national insurance scheme when it was first established. They were not allowed to contribute. I argued that they were entitled to that part of the national insurance pension which was not covered by contributions. Alas, when I was fortunate to get a Private Member's Bill—No. 1 on the list—and introduced it, the then Labour government carried out a filibuster all night under the leadership of Dick Crossman and Douglas Houghton. The noble Baroness was a member of that Government. The filibuster succeeded—disgracefully, I thought at the time, and still do. My Bill was defeated. However, I am happy to say that when we came into office in 1970 the first thing we did was to give pensions to the over-80s who had been left out of the scheme. I still believe that that was right.
The concepts are complex and, in replying to the previous debate, the noble Baroness described the matter as "repackaging", as regards the minimum income guarantee. I am fearful, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about the future of the basic state pension. I believe, as she does, that it ought to form the bedrock of our system. The move towards a minimum income guarantee, which is means-tested, may be in danger of being considered as a substitute for the basic state pension, although those who have contributed over the years feel they are entitled to it and should not be subject to a means test.
As regards Amendment No. 44B, the present situation is very different from that in 1964. At that time, the state pension was the important thing. There has been an enormous increase in occupational pensions since that time. Of course, they tend to be much more earnings-related, although it is still the case that, to the extent that the national insurance pension is not up-rated
770
in line with earnings rather than prices, there will be some who fall behind the general level of prosperity in the country as a whole.
What worries me about the amendment, if it were to be pushed at this time, is that it would increase the pressure on the Government and more particularly on the Treasury to do away with the basic state pension. For the reasons I mentioned, it would be a more expensive operation than now. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, it is right that we should maintain it and uprate it in line with prices. But I believe that there are dangers in going further than that.
Having said that, the issue is a very important one. I am worried about the way in which we are moving closer and closer to means testing. It is important to maintain the right of people to contribute to what is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, points out, an insurance scheme. We must move towards a situation of steady improvement. I do not believe that this amendment should be accepted.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I entirely agree with the aim of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, that pensions should be increased in line with earnings. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the stakeholder pension and compulsion. I do not know whether this is the right moment to mention it, but for seven years I have been advocating compulsory pensions in this country at a lower level. That is the only way that those in the bottom range, the 6 million to 8 million people who are not contributing now, will ever be persuaded to do so. The simple fact is that in their opinion their earnings are not high enough for them to consider providing themselves with a pension. If they do not do it now they will become a serious burden on the rest of the population in future. Therefore, rather than speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I recommend that there should be compulsory pensions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The new provision introduced by the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Turner seeks to restore the link whereby the basic state pension and related increases paid for dependants are uprated each year in line with the growth in earnings or prices, whichever is the higher. We understand the strength of feeling associated with a return to the earnings link. Equally, my noble friends will be aware of the position of the Government and will not be altogether surprised by my response to the proposed new provision.
I remind the Committee that the automatic annual link between earnings and the basic pension was in place for only five years between July 1974 and November 1979. Before that, for quite a few years it was not uprated at all. Even when the earnings link was in place, on two occasion in those five years the rate of price inflation exceeded the rate of growth of earnings. Therefore, in those years of the late 1970s the basic pension was uprated in line with prices, and this continued to be the case under the Conservative government from 1980 onwards.
We have looked carefully at what would be involved in restoring the earnings link. That was one of the very first things that we looked at when the Government were

771
returned to office. The cumulative cost would exceed £10 billion after five years and reach £10 billion each year in less than 15 years. They are huge sums of money. I am sure that the Committee understands that, with costs of that magnitude, we must be extremely careful in considering whether such spending provides the best value for those in need. As with the previous amendment, none of this would benefit the poorest pensioners who are entitled to income support and have insufficient capital to disqualify them from that benefit.
The basic state pension will continue to be uprated each year at least in line with prices. It will not be means tested or privatised, as the previous government's basic pensions plus proposed. The basic state pension remains the basic-building block of the pensions system. Beyond that, we have concluded that we must concentrate our help and available resources on the poorest pensioners, largely single women over 70 years of age, often widows, who by virtue of their life chances have not had the opportunity to build up a pension in their own right.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: Can the Minister make clear to what timespan the commitment she gives is related? Is it related to an indefinite period of a Labour government, should that happen—it may not—or merely this Parliament?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is a commitment of the Labour Government. Obviously, should we be replaced by a government of a different persuasion we would be unable to honour that commitment.
The reason why we now have a problem with the poorest pensioners, largely women, is that they worked at home without wages. They were not in the labour market and therefore were unable to build up a pension. Compared with the 1960s and 1970s, today about 70 per cent of all women work and, including those who work part-time, three-quarters are over the lower earnings limit and will build up a second pension in their own right. I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased that one of the by-products of the minimum wage is that it will raise above LEL at least three-quarters of a million women, both part-timers and full-timers, who were below it. As a result, they will acquire and be able to build up pensions in their own right. In future, those who become the poorest pensioners, or who have been so in the past, will be able to build up a pension entitlement in their own right.
The problem of pensioner poverty and the need to go for the minimum income guarantee, with all its complexities—I accept that entirely—is one that we hope will be overtaken by our response through the state second pension, the stakeholder pension and the capacity of those in the past who have not been eligible to join those pensions, either by virtue of crediting in through carers' responsibilities and the like or by earning enough by means of the national minimum wage, to qualify by virtue of their contributions.
In addition, not only are we increasing income support by the minimum income guarantee but we are also providing immediate help with winter fuel
772
payments, which have been increased to £100. Ten million pensioners benefit from that. We have introduced income tax changes, such as the minimum tax guarantee, which mean that two-thirds of pensioners pay no tax at all. We have also introduced free sight tests and plan to legislate for minimum concessionary fare schemes. As a result, we have produced a package over the lifetime of this Parliament of an additional £4 billion for pensioners. Over and beyond that, we seek to build up the two-tier pension: the state second pension unfunded to replace SERPS but with a more generous redistributive effect than SERPS could ever achieve.
I turn to the first question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart: what are the implications of the state second pension? I take an individual who is mid-way between the lower earnings limit of £3,500 and £9,000. The figures that I give are relative to earning levels in 2050. In real terms, if someone is earning £6,000 his basic pension together with current SERPS is £45. With basic pension plus state second pension the figure is £84. Therefore, in real terms the extra help provided by the second state pension for someone on £6,000 a year at 2050 is £39 a week. Those sums can be done all the way up. The lower the income the more generous the entitlement provided by the second pension in comparison with SERPS. It pays all those earning between £3,500 and £9,000 as though they were earning £9,000 and gives a pension accordingly.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in a way supported by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, related to compulsion. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke to an amendment moved, I believe, by my noble friend Lady Turner on the previous Committee day that sought a compulsory contribution from employers.
Lord Goodhart: I believe that it was my amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not challenge the noble Lord's memory; I am sure that his knowledge about the ownership of his property is far better than mine. However, that proposal was supported by my noble friend Lady Turner, who has often pressed me on this point in the past and has spoken to it very effectively. Obviously, this does not arise in the case of the state second pension. It is an unfunded pension and therefore the employee's contribution does not arise. Our research suggests that as to the stakeholder pension, which is funded, between two-fifths and three-fifths of employers appear to be willing to contribute. I suspect that that will depend on the other versions of pension schemes that employers currently offer and what options are available. That certainly is what our research seems to suggest.
We have considered whether the employer's contribution should be made compulsory, but even occupational pension schemes are not compulsory. To make the employer's contribution compulsory when he is required to provide a stakeholder pension scheme would probably, we thought, be a step too far.
As for the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, that individual employees should be required to contribute to a pension scheme, we entirely

773
share his sentiments, as I am sure does the whole Committee. Our difficulty is that, frankly, the poorest people cannot afford to contribute to a pension scheme at the same time as they are seeking to juggle a mortgage and the costs of young families. Equally, it is difficult to see how one could make compulsion run for someone who is self-employed and who sees it as more appropriate to invest the money in the business rather than a pension plan. The Government have not finally closed their mind on that point. We shall keep the issue open and representations will continue to be made to us. At the moment, it appears that we would not be able to help those who most need it, because they cannot afford it and are therefore dependent on state support, such as the minimum income guarantee.
As I have said, we are legislating for stakeholder pensions. We will introduce a new state second pension which will ensure—together with what we know about women's entry into the labour market and the new floor of the national minimum wage—that the problem of poorest pensioners being dependent on income support will gradually wither. We believe that in the meantime it is right that they should be our highest priority. As a result, I hope that my noble friend Lady Turner will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for her response, but she will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with her. There is a philosophical difference between us. As I made clear earlier, I am a supporter of a system of social insurance, in which everybody pays a contribution and a minimum provision is made for everybody, but those who are well enough off can plus it up—as was the case with the Castle Plan. The basic pension should be sufficient to afford reasonable maintenance even for the poorest pensioners. We have moved significantly away from that concept and I deeply regret that.
The provision in the Bill is not the policy on which the Labour Party went to the election in 1992, when we proposed to the electorate that we would make SERPS into a national pension plan to which the self-employed could belong and which would gradually restore the earnings link to the basic pension. I would still like to see that plan introduced, but we have moved substantially away from it and we now have a very different set of proposals before us.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Higgins, who have contributed to the debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about compulsory second-tier pensions. There should be a system under which the employer pays something and the employee also has to pay something. Without that, many people will reach retirement age with inadequate pension provision. I was not aware of the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, back in 1964, but I noted that he was sympathetic to some of the points that I made, even though he does not agree with the restoration of the earnings link.
I do not agree with the Government's approach to the whole issue. The poorest pensioners will not benefit as much as we would like to see them benefit, even with
774
the new proposals. I do not like the fact that the scheme depends on means testing, because many people will not wish to put themselves forward for means-tested benefits for the reasons that were advanced earlier in the debate by my noble friend Lady Castle. However, there is little point in pressing the amendment at this time. I shall consider what has been said and decide whether a version of it should be advanced on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Orders in England and Wales]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 24, line 31, leave out ("have effect") and insert ("not have effect until the Law Commission have undertaken a review of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and have reported on the extent to which it is appropriate to give legal force to pre-nuptial agreements.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. In the light of the recent confusion over the Lord Chancellor's proposals for no-fault divorce, we wish to clarify the Government's position as it relates to pension sharing in the Bill and possible future legislation to recognise prenuptial agreements.
I appreciate that the matter is currently under review by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Group. Much concern about the potentially unfair aspects of pension splitting would be removed if individuals could choose a prenuptial agreement to govern what would happen in the event of divorce. We feel that, given the potential impact on the sharing of family assets on divorce, this matter should be debated.
The Government have consistently stressed that pension-sharing orders will be only one option available to the courts when considering the division of assets on divorce. Given the substantial nature of the pension asset when compared to other financial assets, it is a near certainty that pension-sharing orders will become common in practice. While prenuptial agreements are a relative novelty in the United Kingdom, the Government's move to make the sharing of assets on divorce more statutory would seem—certainly to me—likely to encourage their growth. I would welcome the Minister's view on that matter and an indication as to whether the Government are of the opinion that prenuptial agreements would make a fundamental difference to pension sharing.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Astor. I wish to make three points. First, I wish to confirm that the assets involved in pensions are significant. If people own a house, the pension is probably the second most significant asset that they build up. If people unfortunately do not own a house, the pension will be the most significant asset.
Secondly, prenuptial agreements are relatively rare in this country. I suspect that they will continue to be relatively rare in the future and will be used mainly for second marriages where children from the first marriage have aspirations to some assets.

775
Thirdly, it would be interesting to know whether we could learn anything from what happens in other countries—for example, the United States of America, Canada and Australia. I understand that in Canada a prenuptial agreement can be taken into account by the courts if it reaches certain standards. The situation in the US is less clear cut and pension splitting seems to be more a matter for negotiation. Where it is taken into account, it is heavily legislated for under regulations for both approved and unapproved schemes.
Having said I wished to make three points, I shall make a fourth by congratulating my noble friend Lord Astor on having the courage to go into two subject areas—divorce and the complexities of pensions in the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Berners: too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. I wish to ascertain the Government's attitude to the pre-nuptial agreements which now affect pension sharing as opposed to the financial arrangements on divorce.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has a galaxy of support.
If discussion on pre-nuptial agreements is taking place with the Lord Chancellor, it seems sensible for the sharing of the family assets, which is the major activity, as my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire said, to be referred back until such time as findings of the Lord Chancellor are delivered to us.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am very sorry about this. The amendment would delay the introduction of pension sharing almost indefinitely, if the outcome of the Law Commission review on pre-nuptial agreements had, first, to be determined before we could proceed with this. In the White Paper on pension sharing, published in February 1997, the present Opposition said simply, "We will legislate as soon as possible".
The real impetus for pension sharing came from all around this Chamber. I remember vividly the debates in which not only Lady Seear, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others contributed. The Government are determined to see the project through. I have been teased on more than one occasion, perfectly reasonably, from the official Opposition Benches about not having proceeded more expeditiously with pension sharing, given that we made such a noise about it while in opposition. Yet the effect of the amendment would be to delay it further.
The amendment would prevent the implementation of pension sharing until the Law Commission had undertaken a full review of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. There are two main points to make. First, the resources and expertise of the Law Commission are fully committed to reviewing other areas of the law which urgently need reform. The commission has recently agreed a new programme of work with the Lord Chancellor which was announced on 17th June. The focus will be commercial and company law, in particular looking at developing a commercial code
776
setting out the principles and rules governing commercial transactions. That is regarded as the highest priority at this time. Issues associated with that have been raised frequently in this House. The programme contains no family law issues. So without additional resources there would be no scope for the Law Commission to commence a review of the Matrimonial Causes Act.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is no evidence of general dissatisfaction with ancillary relief provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act which would justify such a review. Past governments, as well as the current Government, have adopted an evolutionary approach to this area of the law. Pension sharing is one such example.
Finally, the amendment would not delay the implementation of pension sharing in Scotland. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Astor, were minded to pursue the point he would wish to ensure that there was parity of treatment across the United Kingdom; otherwise we should have pension sharing in Scotland but not in England and Wales.
The amendment specifically refers to giving legal force to pre-nuptial agreements as a justification for commissioning the review of ancillary relief law which the noble Lords seem to have in mind, in the belief that pension sharing would lead to more pre-nuptial agreements—I presume that that is the thinking underlying it—as a possible way of protecting assets from subsequently being available to the matrimonial pot. We have no reason to think that. Pensions are already part of the financial settlements on divorce. As noble Lords will recall from those debates in 1995, they can be offset against other assets, or earmarked currently. What we are doing, and what the House was persuaded to say to the other House, was that pension sharing was an additional choice to couples and to the courts in seeking to achieve the fairest disposition of assets at the point of a marriage break up, and the financial settlement with divorce.
It may not always be the right solution. Offsetting, or earmarking may be more appropriate. Nor do we say that the division has to be 50:50; it can be 10 per cent or 90 per cent depending on the family circumstances. But to withhold from the financial pot what can be for many people their biggest financial asset, the pension—greater even than the matrimonial home—was demonstrably unfair in particular to those older women who had invested their lives often in supporting their husbands and their husbands' careers. That was why this House pressed the issue on the other place. That is why I should be sad to see further delay when so many of the associated pressure groups such as Fair Shares, are urging us to go faster rather than more slowly—and, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, even to contemplate making pension sharing retrospective.
Given that pressure, I should be sorry if we had to pursue this amendment. It is the case that pre-nuptial agreements have been the recent subject of public consultation in our paper, Supporting Families. As chairman of the ministerial working group on the

777
family, the Home Secretary recently published a summary of the responses to that paper, including those on pre-nuptial agreements. No decision has been taken yet on whether the proposal to make pre-nuptial agreements legally binding will be pursued further. But I am sure that as the Lord Chancellor considers the way forward, he will note noble Lords' suggestion that the Law Commission should be asked to consider this issue in detail.
To conclude, I do not believe that there is a case for delaying the introduction of pension sharing. Many people out there, I have to say mainly women, would not thank this Chamber for delaying their right of access to some decent security, in particular as they come towards old age. I believe that this House will welcome its implementation during the lifetime of this Parliament. We hope to implement it around the year 2000. I do not believe that this will put additional pressure on pre-nuptial agreements, but if that were to be the case I am sure that our consultation exercise, and the reflection on the issue that is currently under way, will take those points on board. If necessary, we can look at the matter then. Knowing as I do that the noble Lord supports the principle of what we are doing, I hope that he would not wish to delay the matter further.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that reply. The noble Baroness may have misunderstood the point of my amendment. I began by saying that it was only a probing amendment. I merely asked for clarification of government opinion. I did not seek to delay the Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Buckinghamshire, Lord Clanwilliam and Lady Berners for their support. I agree with my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire that the subject of pensions and pension sharing is unbelievably complex.
I sought clarification. The Minister has given me a full answer. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Astor of Hever: We do not oppose Clause 19 quite as much as the three "p"s in the word "oppose" on the Marshalled List imply.
As pension sharing was hardly touched on at Second Reading, the clause provides me with an opportunity to put on the record that the Opposition support the principle of pension sharing which is fair and affordable to both spouses and which takes account of the interests of children. We shall work constructively with the Government to improve this part of an otherwise bad Bill. Having carefully scrutinised the Bill, we shall be raising a number of concerns where we do not believe that the Government have properly thought matters through.
I trust, therefore, that the Minister will give careful thought to our amendments on pension sharing.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Pension sharing orders: England and Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 57 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 58
Leave out Schedule 3 and insert the following new Schedule—
("SCHEDULE 3 PENSION SHARING ORDERS: ENGLAND AND WALES
1. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is amended as follows.
2. After section 21 there is inserted—
"Pension sharing orders.
21A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, a pension sharing order is an order which—

(a) provides that one party's—

(i) shareable rights under a specified pension arrangement, or

(ii) shareable state scheme rights,

be subject to pension sharing for the benefit of the other party, and

(b) specifies the percentage value to be transferred.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) the reference to shareable rights under a pension arrangement is to rights in relation to which pension sharing is available under Chapter I of Part IV of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, or under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation,

(b) the reference to shareable state scheme rights is to rights in relation to which pension sharing is available under Chapter II of Part IV of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, or under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation, and

(c) "party" means a party to a marriage."

3. In section 24 (property adjustment orders in connection with divorce proceedings, etc), in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1), there is inserted at the end ", other than one in the form of a pension arrangement (within the meaning of section 25D below)".
4. After section 24A there is inserted—
"Pension sharing orders in connection with divorce proceedings etc.
24B.—(1) On granting a decree of divorce or a decree of nullity of marriage or at any time thereafter (whether before or after the decree is made absolute), the court may, on an application made under this section, make one or more pension sharing orders in relation to the marriage.
(2) A pension sharing order under this section is not to take effect unless the decree on or after which it is made has been made absolute.
(3) A pension sharing order under this section may not be made in relation to a pension arrangement which—

(a) is the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage, or

(b) has been the subject of pension sharing between the parties to the marriage.

(4) A pension sharing order under this section may not be made in relation to shareable state scheme rights if—

(a) such rights are the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage, or

(b) such rights have been the subject of pension sharing between the parties to the marriage.

(5) A pension sharing, order under this section may not be made in relation to the rights of a person under a pension arrangement if there is in force a requirement imposed by virtue of section 25B or 25C below which relates to benefits or future benefits to which he is entitled under the pension arrangement.
Pension sharing orders: duty to stay.
24C.—(1) No pension sharing order may be made so as to take effect before the end of such period after the making of the order as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.
(2) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Pension sharing orders: apportionment of charges.
24D. If a pension sharing order relates to rights under a pension arrangement, the court may include in the order provision about the apportionment between the parties of any charge under section 37 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (charges in respect of pension sharing costs), or under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation."
5. In section 25 (matters to which the court is to have regard in deciding how to exercise its powers with respect to financial relief)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "or 24A" there is substituted ", 24A or 24B", and

(b) in subsection (2), for "or 24A" there is substituted "24A or 24B".

6. In section 25A(1) (court's duty to consider desirability of exercising power to achieve clean break), for "or 24A" there is substituted ", 24A or 24B".
7.—(1) Section 31 (variation, discharge etc of certain orders for financial relief) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), at the end there is inserted—
"(g) a pension sharing order under section 24B which is made at a time before the decree has been made absolute."
(3) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(4A) In relation to an order which falls within paragraph (g) of subsection (2) above ("the subsection (2) order")—

(a) the powers conferred by this section may be exercised—

(i) only on an application made before the subsection (2) order has or, but for paragraph (b) below, would have taken effect; and

(ii) only if, at the time when the application is made, the decree has not been made absolute; and

(b) an application made in accordance with paragraph (a) above prevents the subsection (2) order from taking effect before the application has been dealt with.

(4B) No variation of a pension sharing order shall be made so as to take effect before the decree is made absolute.
(4C) The variation of a pension sharing order prevents the order taking effect before the end of such period after the making of the variation as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor."
(4) In subsection (5)—

(a) for "(7F)" there is substituted "(7G)",

780

(b) for "or (e)" there is substituted ", (e) or (g)", and

(c) after "property adjustment order" there is inserted "or pension sharing order".

(5) In subsection (7B), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
"(ba) one or more pension sharing orders;".
(6) After subsection (7F) there is inserted—
"(7G) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 24B above apply in relation to a pension sharing order under subsection (7B) above as they apply in relation to a pension sharing order under that section."
(7) After subsection (14) there is inserted—
"(15) The power to make regulations under subsection (4C) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
8. In section 33A (consent orders), in subsection (3), in the definition of "order for financial relief', after "24A" there is inserted ", 24B".
9. In section 37 (avoidance of transactions intended to prevent or reduce financial relief), in subsection (1), after "24," there is inserted "24B,".
10. After section 40 there is inserted—
"Appeals relating to pension sharing orders which have taken effect.
40A.—(1) Subsections (2) and (3) below apply where an appeal against a pension sharing order is begun on or after the day on which the order takes effect.
(2) If the pension sharing order relates to a person's rights under a pension arrangement, the appeal court may not set aside or vary the order if the person responsible for the pension arrangement has acted to his detriment in reliance on the taking effect of the order.
(3) If the pension sharing order relates to a person's shareable state scheme rights, the appeal court may not set aside or vary the order if the Secretary of State has acted to his detriment in reliance on the taking effect of the order.
(4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) whether a person has acted to his detriment in reliance on the taking effect of the order, the appeal court may disregard any detriment which in its opinion is insignificant.
(5) Where subsection (2) or (3) above applies, the appeal court may make such further orders (including one or more pension sharing orders) as it thinks fit, for the purpose of putting the parties in the position it considers appropriate.
(6) Section 24C above only applies to a pension sharing order under this section if the decision of the appeal court can itself he the subject of an appeal.
(7) In subsection (2), the reference to the person responsible for the pension arrangement is to be read in accordance with section 25D(4) above."
11. In section 52 (interpretation), in subsection (2), for "and" at the end of paragraph (a) there is substituted—
"(aa) references to pension sharing orders shall be construed in accordance with section 21A above; and".").
The noble Baroness said: Before I talk specifically about this large group of amendments, I should set the scene by drawing noble Lords' attention to some recent developments which have made these necessary.
The Lord Chancellor recently announced that it was no longer the Government's intention to implement Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 in the year 20(X). The 1996 Act would, if implemented, introduce a new divorce process to England and Wales. Noble Lords who have taken part in those debates will know that

781
Part II proposed to save saveable marriages; to promote conciliatory attitudes to divorce; and to seek above all to ensure the well-being and welfare of children.
Information meetings were to be a key element of the new divorce process established by the 1996 Act. Over the past two years, the Government have been piloting different types of information meetings in an effort to find one that meets our aims—which are: to save marriages when we can, to engender a conciliatory culture in which marriages that are going to break up may proceed to divorce and to care for the children of marriage. Regrettably, the preliminary findings of the pilots were disappointing. There have been 14 pilots involving 7,000 people in information meetings. Some 90 per cent of the people concerned found those information meetings useful, but only 7 per cent went on to mediation; only 13 per cent went to marriage guidance counsellors; and I am afraid that 39 per cent said that they were more likely to see a solicitor. That was not the original intention of the meetings.
In the light of that research, the pilots and those findings, the Government have decided that it would be premature to implement Part II in the near future. We will await the final results of the research and consider whether any further research should be instituted before forming a view about what the next step should be in this important area of social policy. Those results will be available in the spring of 2000.
The decision to delay implementation of Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 beyond 2000 has a significant consequence for the pension sharing provisions in this Bill. The pension sharing provisions in the Bill are currently drafted on the basis that the Family Law Act will have been implemented. That is why mention is made of the "statement of marital break-down" and the "period of reflection and consideration", for example, which are created by Part II of the Family Law Act.
However, we can no longer assume that the new divorce process set out in the Family Law Act will be implemented before we are ready to bring the pension sharing provisions into force—which we want to do as soon as possible. Therefore, we must change the Bill almost belt and braces style so that pension sharing can be made available under today's divorce law as well as under the new procedures that would be established by the Family Law Act—otherwise the one would depend upon the other and we would push pension sharing into the long grass.
Therefore, we have brought forward a package of amendments—I apologise for their number—Amendments Nos. 58 to 69 and 144 to 166. Under these amendments, pension sharing would be made available under current divorce law as established by the 1973 Act in its present form; and it could be made available under the divorce law that would be established by the 1996 Act if, as remains possible, Part II of the Family Law Act is implemented before pension sharing. In addition, the amendments would allow for the divorce law to be changed to that of the 1996 Act after the pension sharing provisions had come into force under the current divorce law. With these amendments in place, all three possible eventualities are covered: that
782
Part II does not come into force; that Part II comes into force before pension sharing happens; or that Part II comes into force only after pension sharing has been established.
These amendments, therefore, are largely technical and apply only to England and Wales. They simply allow pension sharing to happen whatever divorce law is in force—the 1973 Act or the 1996 Act. Scotland has separate legislation that is unaffected by the Lord Chancellor's announcement. Noble Lords should note that the principal effect of the amendments is to restructure the pension sharing provisions in the Bill—that is, to bring them within the concurrent ambit of the 1973 Act—and not to change their substance in any significant way.
Having said that the amendments are largely technical, we recognise that they are also complex. That is why we have tried to assist noble Lords by producing a set of supplementary explanatory notes that describe the Government's amendments in more detail.
Because I think that they are important, I will turn now to the substance of the amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 58 which concerns Clause 19 and Schedule 3 to the Bill. Amendment No. 58 provides a new version of Schedule 3 to replace the Schedule 3 in the current print of the Bill. That is necessary in order to ensure that we can proceed with pension sharing under the framework of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In my following comments, references to Schedule 3 will be to the new schedule that would be inserted by Amendment No. 58.
Schedule 3 amends Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The clause gives courts in England and Wales the power to make pension sharing orders in relation to proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage. The provisions in Schedule 3 will allow pension rights to be treated like other assets when a couple divorces or the marriage is annulled. The provisions will allow a proportion, or all, of the value of the pension to be transferred from one spouse to the other as part of the overall financial settlement.
There are six main points to be made about the amended schedule. The first is a general point. There is only a small difference between the substance of this new schedule and Schedule 3 as it appears in the current print of the Bill. That is because there is no longer a distinction drawn between divorce and nullity. Under the Family Law Act, the procedure for ending a marriage by divorce would have been very different from the procedure for ending a marriage by annulment. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act, the procedure is broadly the same and the relevant powers of the court to grant financial relief are identical.
Secondly, the schedule places pension sharing within the framework of the existing divorce law in England and Wales. A pension sharing order will be able to be made on or after the granting of a decree of divorce. This follows the pattern of the other principal types of ancillary relief order set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The court may make an order before the divorce is finalised, but the pension sharing process will take effect only after the decree of divorce has been made absolute.
Thirdly, as under the current Bill, pension sharing orders will be subject to a stay period. No action should be taken on the order during that period. This will allow either party to appeal it. The pension sharing order will be stayed at least until the end of the appropriate period for giving notice of appeal. So pension sharing orders will not become effective until both the decree of divorce has been made absolute and the stay period has expired.
Fourthly, although appeals up to and beyond the point of implementation of the pension sharing order will be possible, the court will not be able to set aside or vary an order that has taken effect when it would adversely affect the pension scheme. The court will be able to make such further orders as it thinks fit to put the parties in the position it considers appropriate.
Fifthly, the couple must meet the pension scheme's administrative charges arising from pension sharing. When the couple shares by order, the court can apportion the administrative expenses arising from the share between the couple in a way that is just and equitable. If the court chooses not to exercise this power, the member spouse will be expected to pay the charges. The question of who pays should be seen as an aspect of the overall financial settlement.
Sixthly—and finally—the Bill restricts the combination of ear-marking and pension sharing orders and the making of multiple pension sharing orders in relation to any given pension. This is an important provision because we want to encourage couples to achieve a clean break if that is appropriate for them. We need to be fair to both parties—former spouses should not have several bites of the cherry and the scheme member's remaining pension should be safe from the former spouse. We also need to protect the position of previous spouses. A simple illustration may be where a man and his second wife are getting a divorce. At his first divorce, his first wife was granted an ear-marking order. If the second wife were now granted a pension share before the ear-marking order had come into effect because the husband is still below pension age, the husband's pension fund would be reduced, which, in turn, would reduce the first wife's retirement income. She would lose out through no action of her own.
I turn now to Amendment No. 69 which would create a new clause to follow the current Clause 22. Our amendments to the pension sharing provisions begin from the assumption that pension sharing is most likely to be made available—at least initially—under the current divorce law that is contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. However, this outcome is not yet certain. If, contrary to our present expectations, Part II of the Family Law Act were to be implemented before the pension sharing provisions in this Bill had commenced, the pension sharing provisions would be technically defective—largely as a result of the other amendments that we have tabled for debate today.
To guard against that, this amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause in the Bill—Amendment No. 69—which would give the Lord Chancellor the power to make consequential amendments to any provision in Part III of the Bill that had yet to be
784
commenced. That would include Schedules 3 and 4. This would enable the Lord Chancellor to make any technical amendments, such as renumbering sections and changing internal references, that would be needed to ensure that the law would work as Parliament had intended. The power would be available only if any of the amendments to the financial relief provisions of the 1973 Act, as amended by the 1996 Act, were to be brought into force before the implementation of Part III of this Bill.
We recognise that this is a power that should be subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament. Noble Lords will note that subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, Amendment No. 69, makes it clear that the exercise of this power would be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee considered that that was an appropriate safeguard for the use of the power. We were of course happy to concur.
The amendments to Schedule 4, Amendments Nos. 61 to 67, amend and refine the earmarking—or more properly "attachment"—provisions that were inserted in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 by Section 166 of the Pensions Act 1995, which we all remember with affection. These amendments are minor and cover small drafting corrections or deal with minor technical matters. The provisions of this schedule complement those already considered in Schedule 3.
Members of the Committee may have noticed that Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 and 25 in our supplementary explanatory notes appear to be missing. In fact, the House authorities felt that the small consequential changes to the Bill which would be brought about by these amendments should be achieved through the reprinting process.
The amendment to Clause 22 is consequential on the other changes being made to the Bill and to the 1973 Act as a result of the shift away from the new divorce law structure which will be established by Part II of the Family Law Act 1996. The effect of this amendment is described in detail in the Government's supplementary explanatory notes.
I turn to Clause 79, which is also affected by our main amendment to the draft Bill. It gives effect to the consequential amendments in Schedule 12. It also gives the Secretary of State powers to revoke or amend any secondary legislation as necessary following the coming into force of specified provisions in the Bill.
The Government have put forward two sets of amendments to Schedule 12 which it would be appropriate to consider now. Amendments Nos. 145 to 151 are all minor, technical consequential amendments to provisions in Schedule 12 which would make pension sharing available under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
Amendment No. 152 is more complex. It is a prospective amendment to the Family Law Act 1996 which has two purposes. First, numerous prospective amendments to the 1973 Act are contained within Schedules 2, 8 and 10 to the 1996 Act. If we work from the assumption that pension sharing will be brought into force before Part II of the Family Law Act, the

785
amendments to the 1973 Act which are contained within the 1996 Act will need to be changed because, if they are not, they will be technically defective.
The second purpose of this amendment is more important. It puts forward substitute sections for the 1973 Act which would replace those inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill as amended. The effect of Amendment No. 152 is to ensure that pension sharing can be made available under the Family Law Act 1996 if Part II of that Act is brought into force after the pension sharing provisions have been commenced.
Clause 80 sets out the transitional provisions which are needed for the whole of this Bill. Amendment No. 153 deletes subsections (3) to (5) of the clause. These subsections were originally included to cater for the possibility that Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 might be brought into force before pension sharing, with the aim of preventing people from re-opening financial settlements arising from divorces which were granted before the implementation of pension sharing. However, if Part II were to be implemented before pension sharing, similar provision to prevent any retrospective action could be made under Clauses 83 and 78(5).
Amendments Nos. 154 to 158 are minor and consequential on Amendment No. 153.
Clause 83 provides powers for the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor to bring different parts of the Bill into force at different times. Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 make technical changes to this clause which are consequential on the decision to move from the divorce law framework of the Family Law Act 1996 to that of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Clause 84 sets out how the different provisions in the Bill extend to different parts of the United Kingdom. Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are consequential amendments to Clause 84.
Finally, I apologise to the Committee for the great length of time it has taken to move this set of amendments. However, as they were not introduced in the other place, I felt it important to lay them out as fully as possible. Given the additional commentary from the Dispatch Box, I appreciate that Members of the Committee may prefer to return to many of the issues at the Report stage after they have had time to reflect on their implications. If I can help in the meantime, I am happy to do so. I commend this package of amendments to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, Amendment No. 58A:
Line 14, at end insert (", and
(c) is made in terms to be prescribed in regulations")
The noble Lord said: I thank the Minister for explaining in such detail the changes, or "restructuring" as she called it. Although she said that there were seven provisions, she concluded by saying, "Sixth and finally", so perhaps she would respond to that point.
With regard to Amendment No. 58, I understand the three-tier proposals to cover all eventualities. They are for the most part structural, but they appear complex. I believe that my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire will agree with that. I recall the words of Harriet Harman, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, in a foreword to the original consultation paper on pension sharing on divorce, published in June 1998. She expressed the view that
"The challenge is now to make pension sharing work in practice—to translate broad principles into practicable and workable arrangements in areas—pensions, family and tax law—which are notorious for their complexity".
I hope that pension sharing will not prove to be too onerous a burden on pension schemes and that the principles, practicality and workability are borne in mind by the Government.
Because the Family Law Act 1996 is unlikely to be in force before the pension sharing provisions, the qualifying agreement provisions will not be brought into force until the divorce provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 are brought into effect. Divorcing couples will still be able to come to an agreement about any pension assets, but that will now be contained in a consent order. I want to remind the Government that, whether or not pension sharing is decided by court order, consent order or qualifying agreement, it is absolutely vital that agreed precedents are in place for pension sharing provisions.
We have seen the problems that have arisen from poorly drafted earmarking orders. The standardisation of procedures for pension sharing can only benefit the parties involved from both a cost and administrative viewpoint. I also remind the Government about the need for education and training for all those involved in the new process.
The Government have emphasised the need for simplicity. It looks as though pension sharing is becoming a very complex process. All those involved in pension sharing need reassurance on this point and I should be grateful if the Minister could give that.
Paragraph 4 inserts new Sections 24B, 24C and 24D in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in its present form. As we understand it, new Section 24B gives courts in England and Wales power to make pension sharing orders on or after the granting of a decree of divorce, or nullity. With one exception, this new section replicates new Sections 24D and 24E, which were to have been inserted by paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. The exception is that the courts will not be under an express obligation to make, so far as is practicable, all pension sharing orders in relation to the marriage on one occasion. That obligation was derived from the amendments to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 by the Family Law Act 1996 and is no longer appropriate due to delay in the implementation of that Act. We should like an assurance from the Minister that this change to the Bill will not cause further administrative burdens for pension arrangements by involving them in protracted negotiations regarding a pension share.
Paragraph 10 inserts a new Section 40A into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. We understand that paragraph 10 replicates paragraph 9 of the existing

787
Schedule 3 to the Bill. We should like clarification from the Minister of the meaning of Section 40A(2), which states:
"If the pension sharing order relates to a person's rights under a pension arrangement, the appeal court may not set aside or vary the order if the person responsible for the pension arrangement has acted to his detriment in reliance on the taking effect of the order".
What, would "detriment" mean in these circumstances? We would not like to see trustees or managers of pension schemes being put in a position where they had to unravel a pension sharing order that had already been carried into effect.
Can the Minister confirm that Amendment No. 69 is merely a structural device? Will it merely facilitate the bringing into force of pension sharing if Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 is brought into force before the pension sharing provisions?
As the other amendments are highly technical and consequential, we want to read carefully what the Minister said about them. It seems to me at this stage that most of the changes are legal tidying up, and we shall not object to them.
As the Minister has explained in such detail the Government's proposals with regard to the new schedule, we shall not oppose its insertion.
7 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has ranged rather more widely than the amendment would normally provide for. It might therefore be convenient if I spoke briefly on our reaction to this group of amendments.
The Minister has shown her usual formidable ability to explain extremely complicated legislation clearly and rapidly, and I congratulate her on the way in which she has clone it today.
It seems to us that the Government are right not to be proposing to introduce Part II of the Family Law Act in the near future. Part II of that Act was certainly well meant and well worth a try, but there is no point in ignoring the bad results of the pilots. Therefore, I accept that the amendments are necessary in order to bring pension sharing into effect before Par: II of the Act is introduced—if, indeed, it is ever introduced. One can see now that it may well never come into force.
Pension sharing is an idea whose time has come. Indeed it has taken a long time about it, because it is an issue that to my knowledge has been in the air for at least 20 years. It is undoubtedly extremely complicated, but the version that the Government have come up with, after very wide consultation, is one that we broadly accept. There may be further questions about it which we shall need to look at on Report, but we have not put forward any significant amendments of our own at this stage.
Lord Habgood: I take the opposite view from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He said that the research done for the Lord Chancellor seemed to show conclusively that the noble and learned Lord was right in postponing implementation of the Family Law Act. We could avoid a great deal of the complexity of what
788
we have just heard if the Act were implemented. I do not believe, on the basis of the report, that there is any good reason for postponing it.
I find the reaction of the noble and learned Lord to the report strange. The report that he was given was designed to help plan the information meetings as a preliminary part of the divorce process under the Family Law Act. The report produced some very useful information. What it could not do, and what the researchers said quite explicitly it could not do, was to give any guidance on the take-up of the various services, because the research situation was an artificial one in which a different law was operating: people would respond differently to the offer of mediation, counselling or whatever under those artificial circumstances.
It has been said again and again that the take-up of mediation was only 7 per cent. What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not reported is that of those who attended information meetings 57 per cent said that they would consider mediation and only 39 per cent said that they would be likely to consult a solicitor. Those figures have not been publicised. They do not support what the noble and learned Lord has said, and it seems to me that the Committee should at least express some regret, as I want to, that this decision has been made and has created all these additional complications for us in the Bill.
Baroness Fookes: Before we embarked on the detailed consideration of the Bill I thought that I thoroughly approved of the concept of sharing pensions on divorce. I still do in theory, but I must admit that I am utterly dismayed by the complexity of the provisions put before us this evening, and the necessary changes which the Minister has made have served only to make it even more complex for me. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I failed to follow all the arguments of the noble Baroness. Indeed, to use a very blunt, everyday phrase, it is now all as clear as mud to me. I shall certainly wish to reserve my position on this matter and look at it again at more leisure.
I am dismayed by the general trend in proposed legislation to become ever more complex, ever more difficult for the ordinary person to understand. It goes very much against the grain with me. I had hoped to see legislation that was much clearer and simpler. The trend seems to be entirely in the opposite direction, and that depresses me no end.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I do not think that anybody in the Committee disagrees with pension sharing.
It is a great disappointment that my noble friend Lady Young is not present, and that Lady Seear is no longer with us. They were very important in the formulation of the Bill.
I wish to ask the Minister about only one point, with regard to the new Section 40A(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The judge, who must be able to administer the pension sharing arrangement in his chambers, is the one who can reconcile the

789
disagreements and know the full extent of the family assets, and therefore find some better method of dealing with the exchange. Am I correct in saying that under that section the judge has the ability amicably to restore order in the family assets?
Baroness Berners: I too support the amendment. As the three-tier system proposed by the Government to cover all eventualities could be so complicated to administer or be understood by the clients, may we be assured that time will be given to work on simplification by training and education before the Bill is enacted in order to avoid protracted negotiations at the time of pension procedures?
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I do not want to take up too much time, but I agree with my noble friend Lady Fookes about the complexity of the provisions. Probably if we were starting afresh we would not start from this position. Therefore, it is inevitable that we are dealing with a complex issue, and complex remedies are required.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Astor about new Section 40A(2) on pension sharing. I am not entirely sure that I read it in the same way as he does. I certainly agree with his view that trustees and managers of pension schemes and their advisers do not wish to be put in a position in which they must unravel pension sharing orders which are already being implemented. I do not believe that the industry wants anything to do with pension sharing or divorce, but I guess that that day has passed.
The Earl of Onslow: I remember when my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, were hunting as a couple to produce this effort at pension sharing. We were all moved by what they said and totally convinced by the attitude and line of country which they were following.
This matter is complicated beyond measure. I ask in a spirit of pure inquiry why it is not possible to say to a pension company that one-third of Mr X's pension will go to his ex-wife, to be attached to the pension records. That is all that happens. I cannot understand why the matter must be so much more complicated so that it will make even more money for lawyers. That is what will happen as a result of the complications of this schedule.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This was a helpful debate. Again, I apologise to the Committee because I realise that I may have failed in seeking to clarify the position, as I had hoped to do. I accept that Members of the Committee will wish to return to this matter. I should be happy to follow up any issues which your Lordships wish to raise through correspondence and to do so before we reach Report stage.
Perhaps I may do my best to respond to the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked me where my six points had got to because he thought I had seven
790
points. That may have been because I was speaking rather quickly, mindful of the time of the Committee. However, on page 4 of my speech notes, it says there are six main points to be made on the amended schedule. My sixth was a "sixth and finally". I counted them again and I still think there are six points. We must wait to look at the efforts of the editors of Hansard to see whether the noble Lord is right.
I turn to some more serious points. The first point the noble Lord raised is that problems have arisen from poorly drafted earmarking orders. There have been problems and we recognise the importance of consistency and simplicity of approach, which has been called for by many Members of the Committee this evening. Therefore, the Government will be consulting publicly later this year about the information which should be contained within both pension sharing and earmarking orders and whether it would be appropriate to prescribe the format of those orders. Power exists already under Section 40 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 to prescribe the content and format of court orders.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, is the need for education and training of all those involved. Plans are already being made for the training of court staff and judges in England and Wales by the Court Service and the Judicial Studies Board respectively. The training of solicitors, barristers and other advisers is for their professional bodies, but the Government are willing to help; for example, by preparing written guidance. In addition, we expect to provide information for the public closer to the time when the pension sharing provisions are to be implemented.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked what is meant by "detriment" in new Section 40A(2). The purpose of the provision mentioned is to protect the pension arrangement in exactly the way mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. The policy of the Bill is to avoid the unravelling or unpicking of a pension sharing order which has been implemented or on which implementation has begun.
Under new Section 40A, it will not be possible for the court to vary or discharge an effective pension sharing order in response to a successful appeal out of time if the person responsible for the pension arrangement has acted to his detriment on reliance of the taking effect of the order; if, for example, the pension arrangement has incurred any costs which are not recoverable from the parties or the order has been implemented to the extent that the pension debit and credit has been created, any reversal of which would create additional costs for the pension arrangement, the pension sharing order cannot be discharged; nor the terms of it altered.
We need that to protect the pension arrangement. If it were possible to vary the terms of the pension sharing order which is already, in effect, spent because it has been implemented by the arrangement, there could be an obligation to recreate a situation—for example, to

791
rebuild a fund—which could not be recreated. Liabilities may thereby be incurred, with compensation possibly having to be paid to the pension member.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, will wish to note the provision in that new Section 40A(4) which makes it clear that the court has the power to disregard any claim of detriment made by the pension arrangement if the court believes that detriment is insignificant. It could be argued, for example, that writing a single letter on the pension share to the former spouse was a cost to the pension arrangement and therefore a detriment, and that the court could not vary or discharge the effective order in response to a successful appeal out of time. However, the court will be able to disregard such a claim as insignificant, thus allowing an alteration to the terms of the order to go ahead in appropriate circumstances.
I have taken some time with that, but it is a point which was raised by several Members of the Committee and I felt that it should be explained in greater fullness.
I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Our parliamentary draftsmen should be on their toes because his scrutiny of every Bill so far has scored a bull's eye. Our failure has been, if not to the Government's detriment, to the public's gain.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, suggested that we have been deterred too easily by the research which suggests that we should abandon Part II of the Family Law Act. Like the noble Lord, I read the summary of the research in progress of June 1999. Reading it, I was persuaded that the present arrangements which we had conceived were not working as we had hoped. We all wanted mediation to work but, for various reasons, that was not the case. Couples were coming at different stages in their divorce or unsettled marriage process. Couples wanted particularised information available to them. The partners of many people were not prepared to go for mediation and, therefore, it broke down. We all wanted to make mediation available to couples in the hope of saving marriages where possible and reducing acrimony where that was not possible. But it is clear that the procedures proposed by Part II of the Family Law Act were not as effective as we had hoped. We shall revisit that issue with further research and it may well be that we cart be as optimistic as the noble Lord asks, but, at present:, the research does not support that case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said that this matter is complex and that I had wonderfully added to those complexities this evening. Pensions are always complex because they are technical. For those who have the language—and I do not have that language—they appear as obvious as changing a language code between French and German. They have to be correct. That means that one must give an elaborate explanation rather than winging it.
The reason that our discussions this evening have been complex is not because pension sharing itself is any more complex than pension structures and arrangements in general; rather, it is because we are trying to do something different; namely, in trying to see what the future may hold for Part II of the Family Law Act, we have covered three possible contingencies.
792
The first is that Part II of the Family Law Act may come into force before pension sharing does; secondly, that it may come into force after pension sharing; or thirdly, that it may not come into force at all. With this sequence of amendments, we are seeking to ensure that all three possible contingencies are built into the framework of legislation. I suggest that that is what is complex, rather than pension sharing itself. Certainly, by bringing the matter under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, we do not add to its complexity. The difficulty is that we are trying to cover all three possible options.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked why we could not simply make provision for one-third of the pension and attach a note to that effect to the pension records. Where a pension is being paid or a pension pot is being accrued or where there is earmarking, the flagging, about which the noble Earl spoke, can be carried out. The point is that some people will want that and others will not. The proportion will vary whether the ex-spouse's share remains within the scheme or goes outside it. It will all depend on discussions and negotiations between the couple and pension managers.
That is why the matter is complex. The possibilities facing couples involved in divorce proceedings have to be sufficiently sensitive to the situations that they face. That is why a simple tag of one-third to her and two-thirds to him will not do. Life would be easier if it would. We want to make sure that the arrangements best suited to their personal circumstances, including financial arrangements, are available to them and to the court, if the court believes that that is the fair solution. In the light of that, I hope that the Committee will accept these amendments. I am very happy to follow up any detailed points through correspondence.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree that it has been a very helpful debate. These are very complex issues. It is important that we return to them in greater detail at Report stage.
I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the importance of simplicity of approach and that they will be consulting publicly. I believe that my noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made very valid points about the complexity of these matters. I have two questions for the Minister. I imagine that training will be voluntary rather than mandatory. It is very important that enough people go on the courses to understand the complexities of pension sharing. What kind of take-up does the Minister expect?
She is trying to simplify the whole matter. As I understand, she is legislating for all contingencies thus enabling the Lord Chancellor to choose which way to go. Can the Minister clarify those two points?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord's description was exactly right because that is what we are doing. Plans are being made for the training of court staff and judges in England and Wales. I have every reason to believe that they will all be expected to

793
undertake that training in so far as they have to address the issues. Training facilities for barristers is a matter for their professional bodies.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that answer. What constraints are there on the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he chooses particular provisions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Choosing what, exactly?
Lord Astor of Hever: The noble Baroness said that there were various contingencies and that the Government were legislating for them all and then it would be for the Lord Chancellor to choose which way to go.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I tried to explain in response to the contribution to the discussion by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, subject to parliamentary approval, pension sharing will go ahead. It may do so following the introduction of Part II of the Family Law Act. It may go ahead before the introduction of that legislation. However, it may go ahead without there being a Part II of the Family Law Act. Therefore it must remain within the framework of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or any subsequent codification of that law.
Those are the three options available to the Lord Chancellor. He is reflecting on them in the light of research findings and the consultation exercise that is now taking place. Having had a discussion with him earlier today, I believe it is fair to say that it is genuinely a fair question. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, it would be foolish to go ahead and implement Part II of the legislation and not give pension sharing the protection of coming within the umbrella of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The research which has taken place so far shows that the information process which we offered leading to mediation has not been the success that we all hoped for.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The government amendment has raised many complicated issues. I am sure that the Committee will want to revisit them at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 58A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, by leave, withdrawn.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, Amendment No. 58B:
Leave out lines 29 to 32
The noble Lord said: The provisions of Schedule 3 mean that a court can no longer treat a pension as a marriage settlement, as in the leading case of Brooks v. Brooks in 1996. Mr Brooks was entitled to benefit under a non-contributory pension scheme set up by his company. The scheme provided for him on retirement to elect to give up part of his entitlement to fund the pension for his widow after his death and, in the event of his death, before or soon after retirement, for a lump
794
sum to be paid at the discretion of the trustees of the scheme to a class of potential beneficiaries including his spouse and children at his death.
The scheme was designed only to provide benefits for Mr Brooks and his immediate family. It was entered into at approximately the time of his marriage. The company is regarded as the settlor. The funds provided by the company were treated by the court as a settlement which made future provision for the husband and was nuptial as it incorporated benefits for the wife.
We would like to see courts retain the right to treat pensions similar to that contributed to by Mr Brooks as marriage settlements capable of variation by them. That would retain an existing power of the courts and therefore widen the range of remedies available to the court in individual cases. It is unlikely that this remedy would be used very frequently because it applies only to a small number of pensions, and pension sharing is likely to be the favourite remedy. I ask the Minister to say why the Government do not want to retain that method of dealing with pensions on divorce. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment seeks to delete the provisions of the new Schedule 3 to the Bill as inserted by Amendment No. 58 and others, which will prevent pension sharing in England and Wales by variation of a marriage settlement.
Courts have the ability to vary any part of a marriage settlement when the parties divorce. Pension sharing by variation of a marriage settlement is one way in which the courts in England and Wales have found to share a pension effectively. I am thinking in particular of the case of Brooks v. Brooks 1995, which the noble Lord quoted to illustrate his point where the husband's pension rights were varied to provide an income for his wife. It is a 1995 case which was reported in 1996, in case there is any misunderstanding.
I do not believe that it would be right to accept this amendment. The Bill is intended to produce a single system of pension sharing which is as simple and inexpensive to operate as is reasonably practicable. The system will produce certainty for the courts, for the parties whose marriage is being ended and for the pension providers who administer the division of the pension.
Preserving the expensive and uncertain remedy of pension sharing by variation of a marriage settlement would frustrate these aims. While there is a place for pensions of the type concerned in Brooks v. Brooks under the present law, they will simply be an unnecessary complication under the new law of pension sharing. Given the responses of the Committee to the previous amendments, I would have thought that simplicity had its attractions. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that reply. She has clarified thoroughly this very complicated position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 58B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, by leave, withdrawn.]
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

General Pinochet
7.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House and in my capacity as Chief Whip, I shall take this opportunity to remind the House that the case of General Pinochet is still before the courts. Committal proceedings will commence on 27th September. All speakers in the debate on the Unstarred Question are reminded to observe the guidance on sub judice set out on page 74 of your Lordships' Companion to the Standing Orders. All matters relating to the current extradition proceedings in the case of General Pinochet remain sub judice. In this tricky matter, I hope that all noble Lords speaking in the debate this evening will err on the side of caution in following the sub judice rule.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what were the circumstances and background of the arrest of General Pinochet; what was the role of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Ministers and the Diplomatic Service; and what has been the effect on Anglo-Chilean relations.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The greatest offender against the sub judice rule has been the Government, and particularly Mr Peter Mandelson who made remarks on television immediately after the arrest of General Pinochet that were clearly extremely prejudicial to justice. I should be interested to hear what rebuke was administered to him.
Of course, I shall abide by the sub judice rule and I shall say nothing about the issues in the committal proceedings which are to take place in September. However, I have been informed by Mr Davies, Clerk of the Parliaments, that I am entitled to comment on the decision of the Home Secretary to let extradition proceedings continue, as currently there is no appeal pending against that decision.
The tactics for the arrest of Senator Pinochet are redolent of the diplomatic methods of the Borgias. The 83 year-old former Chilean head of state was accepted into this country on what he believed to be a diplomatic passport, escorted through a VIP lounge paid for by the British Government, and on 16th October, at a very late hour, while still under the effects of an anaesthetic after an operation, arrested by armed police.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has denied to me in. Parliamentary Questions, that Senator Pinochet was arrested by armed policemen. I have here a sworn affidavit by a captain of the Chilean Army, who was present m the room when Senator Pinochet was arrested. He specifically observed that four of the officers were armed. It seems extraordinary that the reputation and the
796
demonisation of Senator Pinochet should be such that, even aged 83 and under the effects of anaesthetic, four armed officers were required to arrest him.
The arrest was greeted with dismay by present and former heads of states in many countries. It was condemned by Felipe Gonzales, the former Prime Minister of Spain, and by President Menem of Argentina. George Bush called the proceedings against the senator a travesty of justice, and even the Pope made representations to the Government that the senator should be returned to his own country.
Most significantly, the arrest was roundly condemned by the Government of Chile, largely consisting of opponents of General Pinochet. Former President Aylwin and the present president of Chile, President Frei, called the arrest an interference in the internal affairs of Chile and an obstacle to reconciliation.
There are many disquieting features concerning the arrest that give rise to questions of collusion between the British and Spanish authorities. Senator Pinochet was initially detained under a warrant which was subsequently shown in the High Court to be wrong in law. The senator's lawyers wrote to the Home Secretary about the warrant, but the Home Secretary did not deign to reply. In the mean time, the Crown Prosecution Service went to Spain to advise the Spanish authorities on the warrant. In passing, I note that that is a form of co-operation not practised by the Irish Government in relation to the British Government pursuing terrorists in Ireland.
On the Friday before the arrest of General Pinochet, two telephone calls were made to the Foreign Office, one from the Chilean Embassy inquiring about rumours that the general may be arrested. The Chileans were informed that the Foreign Office would contact them again on Monday. On the same day, the police contacted the Foreign Office to find out whether Senator Pinochet enjoyed diplomatic immunity. At that point, why did the Foreign Office not go back to the Chilean Embassy? Why did the British Government consider that they had a greater obligation to the Spaniards than to the Chileans, unless there was some collusion between the two countries?
The reputation of British justice and its integrity have been severely damaged by this case. A judge concealed his involvement with one of the parties to the court case. That judge has never apologised. He still hears cases. At a new hearing, made necessary by that event, a completely different verdict was given. Three British courts have given three completely different rulings. The High Court decided that Senator Pinochet enjoyed sovereign immunity; the Law Lords, at their first hearing, decided that he did not enjoy sovereign immunity; and at their last hearing, the Law Lords decided that he enjoyed partial immunity.
Many may think that the obvious confusion of the judges is an argument why the Home Secretary should have been cautious about giving authority to proceed in this case. The Government maintain that the case of Senator Pinochet is a matter for the courts only. But it is not. The courts decide whether a person can be extradited under the law. The Home Secretary decides

797
whether he should be extradited. The Home Secretary has wide discretion, as shown by his decision not to extradite an alleged IRA bomber to Germany.
On 24th March this year, the House of Lords gave a clear hint to the Home Secretary that in view of the dramatic scaling back of the charges to those after 1988 only, he ought to reconsider his authority to proceed against General Pinochet. The Home Secretary chose not to take that hint.
Justice has to be related to a time and a place. The senator's case can properly be considered only by Chileans in Chile. The decision of the Home Secretary is an affront to the sovereignty of Chile, a country with its own system of courts and its own democracy.
Twenty-eight years ago Chile was in a situation of near civil war. Terrible things were done on both sides—no one denies that—but the Chileans themselves subsequently decided to deal with that in their own way, as we have decided to deal with our problems in Ulster in our own way. Like us, they had a peace process and an amnesty; they had a reconciliation commission that was a model for South Africa and a number of people were given prison sentences.
The torture convention was never intended to be used in the way now permitted. No one suggested in 1988 that it modified sovereign immunity. It was never intended that someone should be extradited from country A to country B to be charged with offences in his own country, country C, against his own nationals. An important feature of this case is that none of the charges currently against General Pinochet involves citizens of this country or of Spain.
When my noble friend Lord Patten introduced the convention to the House, he made it clear that it was not intended to operate retrospectively. It has taken three court hearings to re-establish that point. He also said that the purpose of our accession to the convention was not to instigate a retrospective witch hunt against those alleged to have committed torture in the past. But that is exactly what has happened in this case.
This case illustrates some of the drawbacks in extradition proceedings. At no time has the senator been allowed to challenge in a British court the substance of the charges brought against him. They are taken at face value, even though former President Aylwin and former British ambassadors to Chile have said that there was no policy of torture in Chile after 1988. It is worth noting that Amnesty International alleges further cases of torture under both Presidents Aylwin and Frei, both of whom would now be well advised to reconsider their foreign travel plans.
The British are not in a strong position to lecture other countries on how to deal with torture. This Government have let out of jail over 270 terrorists, many of whom are murderers, maimers, torturers, bombers and killers of children. The Government have done that in the name of peace and reconciliation, as the Chileans have made decisions for their country in the name of peace and reconciliation.
When I drew the attention of the noble Lord to parallels between Northern Ireland and Chile, he replied that Ulster is unique. Chile is also unique. That is why it can be judged only by Chileans. On 24th March 1999, Lord Browne-Wilkinson said:
"It may well be thought that the trial of Senator Pinochet in Spain for offences all of which related to the state of Chile and most of which occurred in Chile is not calculated to achieve the best justice".
As I understand it, he was saying that he had to interpret the law, but he was admitting that there may be a conflict between law and justice. If there is a conflict between law and justice, surely that is for the Home Secretary to resolve.
Even the statute of the proposed international criminal court, which does not exist, acknowledges the right of home countries to conduct their own trials on their own territory. As a matter of principle, to let courts in one country put the government of another on trial, is tantamount to an assertion by the first country that the second is subject to its authority. If international law requires the trial of General Pinochet in an outside country, then it must require trials of butchers from many other places.
But Chile is a small country with no great leverage or influence on Britain; and Britain does not care. No one expects Britain or Spain to hold a top Chinese leader for massacres in Tibet; or to hold former Russian officials for extradition to Latvia. The decision of the Home Secretary was selective, hypocritical, arrogant and an unjustified interference in the affairs of a friendly country. The action should never have been allowed to start and I hope that at some stage in the future—he will have other opportunities—the Home Secretary will take steps to free a man who is a political prisoner in this country.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that was an extraordinarily ill-advised speech. It ignored the warning that the Chief Whip properly gave at the beginning of this debate, and a noble Lord of the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, ought to have known better.
The fact is that the noble Lord brought into question the issues that underlie this matter which will be properly dealt with by the courts. The defenders of General Pinochet have decided to come to this House tonight en masse. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say without, I hope, breaching that important warning.
This is a juridical matter of the greatest importance. It is a matter which is seminal in terms of international humanitarian law which has evolved. It is an important consideration which the courts have to address and it is improper for this House to venture an opinion as to the rights and wrongs of the proceedings at this stage. I am a lawyer. It is vital in a democracy that we respect those tenets of law that have been so flagrantly violated by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in his speech tonight.
It was inevitable that the noble Lord would have to do that. I should like to enter into a debate as to what happened in Chile in 1973. I was there shortly before on a parliamentary visit. I saw some of the events that

799
were emerging at the time which gave us great concern. But I do not propose to do that. Nor do I propose to go into what happened in November 1973.
The noble Lord—inferentially perhaps—excused what happened at that time. I do not believe it to be excusable. It was not simply that General Pinochet took power. Many people assisted him in that direction. There were no political prisoners at the time of President Allende. It was not an efficient government; I concede that. But it was not a government who flagrantly denied the very essence of democracy, which I thought the noble Lord would himself have sought to uphold.
It is important, as we face the few days ahead when the courts will adjudicate on a matter of great importance, that we do not imperil those proceedings by making statements which are injudicious—as was the noble Lord's speech. I hope that the Government of Chile will understand the due process of law in this country and that the decision of the courts will be respected. Ultimately, if the court decides, as the noble Lord said, that there is a case which merits the consideration of extradition, the matter will have to be dealt by the Home Secretary. I do not envy him that position, but I am sure he will cope with it.
However, I do not believe that it is right to seek to intimidate the Home Secretary—nor will he be intimidated—by the sort of ill-advised speech we have just heard. I am surprised that a politician of the experience of the noble Lord should indulge in a speech of that kind. I hope, that some of his supporters will not express similar views tonight. I should have liked to have said much more, but I am confined by the four-minute limit, which I will respect:. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and he ought not to have tabled this Motion.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lamont has done the House a service by initiating this short debate on a matter of great importance to Britain's reputation, to Chile's stability and to the orderly conduct of international relations. I shall try to deal with each of those matters while seeking to avoid remarks about the case itself.
Britain's reputation should be of vital importance to the government of the day. Our reputation sustains our interests. The Pinochet case has sullied that reputation. Senator Pinochet came here last September as a long-standing friend of Britain. Though I shall not go into the details, I can say that without President Pinochet's considerable practical help in 1982, many more of our servicemen would have lost their lives in the South Atlantic. The country thus owes him a great debt.
After leaving power he was accordingly received here as an honoured guest on a number of occasions. Similarly, on 22nd September last year, when he entered Britain on a diplomatic passport charged with a special mission by the current Chilean President, he was accorded all the privileges of an ambassador, including
800
the protection of the Metropolitan Police Diplomatic Protection Squad.
However, some weeks later the general was arrested in hospital at dead of night, when under heavy sedation following a serious back operation. There is a widespread suspicion that there had been collusion between the British and Spanish authorities prior to the arrest, when the Chileans were not given the warning they might have expected about the imminent risk. That inhumane arrest was in any case made on the basis of an unlawful warrant. Senator Pinochet was then held for six days illegally under that warrant. Those circumstances left Britain's reputation for loyalty and fair dealing in tatters.
Secondly, I want to speak about the situation in Chile—this country's oldest and truest friend in Latin America. The great majority of Chileans, even the political opponents of Senator Pinochet, feel wounded at the way we and the Spanish have treated them. They are right to do so. Until the Senator's arrest last October, Chile had achieved three remarkable successes, all of them in large measure due to former President Pinochet.
First, it had seen the total defeat of communism at a time when that ideology was advancing throughout the hemisphere. As Eduardo Frei, the former Christian Democrat president of Chile put it: "The military saved Chile". Secondly, Chile has seen the establishment of a thriving, free-enterprise economy which has transformed living standards and made Chile into a model for Latin America. Thirdly, Chile is also remarkable because President Pinochet established a constitution for a return to democracy, held a plebiscite to decide whether or not he should remain in power, lost the vote (though gaining 44 per cent support), respected the result and handed over power to a democratically-elected successor.
Chile thus enjoyed prosperity, democracy and reconciliation—until we and the Spanish arrogantly chose to interfere in her affairs. So far, the Chileans have behaved with great restraint. But we should not assume that this will continue, particularly if Senator Pinochet, who is not now in the best of health, were to die in Britain or is taken to Spain. Anything that happens then will be the direct responsibility of this Government and, in particular, of the Home Secretary.
My final point concerns the implications of the Pinochet case for the conduct of international relations, which are essentially based on trust between nation states. This trust has now been shattered by the prospect of the courts in one country seeking the extradition of former heads of government from a second country for offences allegedly committed in a third country.
Senator Pinochet is, of course, being victimised because the organised international Left are bent on revenge. But on his fate depends much else besides. Henceforth, all former heads of government are potentially at risk; those still in government will be

801
inhibited from taking the right action in a crisis, because they may later appear before a foreign court to answer for it—
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to give way.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, I am nearly at the end of my speech.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should just like to remind the noble Baroness that this is a timed debate and the limit for each speaker is four minutes. The noble Baroness is now in her seventh minute. I wonder whether she could now bring her remarks to a close.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, I am very close to the end and I very rarely take up the time of this House. It will now take me longer because the noble Lord interrupted me in the middle of a sentence.
Henceforth, all former heads of government are potentially at risk; those still in government will be inhibited from taking the right action in a crisis, because they may later appear before a foreign court to answer for it and—this is where I was when I was interrupted—in a final ironic twist, those who do wield absolute power in their countries are highly unlikely now to relinquish it for fear of ending their days in a Spanish prison. This is a Pandora's box which has been opened—and unless Senator Pinochet returns safely to Chile, there will be no hope of closing it.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lamont for giving us this opportunity to discuss the matter and to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving me the opportunity of making one point clear. Yes, there are questions of law involved in this case which were considered by this House previously and which will be considered by the magistrates' court in due course. There are also questions of policy and discretion, which are solely for consideration by the Home Secretary. Everything that my noble friend said is entirely relevant to that process.
The most important feature about the case was stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, when he said that it was of considerable general importance as this is "the first time" ever in the world, as far as one can see, that a national court,
"has refused immunity to a former head of state on the grounds … that [there can be] no immunity against prosecution for certain international crimes".
It is the "first time" because international law is changing very rapidly. But the fact that it is the first time for this kind of question to arise underlines the huge importance of the Home Secretary applying himself to his questions with far more responsibility and objectivity that he has done. He has already considered the matter once when allowing the case to go ahead to the magistrates' court, and he will have another opportunity of doing so when the latter has reached its decision. All these factors are still relevant.
802
I recollect that I had the privilege of going to Chile in March 1990 as the representative of Her Majesty's Government, to attend and welcome the inauguration of the democratically-elected President Aylwin in place of President Pinochet. It was a profoundly moving experience; indeed, a profoundly democratic experience. The people were rejoicing at the restoration of democracy. By chance, I had the opportunity to be in Chile last March on the very day when General Pinochet became Senator Pinochet—the next stage in the transition process of peace and reconciliation.
Of course, one has to recognise the legitimacy of extending international law, but, against that, one has to set the hazards and dangers of trying to intervene in the process of reconciliation in a country as finely balanced as Chile has been. It is that which the Home Secretary has failed to do and it is something that he needs to do properly. There is an additional reason for him to do it properly; namely, the observations of the Law Lords in this House about the huge transformation of the case since it first appeared before the Home Secretary for his consideration.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said that there had been a,
"substantial reduction in the number of extraditable charges"—
specifically, from 30 to three. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, said that the "great mass" had been excluded and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said that there had been a,
"profound change in the scope of the case".
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Millett, said that the decision now transformed the case which the Secretary of State had to consider.
It is my argument, and the argument of all of us who have intervened from this side of the House so far, that the Home Secretary has failed to take proper account of those matters and that he should now find an opportunity of doing so. If he fails to do that, this country will be putting at risk the progress already made in Chile.
The last of these alleged offences took place more than 10 years ago. The warrants under the Extradition Act were first issued on 16th October of last year. The Divisional Court heard the habeas corpus application 10 days later and, within six weeks, the House of Lords had also heard the case. So the case was proceeding with the expedition that was appropriate. Since then, because of the judicial hazards, months have passed and the case, having been last heard by the House of Lords on 24th March, still has months to go before it reaches the magistrates' court at the end of September. All that time it casts a shadow over relations between three friendly countries which are struggling to maintain good relationships.
More important still, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher pointed out, an 83 year-old former head of state, whose health cannot be getting any better, is entering the ninth month of house arrest in this country. One cannot fail to contemplate the parallel with the case of Rudolf Hess. I hesitate to contemplate the consequences. If the senator should die in our custody, someone whom others seek to present as a monster will

803
become a martyr. So why is the delay taking place? Who is responsible? What are Her Majesty's Government doing? Even if they are not themselves in control—I understand that—what are they doing to persuade others who do have an even closer interest in a speedy outcome? I have in mind the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the Spanish Government, the lawyers representing Senator Pinochet himself and the Government of Chile. Decisions will have different consequences for all these people but none of them has any interest in delay, least of all this country in any further delay in these proceedings. So, what have Her Majesty's Government done? What are they doing in the context of the other parties to this case to expedite an early resolution of this desperate saga? Prolongation can do nothing but harm to everyone concerned.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when I put my name down to speak last Thursday, I could not have imagined that I would find myself in such distinguished company. I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I should like to commend him on the assiduous way in which he has been pursuing the matter these past months by means of a stream of questions for written answer.
Although I have some first-hand knowledge of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean, I have never visited South America proper, and am as far from being an expert on that particular continent as can be imagined. I intervene only because, as an Englishman, I have been ashamed at this country's treatment of someone who, whatever may have happened elsewhere in years gone by, was a much-needed friend and ally of ours in 1982, and someone who had on numerous previous occasions been welcomed in this country, not only by the previous administration but also by the present administration. Not even the moss ruthless Bedouin chieftain would invite an honoured guest into his tent and then seize and shackle him.
In contrast, the French refused the general a visa, as any self-governing country is perfectly entitled to do for any reason that they choose. Although this refusal by the French demonstrated a degree of double standards in that France has often tolerated and even welcomed heads of state, or former heads of state, who make General Pinochet look like a boy scout, at least the French position is vastly more honourable than the current British one. All the more so in the light of the massive covert help given by General Pinochet to Britain during the fight to liberate the Falkland Islands, without which there could have been hundreds more British casualties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, has just pointed out. Indeed, much of the task force might have been sent to the bottom of the South Atlantic, the islanders might still be enslaved, and General Galtieri might still be reigning in Buenos Aires.
The Government are claiming, in justification of their refusal to send General Pinochet back to Chile, that the executive cannot and must not interfere with the judicial process. Why in that case are the British Government,
804
in conjunction with EU governments, urging the Turkish Government to overrule the Turkish judiciary in the matter of Mr Öcalan?
Finally, the Question asks about the effect of this policy on Anglo-Chilean relations. We know that relations are already damaged, not least because of the unhappy cancellation of the vital air link between Chile and the Falklands—and the damage is likely to get worse. This is not primarily because of General Pinochet himself, towards whom public attitudes in Chile vary enormously, but because it appears to the Chileans that Britain is siding with the former colonial power in what seems like that power's attempt to reimpose a degree of colonial control over Chile.
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think that it has become clear during the course of this debate so far that the Government stand accused of lack of wisdom, inconsistency and perhaps above all the desire to make obeisance to the political gods which they worshipped at university in the 1960s.
We have seen great changes in many countries in the past decade or so, as my noble friend Lord Lamont has pointed out: in South Africa, in the former countries of the Soviet empire, and indeed in Chile. We ourselves of course are trying to bring conflict to an end in the Province of Northern Ireland.
Perhaps a feature of the more successful of those transitions—particularly in South Africa and in Chile, and, indeed, we hope in Northern Ireland—has been the effort to reconcile two previously warring sides: white and black in South Africa; Nationalist and Unionist in Northern Ireland; and the forces of liberal democracy and former Communists in Chile.
In order to build a new future, the countries concerned have suggested that it is better to look for reconciliation rather than revenge. That has been their choice. When they have occasionally looked for revenge, that has been their choice too. As a number of my noble friends have pointed out this evening, Chile is now a successful example of the wisdom of attempts at reconciliation rather than revenge. It is a judgment that a sovereign state has made for itself.
I have to ask, along with my noble friends, therefore: by what right do we interfere in that settlement and risk reviving the very divisions which are now being healed in a country learning to build for the future, and to build successfully? Even if we did not owe Chile a debt of gratitude—which indeed we do—even if we did not want to imperil our trade, do we really think it wise in the name of humanity for the Home Secretary to fail to exercise his discretion—because of his former views for which he campaigned so stridently in the 60s—to second-guess Chile's own decision to reconcile and look to the future?
8.4 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I am full of admiration for my noble friend Lord Lamont in his persistence in inquiring into this deplorable affair. I agree with every word he said and every word which

805
my noble friend Lady Thatcher said. I shall try not to repeat what has been said because I had better make up a bit of time. Many obstacles have been put in the path of my noble friend—mostly legal—but he has rightly persevered. After all this time we have a right to know how this matter of the arrest and detention of Senator Pinochet came about. Without a doubt it has been to the detriment of our relations with Chile and also with practically the whole of Latin America.
Perhaps I might be allowed to begin with a quotation from holy scripture, the Gospel of St. Matthew, the words of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount,
"Judge not that ye be not judged for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged and with what measure ye meet, it shall be measured to you again".
We should not set ourselves up to judge other nations, especially after we and our allies have recently been responsible for a ferocious bombing campaign in Europe where hospitals, bridges and people have been destroyed, livelihoods wrecked and cluster bombs and depleted uranium bombs and missiles exploded in the heart of Europe. We know that there are given reasons for this and now is not the time to go into them. But what I ask is, how can we judge General Pinochet after what we have done? He had his reasons too. I do not intend to go into them except to say that they are at least as good as the reasons that our Government and media gave for the bombing of Yugoslavia.
One would expect Amnesty International to be in favour of amnesties, yet it is evidently not in this case. It is the guardian angel growing horns and devil's hooves. In this country we have given amnesty to a large number of IRA murderers and yet we appear to deny the right of the elected government of Chile to grant an amnesty to an ailing 84 year-old ex-president. While I am on this subject, why is it that the criminal executioners and torturers of the IRA are not indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal? We are searching Yugoslavia and indeed the whole world for war criminals and yet we need look no further than in our own country.
I must ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to stand by while this case goes on, like Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Our law really has not improved much since Dickens' day. Do they not foresee what will happen and what may be said if Senator Pincochet, who is an old man, dies in custody in this country? It is a dreadful prospect and I ask them seriously to consider it because unless they do something it is likely to happen. For those of us who love this country and its great traditions the shame of it will be hard to bear.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, a head of state is criminally responsible for acts of torture committed by his subordinates if it is proved that he knowingly presided over a regime of institutionalised torture conducted by them. This long settled rule of international law is incorporated in a number of international conventions and most recently, in 1998, in
806
Article 28 of the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court, to which of course this country was a consenting party.
This is the background to the arrest of General Pinochet. His criminal responsibility, if any, is a matter for a court with the appropriate jurisdiction to determine. Two weeks ago the Chilean College of Medicine reported that at least 200,000 people had been tortured by government forces during the 17-year rule of General Pinochet. But the question is, did General Pinochet have any inkling that this degree of torture was going on under his rule?
Among the 5,000 documents that were released last Thursday, 1st July, by the United States Government, there is the following CIA report 10 days after the coup, on September 21st 1973—the period referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. This is of course 15 years before the matters into which the magistrate is inquiring, and therefore is not sub judice. The report said that at that time—10 days after the coup—
"The prevailing mood among the Chilean military is to use the current opportunity to stamp out all vestiges of Communism in Chile for good. Severe repression is planned. The military is rounding up large numbers of people, including students and leftists of all descriptions, and interning them. 300 students were killed in the technical university when they refused to surrender in Santiago, the capital.
This Government have simply responded to an extradition request from Spain, which is, like Britain, a party to the European Extradition Convention. If proper information is provided under that convention it is the duty of this country in international law either to extradite General Pinochet—or to put the necessary procedures in operation—or to prosecute him.
I have some experience of extradition procedures from a case which lasted some seven years through the English courts before my client was extradited. It so happens that the leaders of General Pinochet's legal team acted for the territory then requesting extradition in that case. There is nothing they will not have learned about the tenacious use of extradition procedures which will certainly ensure that General Pinochet remains comfortably in his Wentworth home this time next year and beyond.
But what about prosecution? If the proper machinery is put in motion in this country, there is no bar whatever to General Pinochet being prosecuted at the Old Bailey or anywhere else for conspiracy to torture under Section 134(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for offences committed after 29th September of that year. Whether General Pinochet be guilty or innocent, justice would be immensely swifter, as many noble Lords have asked, and certainly less expensive. The same witnesses who will now occupy months before the extraditing magistrate would give exactly the same evidence in the same period of time but before a British jury. Extradition requests have been received from not only Spain but France, Switzerland and Belgium. The English courts have the same jurisdiction as any of those countries.
There is much to be said for removing the fate of General Pinochet from the delays of extradition hearings, with the inevitable procedural appeals, from

807
the unfettered and sole discretion of the Home Secretary, which has been so much criticised, and ultimately from the Spanish judge or judges who may, in some far off time, get round to trying him. His supporters in this country should welcome putting the question of his guilt or innocence into the hands of the ordinary citizens of this country within a reasonable framework of time. The fairness of a British jury and its complete independence of political motivation, particularly where no British citizen is involved, as here, is surely a matter that is not in question. This is a job for the Crown Prosecution Service and not for Mr Straw.
As for Anglo-Chilean relations, do the people of Chile really want him back? It is my belief that the return of the General will exacerbate the domestic problems of Chile. Noble Lords will recall how the present Commander-in-Chief, General Ricardo Izurieta, travelled to London without informing the democratically elected President, Eduardo Frei, to affirm to anyone who would listen that General Pinochet is not guilty of any charges of torture or other crimes against humanity, a position which was contrary to the civilian government. They were arguing that no trial should take place in Chile. I believe that the courts of democratic and free countries should decide the General's fate.
8.12 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that if there is a case to answer, it should be answered in Chile. General Pinochet has always been the bogey man of the British Left since the early 1970s. The Left has always seen Allende as a socialist hero and has never forgiven the man who toppled him. It chooses to forget that at that time Chile was in chaos and facing social and economic collapse—anarchy. It was against that background that General Pinochet came to power and, in effect, a civil war ensued. I do not intend to say any more about those years, except to say that, as we have seen recently, civil wars are nasty, brutal affairs where innocent civilians are caught in the middle.
General Pinochet returned the country to multi-party democracy in 1988; a stronger country, where the rule of law prevails and economic prosperity flourishes. Democracy can be a fragile institution. Many countries in South America do not have democratic government. Argentina now has democracy because the generals fell; and the reason the generals fell was because my noble friend Lady Thatcher stood up to them when they invaded the Falkland Islands. My noble friend's prompt action defeated the junta; and then its own countrymen threw it out. That influenced regimes all over that continent; the democratic process was restarted and snowballed faster than ever before.
What are the views of the Chilean people and what messages are the Government by their action sending to that continent? I say the wrong ones. The Chilean Government, the political parties, the armed forces, even the trade unions are united in agreement that if there is a case to be answered, it should be answered in Chile. They regard the arrest and the treatment of this case by the Government as an attack against Chilean sovereignty, an attack on Chilean law and an attack on
808
the Chilean democratic government. The Chilean Government, among whom are those who were part of the Allende regime, have taken the stance that they request the return of General Pinochet to Chile. In his address to the Chilean Congress on 21st May, President Frei said that this was the objective not only of his government but of the nation. Only the Marxist Party disagreed.
When General Pinochet arrived in this country, he was treated as a welcome guest. When he leaves these shores, it should be to go home. What signals are the Government sending if they do otherwise? The signals are that any politician—or perhaps a member of an armed force—visiting these shores can be subjected to politically motivated proceedings instigated from a third country. What ruler in any of our former colonies will have the incentive to return his country to democracy?
If we were examining this issue with regard to extradition to the international criminal court, it would be a different matter; but we are not. If we were considering this issue for extradition back to the home country, it would be a different matter; but we are not. I repeat, if there is a case to answer, it should be answered in Chile. The Home Secretary will have discretion at various stages during this case. I hope that he will not be trapped by the mantra of old Labour.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, asks what were the circumstances and background of the arrest; what was the role of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Ministers and the Diplomatic Service; and what has been the effect on Anglo-Chilean relations.
Many of the assertions that have been made—I regret to say that many of them were unworthy and ignoble—have little relevance that I could detect to the Question tabled by the noble Lord. A very significant number of wrong assertions—I put it neutrally—have been made.
Senator Pinochet was not provided with any protection from the Metropolitan Police until after his arrest. It is asserted that the first warrant was illegal; in fact, the Divisional Court specifically said that the Home Secretary was not wrong in not exercising his discretion to cancel the first warrant; that was the rule of the courts; not the executive. The noble Viscount said that it was for Chile to try Senator Pinochet. As far as I am aware, we have had no extradition request from Chile.
It is asserted without any basis at all—I utterly repudiate it—that the Home Secretary was motivated as a result of an organised international Left conspiracy bent on revenge. That is unworthy; it is wholly untrue. It will be, of course, disagreeable for me to point out that we are bound by international obligations. The extradition request to which we responded was confirmed by the Spanish Government, who, far from being part of the international Left conspiracy, are a centre-right coalition government.
It is said that Pinochet is a political prisoner in this country. That is utterly and completely wrong. It does no one any good to make that sort of assertion which,

809
I am sorry to say, is wholly unrelated to the facts or the legal machinery. It was said—utterly wrongly and again without any basis of evidence—that the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has been motivated "by the political gods of his youth in the 1960s". That is wholly untrue. When I was a student at that time—as were others in the Chamber at the moment—we did have secular gods. Because we were law students, one of them was that the rule of law is important and is not simply, I take the phrase, "dependent simply on time and place". To use another phrase, it is not "something of a conscience to be cut according to this year's fashion".
Senator Pinochet landed at Heathrow on 22nd September for a private visit. He is a Chilean citizen; no visa was required. He was granted leave to enter. He made use with his party on arrival of the VIP suite at Heathrow, which is routinely—I repeat, routinely—made available as a courtesy to former heads of state. On 14th October, the Fifth Central Magistrates' Court in Madrid contacted the Metropolitan Police via Interpol with a request to interview Senator Pinochet. On 15th October, Foreign and Commonwealth officials were informed by the Chilean Embassy that consideration was being given to his leaving on 20th October. On 16th October, the FCO was informed by the Chilean Embassy that a seat on a flight to Santiago had been secured for him. That information was passed to no one outside the United Kingdom Government—I repeat, no one.
When arrested—and I have had this checked and rechecked on a number of occasions in deference to the persistence which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has shown in asking his many questions—Senator Pinochet was not arrested by armed officers of the Metropolitan Police. When I receive that information from the Metropolitan Police, I, for one, accept and believe it.
The police telephoned FCO officials for advice as to whether Senator Pinochet enjoyed diplomatic immunity from arrest. They were informed that there were no grounds on the basis of diplomatic immunity for not proceeding with a provisional arrest warrant. It is well known that the possession of a diplomatic passport is not proof in itself of immunity.
I turn now to the legal structures. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, complained quite bitterly about, and criticised, the mechanisms of extradition in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, criticised what had gone on; so did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. The present basis of extradition in this country is entirely the Extradition Act 1989. That was passed when the noble Baroness was Prime Minister; when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was Foreign Secretary and then Deputy Prime Minister; and when the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was Financial Secretary and then Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I make those points not in any partisan or personal way, but simply to demonstrate to the many who will attend to these debates outside this Chamber and across the world that this has nothing to do with legal devices introduced by the present Government. The Home Secretary has behaved properly in a quasi-judicial way, without fear
810
or favour of criticism from Left or Right, without any political contact with his colleagues in government. I know that to be true.
It is therefore important that our friends and colleagues in South America should understand that this legislation was not brought in to be "Senator Pinochet-specific". It was introduced by the former government, of whom the noble Baroness was then the Prime Minister. These are important matters. We do our own country no service at all with extravagant language, misinformation and assertions which are simply not based on any factual evidence.
A comparison of sorts was made between Senator Pinochet's case and the case of Hess, deputy Führer to Hitler, found guilty of playing a significant part in the orchestration of the holocaust. I wonder where proportion is when we discuss these matters.
I am not qualified to observe on the charges against Senator Pinochet. I have not studied the evidence. The charges are serious. They are of torture and conspiracy to torture. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out to the House. Some of his remarks were plainly not palatable to many of your Lordships. These are serious charges. Our reputation was described as "shattered". I refute that utterly. What our country's reputation internationally depends upon—and in my opinion is properly founded on; that is, if one's view is based on history rather than the convenience of the moment—is respect and reverence for the rule of law. It has not been possible, despite every effort that has been made by way of legal challenge, inquiry and inquisition, to demonstrate at all that any step has been taken that was not utterly lawful and entirely consistent with our international obligations and the regime set down under the Extradition Act 1989.
A challenge was made to your Lordships' House. The House initially came to the conclusion that many of the offences alleged against Senator Pinochet were extraditable, therefore justiciable, in Spain. Following that—the criticism of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, in the terms in which it was made was entirely inappropriate and unworthy—the House of Lords then ruled again. It is simply not true to say that the House of Lords sitting judicially required Jack Straw to reconsider and that he failed to do so; quite the opposite is the truth. He was invited, not "required", to reconsider, and he spent a certain amount of time reconsidering, as is perfectly well known to the lawyers representing Senator Pinochet.
In my opinion, the police in this country behaved properly. They discharged their duty in the way that they ought. They did not instigate proceedings. They are in fact the proper servants of the public good, which is the true administration of the law without fear or favour according to what the law requires.
The CPS has been criticised, although not this evening; perhaps it has been overlooked. It is, and has to be, agent for the Government of Spain pursuant to Section 3(2)(g) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. That is what the CPS has been doing.

811
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, asked me what was happening and what had been going on between those in Chile and those in this country. On a number of occasions, senators and Ministers from Chile have come to see me. I promised faithfully, and discharged that duty, to transmit whatever they told me to officials. On 28th October last year, Chilean senators from all sides of the political spectrum came to see me. We had a lengthy, courteous and patient discussion. There was no hysteria in any of their representations. I refer to Senators Matthei, Cariola, Cordeio and Morales. On 10th November last year, I saw the Chilean Ambassador and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mariano Fernandez and Mario Artaza. On 31st March, again at the request of our colleagues in Chile, I saw Chilean Senator Mario Cariola; and I saw again the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mariano Fernandez, with Mario Artaza and Herman Guerrero. They were perfectly content, courteous and patient in listening to what I said, which I believed to be well founded.
The Chileans, for reasons that I recognise and honour, wish their own country to have absolute sovereignty in these matters. That is a view which, I repeat, I respect, as I have always demonstrated to them. There is an alternative claim. It is the claim of obligation under international law, and it is the claim that domestic governments here are subject to the will of Parliament, which was expressed in the 1989 Act as recently as the last but: one government.
There is no conspiracy to hound Senator Pinochet here. What will do lasting, avoidable harm to our relationships with our friends and colleagues in South America is the sort of ill judged, disproportionate, hysterical language that we have heard tonight. President Frei has been quoted on one or two occasions. Perhaps I may offer another recent quotation from him: It is not the responsibility of the executive branch of government to participate in any action that does not respect the courts. That is what we have been saying, as patiently as we can, for the past eight months.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.28 to 8.30 p.m.]

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 3.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, Amendment No. 58C:
Line 35, leave out from ("marriage") to second ("the") in line 36
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 58C covers one of the Opposition's main concerns about the Government's proposals. They have made much of their claim that pension sharing would be a one-off, clean break between two parties in a divorce. However, as they stand, the Government's proposals leave it open for there to be a subsequent application after the initial
812
divorce order is made. We believe that it is utterly inappropriate for a party with a pension that may be subject to a sharing order to be unclear at the time of divorce whether a subsequent order may be made against them.
The amendment is designed to ensure that there is only one opportunity for a pension-sharing order to be made. We have based this on the principle that it cannot be right for there to be an opportunity for a retrospective application after a divorce settlement. The principle of equity is fundamental, it is alleged, to the Government's proposals. We do not, therefore, believe that it is equitable for there to be the possibility of sharing to take place, except in response to an application being made before the divorce order.
In the other place at Committee stage, the Under-Secretary of State said that this amendment was too prescriptive in that it set a time-frame in which it might not be possible for a party to initiate a pension sharing order. The specific instances he cited were serious illness or domestic violence. Perhaps a way of preserving our principle of opposing retrospective applications could be addressed by instituting a time limit after which retrospective applications may not be made.
I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could indicate whether she shares our fundamental concern here and what moves the Government may take to allay it in a practical context. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As we have heard, the amendment seeks to change those provisions in the Bill which specify when a court in England and Wales can make a pension sharing order.
Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, decisions about financial arrangements are often—indeed, I was assured in the majority of cases—not reached until after divorce. A pension is just one of the assets which are to be dealt with on divorce and it is therefore necessary to enable pension sharing orders to be made to the same timetable.
The new Section 24B of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is entirely consistent with the existing provisions of that Act, relating to when the court may make other types of ancillary relief orders.
Under the 1973 Act, a divorcing couple are not required to settle their financial arrangements before they get divorced. It is fairly common for those arrangements to be settled after divorce. I do not believe that it would be right to remove the additional flexibility that pension sharing will bring in a large number of cases. For example, it would require that financial arrangements, which would otherwise not have been dealt with until after the divorce had been completed, would have to be completed before the divorce in order to meet the qualifications of only one part of the assets—the pension. I hope that on the basis that all we are doing is protecting the existing situation under the Matrimonial Causes Act and the flexibility that people have, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I understand the point she makes about

813
flexibility and we will carefully study in Hansard what she said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 58C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, Amendment No. 58D:
Line 44, after ("a") insert ("previous")
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 58D to 58H. This is an area where the Opposition has serious reservations about the Government's proposals. The principle of our amendments is straightforward. It allows the sharing of a pension asset on only one occasion for the scheme participant. The purpose is to ensure that, in an age where, sadly, divorce is becoming ever more prevalent, there will not be the possibility of a further sharing of the asset when an individual remarries after the pension sharing order has been made.
In the other place at Committee stage the Government accepted the principle that if a pension was reduced by earmarking, it should not be subject to subsequent splits. The possibility of discrimination between the first and any subsequent spouses was accepted.
If an asset is split repeatedly on divorce, there is the real danger that an individual may be left with a pension that is utterly inadequate for their retirement. Indeed, given the Government's miserly proposed changes to the topping up of the scheme participant's pension after sharing, this is another serious blow to the institution of marriage.
The Government have stated that they do not believe that pension sharing will impact a couple's decision to marry. However, Malcolm Wicks, Labour Member for Croydon North in the other place and a member of the Social Security Select Committee, said that pension splitting could financially disadvantage men who had already divorced once and then started a new relationship. He said:
"The fear of having to share their already diminished pension rights with another woman, should a second marriage end in divorce, may make them feel it is not worth marrying again. A man who has had half his pension fund taken away at divorce and who is living with another woman may find she wants to marry him but his accountant may advise him against it".
The matter of apportionment of a pension will clearly be for the courts to decide. It tends normally to be the case, though, that jurisprudence evolves through repeated practice. The courts may well determine that, if a pension sharing order is appropriate in principle, the amount apportioned for a scheme participant should be the same in each case of divorce. Therefore, in the case of a subsequent marriage and divorce this could be overwhelmingly detrimental to a person's retirement planning, and particularly unfair where the individual may not be the cause of the divorce.
We are concerned with the diminution of the pension asset which, if repeatedly reduced, would mean some individuals losing all incentive to save for their retirement. Repeated pension sharing orders might
814
render the asset almost worthless. The strength of our amendment is that not only does it address this problem but it is also transparent. A second or third spouse would know that the asset had been previously shared prior to the marriage. This is the only sensible course to pursue if the Government are serious about equitable treatment of scheme participants in an age of ever-increasing divorce rates.
The Opposition appreciate that this is a complex and emotive subject. Pensions were never designed to be split. But we are concerned that the supposed principle of equity under which pension sharing is being introduced is seriously compromised by the possibility of multiple sharing of a single pension asset. It is with that serious reservation in mind that I look forward to some reassurance from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Certainly, I understand the idea behind the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, which addresses a problem. However, in principle I find it difficult to support the amendment as it stands because it produces a number of anomalies. Let us say that a young man has started his pension at 25, marries and is divorced by the age of 30. For the rest of his life any increase in that pension will be completely immunised against a claim by a second wife who may have been married to him for a quarter of a century. There is an anomaly as between the person who continues with the same pension and someone who moves jobs and starts another good occupational pension scheme with a new employer. That will not be immunised, whereas the old one will be.
I believe that the right way to deal with this undoubted problem is through the courts. I hope that one of the factors that the courts will take into account when deciding how to split a pension is how much of it was earned while the couple were married or living together. Therefore, if there was a second relatively brief and unsuccessful marriage the wife would not normally expect to get away with a significant proportion of the pension fund built up before the marriage began. But it seems to me that this obvious problem should be dealt with through the discretion of the courts rather than by writing this provision on to the face of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I take the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in two senses. First, I agree with my noble friend that the word "previous" is important in this context. It means that the pension at the time of divorce will be stopped and halved, or whatever fraction is appropriate, and those proportions will continue. Therefore, it does not matter whether either party takes out a subsequent pension. In this amendment the word "previous" refers to the particular pension and the state of its accumulation at the time of divorce.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the role of the judge. This is related to my earlier remarks in relation to new Section 40A(4). The judge dictates how the assets should be broken up; it is he who is in a position to ameliorate the situation and is aware of all the assets of the two parties. Therefore, he can

815
ameliorate the situation by agreement, not by the arbitrary system as proposed in the schedule. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Astor and urge the Minister to use new Section 40A(4) and allow the judge to make the disposition in this matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Goodharl, had fully answered all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and that I did not need to reply. I believe that he did it splendidly. As for the observations of the noble Earl, it seems to me that the substance of his remarks, which is to leave it the courts to decide the matter, is against the push of his noble friend's amendment. I was not quite sure from where he was coming in those circumstances.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: In this context I speak for myself and am not privy to all of the wishes of the party that I support in this matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not surprised by the independence of mind of the noble Earl—the Committee is aware of that—but the fact that the push of his argument appears to be in a rather different direction from the conclusion of his speech. I was puzzled by the fact that all of the noble Earl's arguments appeared to be against the case put by his noble friend but he ended up supporting him.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, relates to the combinations in which earmarking and pension sharing orders may co-exist in relation to a pension arrangement or shareable state scheme rights. Amendment No. 58H seeks to restrict the powers of the courts in England and Wales to make pension-sharing orders. It attempts to prevent a pension-sharing order being made in relation to a pension arrangement which has already been the subject of a similar order, i.e. a second bite. The Bill already prevents a former spouse benefiting from a pension share in relation to a particular pension arrangement and then returning to court to seek a second pension share in respect of that arrangement. This amendment seems to be intended to prevent pension sharing by order by second or subsequent former spouses.
I have two main problems with the amendment. First, it would make it more difficult for the court to help the couple achieve a clean break. The second former spouse would still be able to seek an earmarking order and gain access to the member's spouse's pension through that route. The member spouse could be in the strange position of being able to achieve a clean break from a first spouse but not a second to whom he was linked by an earmarking arrangement.
Secondly, this amendment would limit the member spouse's scope for negotiation. Member spouses might prefer to see their pensions divided for a second time to achieve that clean break, especially if they wish to marry again or perhaps because they would rather keep some other asset untouched. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, it may be that the first share of the pension is very small because the marriage has lasted for only a year or two years and the substantial asset has been built up during the second marriage. Therefore, it
816
would be unreasonable to expect that the only assets to go into the matrimonial financial pot would be, say, the home and other savings, but one would be required to exclude the pension whether or not the couple wished it. Overall, this amendment would limit the court's ability to make a fair financial settlement in England and Wales by removing an option which could be of significant benefit to divorcing couples.
The other amendments fall broadly into two parts. Amendments Nos. 58D to 58G also seek to prevent a pension-sharing order being made in relation to a pension arrangement or state scheme rights that have already been shared as part of a previous divorce or nullity settlement. Presumably, the aim is to protect the value of the pension for the member. Yet the result would be to deprive subsequent spouses of the benefit of pension sharing. It is not apparent that any similar restraint is sought in relation to agreements, as opposed to court orders to pension share. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 seek to prohibit earmarking where a pension has been shared.
I now turn to these amendments in greater detail. Amendments Nos. 58D to 58G would deprive second or subsequent spouses of the possibility of sharing the member's pension on divorce and limit the options available to secure future financial settlements. A pension may very well be the most valuable asset. Some pensions will be of sufficient value to warrant being shared in more than one divorce settlement. We would not, therefore, wish to restrict the number of times a pension arrangement or shareable state scheme rights are capable of being shared in relation to different marriages.
Amendments Nos. 58E and 58G seek to remove the words "in relation to the marriage" from various provisions in the Bill. These words are included in the Bill to prevent a spouse or former spouse from obtaining more than one share of the member's pension arrangements or state scheme rights. But we do not want to prevent a subsequent spouse from being able to share the member's pension arrangement, for the reasons I have given.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 seek to limit the power of the court in connection with earmarking orders relating to lump sums. Under the amendments, the power of the court to make such an order would not be exercisable if the pension arrangement in question were subject to a pension-sharing order or had already been the subject of a pension-sharing order or agreement. The amendments presumably seek to protect the value of the member spouse's pension fund. If adopted, they would, in the Government's view, unreasonably limit the options available to the court to assist a subsequent spouse.
The amendments would remove a flexibility that we consider necessary. It will not be used in all cases and I have no doubt that the courts will consider carefully the sort of circumstances that noble Lords have raised. That is why the courts are explicitly required under existing matrimonial law to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including income, earning capacity, property and other resources that each of the

817
parties is likely to have in the foreseeable future. The amendments would unreasonably restrict the capacity of the courts and the couple to make the most appropriate financial arrangements, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will seek to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation of why the Government will not accept the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made two points. The first was that he would find it difficult to support the amendment because of the anomalies, and I accept that that is a good point. Secondly, he suggested that the courts should be the body to take into account the amount of earnings while the spouses were living together.
I accept that pensions on subsequent marriages could be a valuable asset, as the Minister has just said, but in most instances we feel that that will not be the case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not normally seek to intervene in the noble Lord's speeches, but I wish to point out that the average age for divorce is early 30s. A subsequent marriage could last a long time and that is the point I was trying to make. It is often the second marriage that has jointly invested in the pension that is in the husband's name.
Lord Astor of Hever: I understand that, but it was my understanding that despite Oscar Wilde's description of second marriage as a triumph of hope over experience, second marriages tend to last less long than first marriages. Our feeling is that one cannot split a crumb and pensions were never designed to be split. We also feel that the second or third spouse knows the score when she marries. In my case, my second wife knew exactly what she was taking on, for better or for worse.
I am sorry that the Minister is not more sympathetic to our amendments. We will read Hansard carefully, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 58D, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58E to 58H, as amendments to Amendment No. 58, not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, Amendment No. 58J:
Line 60, at end insert—
("() No pension sharing order shall be made which is materially contrary to the interests of any child of the family.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to probe the Government's intentions and their commitment to the interests of children from first or subsequent marriages. Those interests appear to have been wholly ignored and excluded from the provisions of pension-sharing arrangements. It is essential that the courts, before they decide whether there should be pension sharing or a pension split, should consider whether that would disadvantage any child.
There can be no doubt that divorce is an exceptionally traumatic experience for all concerned. That is most true for children. Individuals who are normally reasonable and rational can, on divorce, become the antithesis.
The intention is not to add another complicated dimension to protracted legal negotiations but to ensure that there is a fundamental commitment to the interests of children; that is, that no pension-sharing order may be made that is materially contrary to their financial well-being.
We accept that the protection of children's interests on divorce is not primarily accounted for by pension legislation but rather by divorce legislation. The Under-Secretary of State in the other place made it clear that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that the first consideration will be given to the welfare of a child of the family who is under the age of 18. Lawyers could argue that, in relation to pension sharing, the Bill as it stands contains no reference to children and so there is no reason why they should be taken into account in a pension-sharing order. No legal instrument currently exists in pension sharing to protect the interests of children.
The amendment would compel the financial arrangement to be made with full recognition of the present and future circumstances of the child, to avoid potential conflicts. It is vital, as a matter of principle, that children are explicitly recognised in pension sharing, given the potential for a substantial change in the allocation of capital and revenues within the family. Furthermore, there is a growing tendency towards serial marriages, and therefore, an increase in the number of children who are likely to be directly affected by the fact that one parent's source of income is a pension. Do the Government, therefore, intend to make it possible for the courts to make pension-sharing orders that take full account of the interests of children? The Law Society has specifically asked me to seek clarification on this point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Lord for moving his amendment so clearly. I emphasise that the Government are committed to the welfare of children. However, I am not sure that pensions legislation is the appropriate time to make that point, any more than if we were considering legislation on children we should consider access to pension rights.
The amendment seeks to guarantee that children whose parents divorce should not suffer materially if a pension sharing order is carried out. I hope that I can persuade the Committee that it is not necessary.
The current divorce law, set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, already requires the courts to give first consideration to the welfare of a child of the family when deciding how to exercise their powers. The courts already treat the welfare of children as a priority in drawing up any divorce settlement. Pension sharing, where it is used, will just be another element in the settlement. It is simply a further means of helping the court in its efforts to achieve a fair outcome in all circumstances of the case—circumstances which are always unique and often very difficult.
As such, pension sharing is covered by the existing requirement in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I am not aware of any concerns about that legislation, and I do not know of any case in which it has failed to

819
provide adequate protection for children. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary to add further provisions especially for pension sharing.
The proposed reforms of the Child Support Agency, announced to the House in a Statement on Thursday, support the one-stop shop approach to the financial aspects of divorce proceedings by allowing the maintenance for the child to be part of the overall financial settlement, including spousal maintenance, matrimonial property and pension rights. Lawyers determining the child maintenance element will do so, of course, in the shadow of the child support formula which will protect the child, given that a party who is dissatisfied with the court's settlement may after a year, on two months' notice, go back to the CSA, which will collect the CSA rare. What matters is the income flow for a dependent child in the first family from the non-resident parent. We think that that is best done through broader-based child support maintenance rather than the earmarking of a pension. The point is particularly relevant to the self-employed whose income may be far greater than any potential pension pot.
I understand the sentiments underlying the amendment. Protecting the interests of children of the family is, and should remain, the first consideration of the courts. But we believe that they are already doing that. We think that the position of children will be further protected through the proposed reforms of the CSA. We do not believe that the amendment would add anything to the satisfactory safeguards already in force. We have no reason to believe that the current situation is unsatisfactory. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. The noble Baroness mentioned the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to which I referred. We were looking for a greater protection of children. However, I understand the points she made. We shall consider the points made about the CSA. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 58J, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, Amendment No. 58K:
Line 103, after ("order") insert ("following an appeal")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment designed to ascertain whether the provisions of Section 3l(4D) inserted by paragraph 6(4) of Schedule 3 to the Bill are designed to deal with appeals or with any variations more widely. I look forward to the Minister's clarification. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment seeks to change those provisions in new Schedule 3 to the Bill which deal with the variation of pension sharing orders before they become effective. Amendment No. 58K would limit the application of a stay period to a pension-sharing order which had been varied on appeal, but not if it had been varied other than on appeal. Our
820
proposals allow for a stay period to apply in both situations. There may understandably be some confusion on the issue and it may be helpful if I set out the circumstances in which it is possible to vary a pension sharing order other than on appeal.
As noble Lords will be aware, appeals can be made against the principle that a pension-sharing order should be made; or against the content of the order. But it is also possible for an application to be made to vary an order. Such an application does not question whether it was right for a pension sharing order to be made, but seeks to vary its terms.
A court might agree to a variation, for example, where other assets came to light after the order had been made but before it became effective. A pension sharing order might also be varied if the circumstances of one or other of the parties to the marriage changed significantly before the divorce was made absolute, perhaps as a result of severe illness.
In those cases, the pension-sharing order, as varied, would take effect immediately so long as the decree absolute had been granted. This would remove the opportunity for either the member spouse or former spouse to challenge the terms of the variation. We believe that it is appropriate for there to be a stay period in the case of variations as well as when the variation arises as a result of an appeal.
I hope that on the basis of that explanation, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is a technical point and it is helpful that the Minister has set out the position so clearly. We shall consider with our advisers the points she makes. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 58K, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 58 agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of sections 25B to 25D of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): In calling Amendment No. 58L, I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 59 or 60 under the pre-emption rule.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 58L:
Page 100, leave out lines 22 to 27
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 70B, 70C and 70D. These are also probing amendments to clarify the Government's position on allowing earmarking orders affecting lump sum death benefits even though a pension sharing order was being made in respect of the same member.
Currently the Bill prevents a pension sharing order being made at the same time as an earmarking order in respect of the same member and the same scheme. Thus the former spouse would have the choice of either a pension-sharing order or an earmarking order. As regards retirement benefits, that is reasonable, but there are circumstances where the former spouse would want an earmarking order in respect of the lump sum death benefit in addition to a pension sharing order. A typical case might be where the member had not been in the pension scheme for very long so that the value of his accrued benefits was not large, and therefore the value of the pension-sharing order to the former spouse would not be large. The lump sum death-in-service benefit for such a member could be much larger than the value of his accrued pension benefits, and a pension sharing order would not apply to the lump sum death benefit.
On the other hand, an earmarking order can apply to the lump sum death benefit as well as the pension and/or lump sum which the member will receive on retirement. Will the Government amend the Bill to allow an earmarking order relating to a lump sum death benefit to be made at the same time as a pension-sharing order in respect of the same scheme? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As we have heard from the noble Lord, the aim of these amendments is to permit a spouse to benefit from a pension sharing order and a lump sum death benefit earmarking order at the same time in relation to a single pension arrangement.
Amendment No. 58L would amend paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. That paragraph will insert a new restriction into Section 25C of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This restriction will prevent the court in England and Wales from making a lump sum death benefit earmarking order under Section 25C of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 if the pension arrangement against which the earmarking order was to be made was either already the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage or had already been shared between the parties to the marriage. I should add that the Bill does not prevent the court making a lump sum death benefit earmarking order in favour of a second spouse if the pension arrangement in question has been shared by a first spouse. Amendments Nos. 70B to 70D would permit pension sharing by agreement of a pension arrangement that has already been the subject of a lump sum death benefit earmarking order.
I think the problem with the amendments is that they will devalue the benefits of pension sharing. We want to encourage "clean breaks" but we accept that, in some cases, earmarking will be fairer and the choice of the couples concerned. We consider that it is reasonable to ask spouses to choose between earmarking and sharing in relation to a single pension arrangement. Permitting both in relation to the same pension arrangement—but to different bits of it—and the same marriage will only encourage complication and expense.
I believe that the Bill strikes a balance between the clean break implicit in pension sharing and the continuing relationship inevitably intertwined with
822
earmarking orders. The amendments would give a spouse the opportunity to pull in these contrary directions at once. I do not think that would be sensible, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. I am pleased that the Government are keeping open the earmarking alternative. These are complicated issues and I would like to take advice on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 100, line 31, leave out ("22A or")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 67:
Page 100, line 48, leave out from ("arrangement",") to end of line 49
Page 101, line 4, leave out ("22A or")
Page 101, line 20, after first ("of') insert ("any of')
Page 101, line 20, leave out ("any of sections 22A to 24D above") and insert ("this Part of this Act")
Page 101, line 41, leave out ("22A or")
Page 102, line 29, leave out ("21(2A)") and insert ("21A(1)")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Extension to overseas divorces etc.]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 26, line 18, leave out ("22A or")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF PART III
(" .—(1) If any amendment by the Family Law Act 1996 of Part II or IV of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 comes into force before the day on which any provision of this Part comes into force, the Lord Chancellor may by order make such consequential amendment of that provision as he thinks fit.
(2) No order under this section may be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Scope of mechanism]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 27, line 2, at end insert—
("() An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this amendment briefly because it has been accepted by the Government. Clause 23(1) says:
"Pension sharing is available under this Chapter in relation to a person's shareable rights under any pension arrangement other than an excepted public service pension scheme".
Clause 23(3) says:
"For the purposes of subsection (1), a public service pension scheme is excepted if it is specified by order made by such Minister of the Crown or government department as may be designated by the Treasury as having responsibility for the scheme".
Under the scheme of delegated legislation in the Bill, the order under Clause 23(3) at present does not require either the affirmative or negative procedure and can simply be made without notice by a Minister of the Crown.
The explanation given by the Government for not requiring a statutory instrument with either the affirmative or negative procedure was that the exception was intended to apply only to a small number of cases. It applied in particular to the pensions provided by statute for the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons and a few other cases where, if there were pension sharing, it was impossible to calculate the pension debit on an actuarial basis because the pensions became payable not on reaching a particular age but on expiration of the office to which they were attached.
If the provision were as limited as that on the face of the Bill, there might have been a justification for saying that the matter could be left to an order without any parliamentary procedure. However, as drafted, Clause 23(3) could apply a good deal more widely and would give a Minister of the Crown the power to accept any public service pension scheme. That was pointed out by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which recommended that the negative procedure should be used in the case of any order made under this subsection.
I therefore tabled an amendment to that effect. The Government have accepted the proposition and have tabled Amendment No. 143B. In those circumstances, I shall in due course be happy to withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for tabling the amendment. It arises from the points made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and has been the subject of correspondence. The committee suggested that Clause 23 had considerable power; indeed, the issue of pension sharing generally is of considerable importance. Therefore, the Committee might wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to provide parliamentary control of this power, at least by negative procedure.
In a slip of the tongue, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said "by" negative procedure. I believe that in practice it is said "at least by" negative procedure. Nonetheless, Amendment No. 142B is designed to meet the point and we are prepared to settle for negative
824
procedure in this case. I hope that the Minister will therefore press ahead with her amendment with enthusiasm.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot resist such an invitation. I can be brief. Clause 23 sets out the scope of the pension sharing mechanism. Pension sharing is available in relation to a person's shareable rights tinder any arrangement other than an excepted public service scheme.
Subsection (3) provides that a public service scheme is excepted if it is specified by order made by such Minister of the Crown or government department as may be designated by the Treasury as having responsibility for the scheme.
During the debate in Committee in another place, the Government stated clearly that they intended to use this power only to except the three schemes covering the great offices of state—currently, the Prime Minister, Speaker and Lord Chancellor—and in due course the First Minister and the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.
The difficulty with the pension schemes of these great offices of state is that the pension comes into payment immediately the postholder leaves office, regardless of the period of office. Since the date of leaving office can only normally be guessed at, that makes it virtually impossible to value the pension rights accurately. However, we have made clear our intention that the pension rights of all other public servants should be available for pension sharing.
Nonetheless, we accept that this power is wide and agree with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that its use should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am pleased to say that that is why we have brought forward Amendment No. 143B to Clause 78. This amendment will ensure that the use of the power to except public service schemes from pension sharing will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative procedure. We believe that Clause 78, which generally deals with provisions for making regulations or orders under the Act, is the best place for such an amendment.
We are all agreed on this issue—I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Goodhart, and I speak for the Committee—and I hope that noble Lords will be content to withdraw their amendment and accept Amendment No. 143B.
Lord Goodhart: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 27, line 2, at end insert—
("(4) The provisions in this Chapter override any provision of a pension arrangement to which they apply to the extent that the provisions of this Chapter conflict with them.")
The noble Lord said: This probing amendment is intended to provide clarity. The insurance industry has argued that the provisions in Part IV must be wholly overriding, that is, applied directly to schemes without

825
the need to amend scheme rules. This was done for the Pensions Act 1995. An announcement from the Government had led us to believe that it would be the case with these provisions, but certain provisions such as those in Clause 28 which amend the Pension Schemes Act 1993 in respect of safeguarded rights have not been made overriding. This will cause unnecessary and burdensome complications for pension scheme trustees, who will be left to make technically difficult amendments to a very large number of schemes.
The burden in time will be large. The insurance industry tells me that it will need at least 15 months from seeing the detailed requirements, which will be set out in regulations, to implementation of the provisions on pension sharing, if the legislation is wholly overriding. If it is not, a much longer period will be needed.
I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that Part IV will be wholly overriding, so that the trustees do not have to face the unnecessary burden and complication of changing the rules of a very large number of schemes. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment calls for the pension sharing legislation to override any conflicting provision in the rules of pension arrangements. Industry representatives have called for this in the past, and officials have discussed the issues with them and their legal advisers.
We understand why it would help speed up the implementation of pension sharing if pension schemes did not have to make lots of individual amendments to scheme rules before the start date for pension sharing, so we have framed the Bill in a way which makes the provisions overriding whenever it makes sense to do so. But there are some areas where that blanket approach would not make sense. These are where schemes have discretion to carry out their responsibilities in the way that suits them best.
Let me give a couple of examples. One option open to the Government was to make it an overriding requirement that a scheme responsible for discharging its liability for a pension credit should be required to offer the former spouse pension rights within the scheme. However, private schemes wanted the freedom to choose whether or not to have former spouse members. Similarly, the Government could have made it an overriding requirement for schemes to offer former spouse members a package of benefits that mirrors the benefits available to deferred members.
Again, the pension industry argued persuasively that schemes should have the flexibility to make up their own minds on these matters. Indeed, we shall be debating a later amendment designed to ensure that schemes which decide to offer internal transfers have the freedom to design a package of benefits for former spouses that suits them best.
If schemes want to have a choice on matters relating to pension sharing, such as the former spouse's package or charging for administrative costs, it follows that the legislation cannot be wholly overriding. It cannot be had both ways.
826
We think the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance. As in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Pensions Act 1995, some matters are overriding and others are not. Each provision has to be considered individually and decided on its own merits.
The noble Lord pressed me in particular on whether the whole of Part IV would be overriding, like the Pensions Act 1995, as he put it. Certain parts of that Act were overriding—Part I, for instance. However, others were not. In particular, none of the new contracting out provisions which came into force in 1997 was overriding. We intend that the safeguarded rights requirements in Clause 32 shall in general terms reflect those already in place for contracted out schemes which have accrued since 6th April 1997. The schemes will have to confirm that they satisfy the contracting out requirement in order to hold a contracting out certificate. Any scheme opting to hold safeguarded rights will be required to provide assurances to the Inland Revenue that the safeguarded rights requirements are met. The contracting out provisions are not overriding, since they permit schemes to make choices about how to satisfy the requirement, and it is for scheme rules to specify which of the available choices have been exercised by the scheme. Similar provisions will apply to safeguarded rights, and scheme rules will need to explain which of the options are available to those members entitled to safeguarded rights.
However, where provisions in Part IV are analogous with provisions in the Pensions Act 1995, or, indeed, the Pension Schemes Act 1993, which are overriding, for consistency with the existing legislation we have made those provisions in the Bill overriding as well. So, for example, Clause 33, which inserts a new Part IVA into the Pensions Scheme Act 1993, is overriding since it is broadly analogous with the existing Part IV of the 1993 Act, which is also overriding legislation. Similarly, part of Clause 34 imposes requirements on schemes winding up that are analogous with provisions in Part I of the Pensions Act 1995 which, as I mentioned earlier, are also overriding.
Therefore, I realise that these are complex matters. Essentially, we are mirroring existing practice. I hope that on the basis of what I have said in an attempt fully to answer the noble Lord's point about Part IV, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that very full answer. I am extremely grateful to her for pointing out that parts of the Pensions Act 1995 were not overriding. I am also grateful to her for pointing out that schemes will have to confirm that they satisfy the contracting-out requirements to hold the contracting-out certificate. That is an important point.
We shall need to study carefully what the Minister said and confer with our advisers. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Activation of pension sharing]:
[Amendments Nos. 70B to 70D not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Creation of pension debits and credits]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 70E:
Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
("() Subsections (2) and (3) above shall not prevent the court from assessing the percentage or amount to be transferred on the basis of the past service reserve, if in the circumstances of the case the court considers this to be appropriate.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to give the courts some flexibility about the method of valuation used when looking at pension sharing. At the moment, the Bill provides that only the cash equivalent transfer value—CETV—can be used to calculate the value of a pension. The Law Society is concerned that that may not yield an accurate result. Therefore, the courts should have discretion to use other methods of valuation in certain cases. That is most likely to be needed when the person who has built up the pension is nearing retirement, has a high salary and the pension concerned is substantial.
CETV is a widely used and well understood means of valuing pensions. For example, it is used if an employee changes jobs and wishes to transfer his pension from his old to his new employer. In the vast majority of cases, using the CETV as a basis of pension sharing will produce a fair result.
However, in some cases, particularly where there is a large pension or a long marriage, using CETV may result in the pension being undervalued. For a personal pension, the CETV is the surrender value and not the fund 'value. Surrender values can sometimes be as low as one-fifth of the fund value and can sometimes be nothing at all. We wish the courts to have the power, where appropriate, to use an alternative method of valuing pensions, such as the past service reserve, where it appears that CETV may not generate a fair result. We do not believe that alternative methods of valuation would be used frequently. Therefore, will the Government consider giving the courts the power, wherever appropriate, and where serious anomalies could arise in the rigid use of the standard CETV, to use an alternative method of valuing pensions? I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: On the last occasion I was critical of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. On this occasion, I express my support in principle for it. However, I can see certain problems with it. In particular, it could lead to an increase in the cost of matrimonial litigation if one has to retain experts to argue the question as to which method of calculation is appropriate in any particular situation. Nevertheless, it is well established that there are cases in which the cash equivalent valuation might work unfairly. In such cases it would be appropriate to use one of the other recognised methods of evaluation of pension rights as the basis for the order for pension-sharing. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Baroness Berners: I support this amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. I repeat his
828
question. Will the Government consider giving the courts the power, wherever appropriate, to use an alternate method of valuing pensions? What guarantee can the Minister offer that the courts will have sufficient expertise to know when it is appropriate?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have some sympathy with this amendment. I am aware that the Social Security Select Committee was thinking along the same lines when it published its report on pensions on divorce in October 1998. The committee recommended at paragraph 47 of its report that the court should be given a limited discretion to cater for circumstances where serious anomalies would arise from the rigid use of a standard cash equivalent transfer valuation, a CETV of pension rights.
The Government have, of course, made it clear in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that they intend to use the regulation-making power in Clause 26 to require pension rights to be valued for pension-sharing purposes by the tried and trusted CETV methodology. In contrast, Amendment No. 70E and the Select Committee both argue for the courts to be given discretion to depart from the CETV method.
Despite that difference in approach, the Government have some sympathy with the amendment. I believe that we all readily accept that the CETV method is not perfect. But after very serious consideration we have concluded that it is the least worse method available to us. More than that, it is probably the only valuation method that is fair to employers, pension schemes and other scheme members.
It is worth perhaps saying a few words in defence of CETV which has had something of a dark press tonight. I hope that I shall be on safe ground if I quote from the evidence of Mr Martin Slack who appeared before the Social Security Select Committee, on behalf of the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries on 22nd July last year. He said:
"The CETV is a value of the benefits to which a member would have been entitled had he ceased to be in service at that point. So the fact that the CETV is valued as the leading service benefit means it is valuing a less valuable benefit than if the member stayed all the way through to retirement. I think that is the only way one can proceed because one does not know what the person's salary increases would have been had they stayed, nor whether or not they would have retired earlier, whereas the leaving service benefit is a factual benefit at the time and is the only one you can get hold of".
That is why the Government believe that it is right to use the CETV for pension-sharing purposes. There is no way of knowing when the member may leave the scheme early because of a change of job or early retirement. So it would not be fair to schemes or employers that fund the balance of costs, to place a higher value on the pension rights to be shared than the value that has actually accrued. That would require schemes or employers to meet additional costs as a result of divorce. That would be unacceptable. It would also enable some former spouses to be treated more favourably than other scheme members who transfer pension rights out of the scheme. That too cannot be justified.

829
The CETV must, therefore, remain the basis for any division of pension assets. However, we accept that there are some circumstances—for example, certain schemes with fast accrual where people typically retire early—where the simple application of the CETV could be inappropriate. As we said in response to the Select Committee, we believe that, in such cases, the courts will have an adequate remedy to hand in that they could increase the share of the member's CETV to be transferred to the former spouse. So, for example, the court, in considering all the circumstances of the case, including perhaps a past service reserve valuation of the rights of a member of a salary-related scheme, may decide to transfer, say, 80 per cent of the normal CETV to the former spouse rather than 60 per cent. To make the Government's policy intention absolutely clear, it would not in any circumstances be possible to require a pension scheme or arrangement to pay more than 100 per cent of the CETV.
I hope that I have said sufficient to persuade the noble Lord that there is, in practice, much common ground between us. Our intention is that legislation will permit the court to take account of additional evidence when determining the percentage of the CETV to be shared. The difference between us is that we do not think it would be right to allow more than 100 per cent of the normal CETV to be shared. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support. He made a valid point about the extra cost.
The Minister started by saying that the Government had sympathy with our amendment, but she then destroyed my hopes by saying that there was little common ground between us. We want to consider carefully the points that she has made. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Cash equivalents]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 70F:
Page 30, line 22, at end insert ("(including medical evidence)")
The noble Lord said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 70F. This is a probing amendment to establish whether underwriters will be allowed to follow normal practice which would include taking into account medical evidence.
Pension benefits have to be valued on divorce, just as other assets, such as the home, have to valued, in order for them to be appropriately shared. When the valuation of pension benefits is that of a pension in payment, the crucial aspect of a fair valuation of the benefits—fair to the beneficiaries and other scheme members—is an assessment of the health as well as the age of the beneficiaries. Medical evidence in the form of
830
information from a GP or other medical practitioner may be needed to inform the assessment and a medical examination may be necessary.
How to value the pension rights will be prescribed by regulations. In broad terms, the regulations will prescribe that the valuation should be done in accordance with the guidance of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries on calculating the CETV. However, we believe that in primary legislation it should be made clear that pension providers may receive medical evidence of the beneficiary's health in order properly to value the pension benefits.
The nature of pensions is such that there are few circumstances when the whole pension benefit has to have a value placed on it. Pension sharing is one instance. Early retirement is an already established instance. Will the Minister confirm that underwriters will be able to use all relevant information on which they rely in assessing risk, such as medical evidence when they value pension assets on divorce? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues raised by Amendment No. 70F. We have made it clear throughout our extensive consultations on pension sharing that we want to ensure that all pension rights can be shared, including pensions in payment.
We have taken a power in Clause 26 to enable us to deal in regulations with the technical issue of the calculation of the cash equivalent of pension rights. We recognise that, in relation to pensions in payment, we are to some extent entering new territory, since it is not currently possible for pensioner members to transfer the cash equivalent of their pensions out of the scheme.
However, there is no real difficulty in principle in extending cash equivalent transfer values to pensions in payment cases. At the scheme level, the actuarial assumptions involved will take account of the fact that some people will live longer than average and others will live less long. However, at the individual level, the health of the individual becomes much more important. For example, if the member is in very poor health, the absence of medical evidence may result in a significant over-estimate in the valuation of the pension assets.
The Government accept that pension sharing must be based on a fair valuation of pension rights and clearly that may not be possible if pertinent medical evidence is not available to the scheme in pensions in payment cases. The use of such information is well established elsewhere, especially in areas such as insurance, where it is important for organisations to be able to assess accurately the risks they are taking on.
I understand the noble Lord's concern that there might be scope for people to abuse the system if schemes were prevented from obtaining medical evidence. That is why we have indicated throughout our consultation that we do not intend to prevent schemes from requesting medical evidence before implementing pension-sharing orders in pensions in payment cases, where schemes feel there may be a risk of abuse.

831
That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we have taken a power which could be used to deal with these matters in regulations. That power might be used to enable a person responsible for implementing a pension sharing order to obtain appropriate medical evidence.
Preparatory work on the regulations is underway and my officials are actively engaged in discussions with the pensions industry on this matter. One of the main concerns that I have asked officials to address is whether requirements in respect of medical evidence would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. We do, of course, need to be satisfied that any future regulations will be reasonable and sound in all respects, including the Convention angle. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this matter is one which could properly be dealt with in secondary legislation, and agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that full reply and indeed for acknowledging that medical evidence may need to be accepted where it is needed. I am also happy to hear that the Minister's officials are in discussion with the insurance industry. In the light of that good news, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agrees to.
Clause 27 [Reduction of benefit]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 31, line 3, at end insert—
("() Following an award against a scheme member of one or more pension debit orders, the scheme member shall be entitled, within permitted contribution limits, to rebuild the pension rights foregone as a result of the order or orders.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to clarify that scheme members will be allowed to rebuild their pensions following one or more debit orders. Will the Minister confirm that current tax rules will be amended, so that this is possible? Will the Minister also confirm that this will be done under the Finance Bill if it is not dealt with in this Bill? I beg to move.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: It is only right that, if someone suffers a debit through no fault of his own, he should be allowed to reinstate that debit so that his pension accumulation does not suffer.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 71 is a major amendment intended to enable a member of an occupational pension scheme whose pension has been shared to rebuild the pension rights transferred to the former spouse when permitted within the permitted contribution limits. However, as I am sure Members of the Committee will be aware, the Government have already gone a considerable way to meeting the concerns that have been expressed with the easement that they announced in the other place. Essentially, that easement allows moderate earners—that is, people earning up to £22,650 a year—fully to rebuild within permitted contribution limits.
832
The amendment seeks to go further than the easement announced by allowing all members of occupational schemes, irrespective of their earnings, to ignore the pension share when rebuilding their pension rights up to the maximum permitted under Inland Revenue rules; in other words, everyone would be free to rebuild within the 15 per cent annual employee contribution limit.
It is important to be clear about the scale of the problem that this amendment seeks to address. First, the easement we have announced will cover the majority of occupational pension scheme members and target help on those who most need it. Of those who remain with earnings above £22,650, the statistics suggest that more than half of them will be under the age of 35 at the time of divorce, with ample time to rebuild within Inland Revenue limits or to save for their retirement in other ways. Originally, our best estimate of the proportion of scheme members who would be partly or wholly constrained by the tax limits from rebuilding their pensions was between 5 per cent and 10 per cent But the easements announced in the other place would reduce that number by half; that is to say, to between 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent of this group.
If our estimate of around 25,000 pension sharing cases affecting occupational pensions per annum is proved right, that means that between 600 and 1,250 people only—perhaps 750 or 1,000—would be affected each year and not all of those would have the resources, or be willing, to rebuild their pensions fully, even if the tax constraints were removed. Therefore, in reality, we are concerned at most with a few hundred people.
The Government are not persuaded that it would be right to create special rules for this small group of people. We have chosen to link the rules that will enable a pension share to be ignored, for tax purposes, to the rules for people changing jobs. We are building on arrangements that have long been in place. We have avoided creating special tax rules for divorcing couples. To introduce special tax rules for a few hundred people, as argued for in the amendment, could be seen to be unfair and as positive discrimination in favour of this particular group.
I can assure Members of that Committee that, because of the numbers involved, the Government do not seek to resist the amendment on grounds of cost—
Lord Astor of Hever: Can the Minister say why she is so certain that this will affect only a few hundred people?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. I am sorry; I tried to cover this. We believe that something like 25,000 pension sharing orders will affect occupational pension schemes. Within that, we know that the average age of divorce is under 35, which means that people usually have 30 years of working life to rebuild their pension. We also know that under 5 per cent—indeed, between 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent—already have no head space within which to do so. Putting all of that together and excluding those people who cannot afford to rebuild because they are only just above the £22,000 threshold, our figures suggest that we are talking about only a few hundred people who might wish to rebuild their scheme

833
but are prevented from doing so by virtue of the fact that they have no head space within which to do so. That is the basis for our figures.
Given that explanation, I emphasise that it is not a question of finance because the cost would only be about £1 million a year annually, although that would build up thereafter. It is primarily a matter of principle. However, I have to say that we cannot ignore the risk that a concession to divorcing couples would create pressure for special treatment for other groups, which could involve a significant loss of tax revenue.
I should also add that the amendment makes no direct reference to finance legislation, although it seeks to influence the tax approval arrangements for pension sharing. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to amend the Bill in a way that would bring it into conflict with the tax arrangements for pension-sharing that have been agreed in the other place.
I recognise that the amendment addresses one of the major concerns that has emerged since we published the draft Bill in the summer of 1998. The Government have listened to those concerns and the distance between us has reduced, so to speak, by more than half. However, we have not been persuaded that it would be right to take the extra step required by the amendment. Nevertheless, we shall continue to listen carefully to representations on the issue and to keep the matter under review. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: Does that mean that the Government might return with an amendment of their own on Report?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, it certainly does not. All I am saying is that any such figure—I refer to the figure I have given of £22,650—is obviously one that the Chancellor would want to keep under review, as he does all other figures in terms of income related benefits, upper earnings limit, lower earnings limit, tax thresholds and the like. I meant no more than that.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I accept that the easement announcement that was made in the other place will be of some help. This amendment constitutes a major point, as the Minister said. We shall want to consider carefully what she said and possibly return to it on Report. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Effect on contracted-out rights]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 71A:
Page 31, line 42, leave out ("rights under the scheme become") and insert ("right to the pension becomes")
The noble Baroness said: These government amendments, Amendments Nos. 71A to 71D, make a number of minor drafting changes to Clause 28, which deals with the effect of a pension debit on contracted-out rights. It may assist the Committee if I remind it that
834
contracted-out rights are those rights built up by people who have opted out of SERPS and have an occupational pension or personal pension that replaces SERPS.
It has been suggested by some pension experts that the current draft of the clause does not accurately reflect the policy intention and its relationship with Clause 27 is unclear. We have given careful consideration to their concerns and as a result have decided to introduce these government amendments to clarify the policy intention.
Clause 27 provides for effect to be given to a pension debit by reducing a member's pension rights by the appropriate percentage. Clause 28 complements this by providing for the reduction of the member's contracted-out rights, along with any other rights shared, by the appropriate percentage.
Amendments Nos. 71A to 71D are designed to iron out any potential inconsistency between Clause 28 and Clause 27. In particular, Amendment No. 71C is intended to make it absolutely clear that a scheme is only obliged, in relation to the guaranteed minimum pension, or GMP as it is usually known, to provide a GMP which has been reduced as a consequence of the pension debit, rather than the full GMP.
This is a group of technical amendments that addresses the concerns expressed by some expert commentators on Clause 28 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I understand that these are technical amendments to tidy up the wording. We shall want to read carefully what she has said, but as things stand we shall not oppose the amendments.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Does it not appear that the provision in Clause 27 would answer the problem raised by the noble Baroness in Clause 28?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure that I take the noble Earl's point.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Does not the provision in Clause 27 which would allow members to rebuild their pension rights solve the problem that is addressed by Amendment No. 71C?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am looking for guidance on this. I am not sure whether the noble Earl is correct. I think that I had better write to him to follow up his point in detail.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 71B to 71D:
Page 31, line 44, leave out ("shall be") and insert ("is, subject to subsection (1A),")
Page 31, line 45, at end insert—
("(1A) Where the earner is in pensionable service under the scheme on the day on which the order or provision on which the pension debit depends takes effect, his guaranteed minimum in relation to the scheme is reduced by an amount equal to the appropriate percentage of the corresponding qualifying benefit.

835
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), the corresponding qualifying benefit is the guaranteed minimum taken for the purpose of calculating the cash equivalent by reference to which the amount of the pension debit is determined.")
Page 32, line 1, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this section")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Mode of discharge of liability]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 33, line 40, leave out subsection (1)
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 72 and to speak to Schedule 5 stand part.
The means by which trustees may discharge their liabilities towards a former spouse must be unambiguous and effective. Funded schemes can choose whether or not to provide the pension share within the scheme or externally. Can the Minister confirm that if a scheme transfers out of a pension scheme under the default option—in other words, without the former spouse's consent—and if a trustee has acted reasonably in the circumstances, the trustee will be given a valid discharge by the legislation? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. The answer, very simply, is that the trustee will be given a valid discharge.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that very satisfactory answer. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Pension credits: mode of discharge]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 72A:
Page 105, line 2, at end insert (", and
(c) they are to be discharged by the trustees or managers of the scheme in a manner which they deem appropriate")
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 72A. We have some concerns about the benefits to which former spouses will be entitled as the result of an internal transfer. Mast schemes will probably wish to mirror preferred pensioner benefits, but some may not. It is important to ensure that schemes can provide a package of benefits for the former spouse if an internal transfer is chosen. The overriding principle must be that of equivalent value, with a cash equivalent proportion ordered or agreed. We seek the Government's clarification on this point. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 72A seeks to amend Schedule 5, which is concerned with the way in which a pension scheme or arrangement can discharge its liability for a pension credit. The pension credit is the share of the pension scheme member's pension that passes to the former spouse.
One of the ways in which a pension scheme can discharge its liability for a pension credit is by conferring "appropriate rights" under that scheme on the former spouse. In layman's terms, one could perhaps
836
simply call that an "internal transfer" of the rights that have been shared as they stay within the scheme from which the pension credit was derived.
Paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 defines what is meant by "appropriate rights". As currently drafted, it includes two provisions which are designed to safeguard the interests of the former spouse. First, the rights must be conferred from, and including, the day on which the pension sharing order takes effect. The second safeguard is that the value of the rights conferred must be equal in value to the amount of the pension credit.
Amendment No. 72A seeks to impose a third condition which would enable the trustees or managers of the scheme to discharge their liability by conferring rights in the scheme in a manner in which they deem appropriate.
The noble Lord has explained that this is a probing amendment to tease out the extent to which the Government believe that the trustees or managers should be free to design the package of benefits to the former spouse. I am happy to reassure the Committee that that is indeed our intention. With one exception, which I shall explain in a moment, we want schemes that offer "internal transfers" to be able to choose the arrangements that suit them best. The key safeguard, already enshrined in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5, is that the value of the package of benefits offered must be equal in value to the pension credit.
However, as I have just mentioned, there is one exception, and that relates to pension credits derived from contracted-out rights, which are called "safeguarded rights" in the Bill. As the Committee will be aware, the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the regulations made under it impose extra conditions on contracted-out rights. To give a simple example, protected rights built up in a personal pension to replace SERPS rights cannot be used to provide a pension before age 60 and cannot be commuted to a tax-free lump sum.
The Government believe it is right that where part of the pension credit is derived from protected rights, that part of the pension credit—the safeguarded rights part—should be subject to similar restrictions. So, for example, if the former spouse becomes a member of the same personal pension scheme as her ex-spouse, she too should not be able to draw a pension from her safeguarded rights until age 60 and, like her ex-husband, should not be able to take a tax-free lump sum from that part of her personal pension fund. Imposing similar restrictions on the safeguarded rights is fair to both parties, protects the interests of the taxpayer and will ensure that those rights continue to be used for the purpose for which they are intended: to provide a secure income in retirement.
To conclude, with the exception of some restrictions in respect of safeguarded rights to be set out in regulations, schemes will be free to offer the package of benefits that best suits them. It is not the intention that schemes will be required to offer former spouses benefits that mirror those offered to early leavers. So the amendment is unnecessary.

837
I hope that I have clarified the Government's intention sufficiently to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: I asked for clarification, and the Minister has answered fully the points that I made. I am glad to have the assurance that she gave. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Effect of state scheme pension debits and credits]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 51, line 17, leave out subsection (1)
The noble Lord said: We have already had an extensive debate on the various arrangements for pension sharing, to which my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever has given a considerable amount of intensive study. We now turn to a part of the Bill dealing with a particular aspect of pension sharing; namely, the sharing of state scheme rights.
One well understands that in regard to divorce and pension sharing the accumulated rights of individuals in, for example, a particular occupational scheme or a personal pension scheme may be allocated in the ways that we have discussed. But even more complex considerations arise in regard to the sharing of state scheme benefits.
We could appropriately have tabled amendments to leave out Clause 43 or Clause 44. However, it seemed to us that Clause 46 might be an appropriate one on which to have a rather general debate on the way in which a married couple's assets in the state scheme might reasonably be divided between them in the event of divorce. This is effectively a paving amendment so far as discussion of Schedule 6 is concerned.
Schedule 6 contains a series of provisions on the effect of so-called state scheme pension debits and credits. That appears to be a method that the Government have in mind to allocate the various entitlements that either member of a married couple may have. Having studied Clause 46 and Schedule 6, I am far from clear how the arrangement will proceed.
It would seem that, so far as category A retirement pensions are concerned, there will be reductions in the additional pension and, similarly, between the two parties involved there will be a reduction in the shared additional pension. I am not clear why there is an additional pension. Perhaps the Minister will explain, first, why that is the case and, secondly, why the pension should be reduced so far as pension sharing is concerned.
The considerations which arise in the case of the state scheme are different from those which arise otherwise. Both individuals concerned may have contributed towards the state pension scheme, although in a number of cases that may not be true. Perhaps the man will have
838
a scheme and his wife may have a related pension, particularly with, for example, widow's benefits, although that is not relevant in the present context. Since this is a complex area, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could spell out the way in which she foresees the rights in the state scheme being divided and why there should be additional pensions on the one hand and reductions in them on the other.
One could have raised the matter on the earlier clauses in this part, but it seemed to us an appropriate point at which to raise these important issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes: Can the Minister say what happens with the spouse who has been divorced and has the credit in the pension sharing arrangements? What happens if she dies either before retirement age or soon after? Is the credit then lost for ever to the spouse who gave the credit in the first place? Presumably his pension, whether it is state or occupational, will be less than it would have been by virtue of the pension sharing arrangement. I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with that. It may be in the document somewhere, but I have not been able to find it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 73 removes subsection (1) of Clause 46 which gives effect to Schedule 6—an essential component of our pension sharing proposals which provide for the sharing of SERPS rights. Schedule 6 inserts four new sections into the Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
Lord Higgins: Did I understand the noble Baroness to mention SERPS rights?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. In particular, paragraph 2 covers how and when an additional pension should be reduced when a person's SERPS rights become subject to a pension debit. That is what we are talking about, SERPS and the additional pension. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 covers how and when a person will become entitled to a shared additional pension and whether a shared additional pension can subsequently become subject to a pension sharing order or provision.
The effect of Amendment No. 73 would be to prevent pension sharing of SERPS. Yet the Government believe it is both right and fair that SERPS rights, just like other second pension rights built up in occupational and personal pension schemes, should fall within the scope of pension sharing.
Perhaps I may widen the subject. When we were debating pension sharing on divorce during the passage of the 1995 Act, and then subsequently when the Green Paper came through from the previous Government, I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, being emphatic. He was determined not to go ahead with any scheme which denied the capacity to pension share SERPS. We always expected that the sharing of SERPS would be that much more complicated than a funded scheme where there is a CETP and a straightforward package.

839
We believe it is right to apply it to SERPS. It is a basic right underpinning pension sharing that there should be no built-in bias for or against any one type of scheme. The decision whether or not it is appropriate for any particular pension to be shared will depend on the individual circumstances of that case and must rest with the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed us on why SERPS should be shared when the wife might have her own pension rights. The courts or the divorcing parties will take account of all the assets, including any pension rights that she might have, whether state or private.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, asked what would happen if the former spouse acquired a pension share as part of a divorce settlement and then died. She asked whether that pension share would revert back to the spouse. I will write to the noble Baroness if I have got it wrong, but my understanding of the policy is that that pension share would be part of her assets which would have been taken by her, for example, in lieu of part of the matrimonial home. Just as if she died but the matrimonial home or part of it or some savings had been made over to her, it would not revert to the former spouse unless she so willed it. It would go to her next of kin or her dependants in the usual way. Unless I have been misinformed, in which case I shall write to the noble Baroness, it would be perverse to hold that something that had been traded in lieu of other more tangible assets should revert back to a former spouse. With those points, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: I had somewhat misunderstood the scope of this particular schedule. As the noble Baroness has rightly pointed out—now I understand it rather better—the schedule is concerned with SERPS. The sidenote, which is not part of the Bill, refers to "Reduction of additional pension". Effectively, that is a reference to SERF'S, if I understand it correctly. If that is so, I am not entirely clear why that is being reduced. I had thought initially that this schedule referred to the basic state pension, but the noble Baroness indicated that that is not so. However, one would have thought that the basic state pension was among the various pensions that might reasonably be shared.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: At the moment, a widow acquires rights to the basic state pension through her husband's national insurance. 'That pension is acquired through his rights rather than any of her own. It is not an additional pension in the same way as SERPS.
Lord Higgins: I well understand that it is not an additional pension, but the point I make—which may reflect my lack of comprehension in this particular matter—is that, according to my understanding, among the pensions that may be shared is an entitlement to the basic state pension As the noble Baroness rightly points out, it may be that the wife is entitled to a form of pension as a result of the husband having contributed. Therefore, if there is a divorce it seems appropriate for that to be shared in some sense.
840
One curious feature of the state pension scheme is that a husband may get a wife's pension although he has not contributed any more than a single individual. That was a basic curiosity in the original Beveridge scheme. If, as the Minister has explained, this schedule is concerned solely with SERPS, I am not clear where the provisions in regard to the basic state pension appear in the Bill. If one is to include SERPS, surely one includes the basic state pension as well.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am slightly baffled by the noble Lord's remarks. Pension sharing applies to those pensions other than the basic state pension, whether it is SERPS, occupational pensions, private pensions and, in due course, stakeholder pensions. Those pensions are part of the matrimonial assets that go into the pot to be shared in the divorce. The state basic pension is not available in the same way. If the husband died the widow would inherit those pension rights and they would continue. The same applies to pension sharing. The widow will keep her own rights irrespective of what happens to her after the divorce. The state pension is secure in her own right, whether she is widowed or divorced, and is not subject to pension sharing; in other words, she reverts essentially to being a single person.
Lord Higgins: I believe that I understand what the noble Baroness says. However, the husband gets a larger pension than the wife. If there is to be an equitable split, I am not quite sure why some adjustment is not made in that respect. Am I right in thinking that there is no provision whatever in the legislation now before us as far as concerns the basic state pension?
In order to speed up matters, perhaps I may turn to another relevant point. Clearly, we are here to legislate for the long term. It is intended that these provisions shall continue in perpetuity.
However, the debates that we had earlier referred to the fact that SERPS will be abolished and a second state pension will be introduced. What is the Government's thinking and will the schedule cover that point in the future? We are talking about a five-year time-scale, but I presume that the Government intend to legislate for the next 20 years or so.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Very simply, it is the Government's intention that pension sharing should apply to all second pensions, including state second pensions. Even though they are unfunded like SERPS, they have an asset value. Stakeholder pensions, which are funded like other money-purchase schemes, will also be included. With the state single pension, the issue of pension sharing does not arise, because following divorce the spouses revert to the status of single persons.
Lord Higgins: I am now beginning to see the position more clearly and I hope that I am right in thinking that the Bill contains no provision as far as the state pension is concerned.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There does not need to be at this stage, because the state second pension does

841
not exist. As and when legislation is introduced to set up the state second pension, it will contain appropriate clauses to cover the point if the Bill does not do so. The noble Lord pressed me on the Government's policy intent, which is that pension sharing should apply to all second-tier pensions, because they are part of the matrimonial domestic property of the family and both parties have contributed to it.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point which I clearly had not fully understood before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 73A:
Before Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR WIDOWS AND WIDOWERS NOT INFORMED OF PROSPECTIVE REDUCTION IN SERPS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a scheme to compensate persons who are widowed after 5th April 2000 and who have not been able to make alternative provision to make good the reduction in the additional pension then payable to them as a result of the enactment of section 19 of the Social Security Act 1986, because of the provision of inadequate or misleading information by the Department of Social Security.
(2) If no regulations are made under subsection (1) before 5th April 2000 then the Contributions and Benefits Act shall be amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).
(3) The following provisions shall cease to have effect—

(a) section 39(3);

(b) section 48C(3);

(c) section 51(3);

(d) in Schedule 5, paragraphs 4(3), 5A(3) and 6(4).

(4) The following words shall be omitted—

(a) in sections 48A(4)(b) and 48B(2)(b), "half of",

(b) in paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 5, "Where the husband dies before 6th April 2000",

(c) in paragraph 6(3) of that Schedule, "but before 6th April 2000".

(5) Regulations under this section shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be laid in draft before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: We change gear rapidly now from a series of amendments on pension sharing, which were very complex, to Amendment No. 73A on the issue of SERPS, which has attracted much public attention.
The history of the matter is well rehearsed: way back in 1986, the then Government decided that it would not be appropriate to continue the arrangement whereby the widow of a person with an entitlement to SERPS continued to receive the full amount. Effectively, it was suggested that there should be a cut in the widows' pension. That was of course a matter of great controversy at the time, although I understand that the Government do not propose to change that arrangement.
Remarkably, the further problem has arisen that the arrangements that were announced in 1986—this is a non-partisan point—seem not to have been implemented. Consequently, several individuals were under the wrong impression as to how much pension their widows would receive.
In addition, the situation of wrong information being provided to people has continued almost to the present day. I understand that as late as April the department was still misinforming individuals as to the true situation. That has given rise to a great deal of concern. An individual will not have made the arrangements he might otherwise have made had he realised the position with regard to his wife's pension if she became widowed.
The Government have made a number of announcements on the issue. The first reaction of the noble Baroness in this House was to say that she was taking legal advice. One presumes that that has taken place. It would be helpful if we could know the advice that the Government received. It is a matter of considerable importance. A number of difficult legal issues arise.
Similarly, Age Concern has referred a case to the parliamentary ombudsman, who announced on 29th March that he would investigate whether there was a case of maladministration to be held against the DSS. He said that he would report in good time before the change came into effect in April 2000.
One of the causes of concern is the length of time it appears to take to make decisions. Without criticising the parliamentary ombudsman, it would be appropriate for him to take account of the fact that we are debating this Bill and that it is a matter of grave concern. To say that he will take from June 1999 to April 2000 to reach a decision when all the facts can be ascertained in a much shorter time does not seem an appropriate time-scale. While the legislation is going through, it is possible for the House to express a view on the appropriate solution—I stress again that I do not make a partisan point—to a difficult situation where individuals are in danger. Clearly some have suffered because of the wrong information received.
There is the difficulty of establishing whether an individual has asked for this information and has received the wrong information by telephone, or more simply by correspondence. One would hope that the ombudsman could refer to that. Leaving the ombudsman issue to one side, one would have thought it appropriate for the Government to express a view in advance of the Bill becoming law. I understand that Mr Stephen Timms, the Minister in another place, confirmed that compensation is to be paid to anyone who can establish that he or she received advice that did not reflect the change from April 2000 and as a result acted to his or her detriment. Clearly there are two problems in establishing it. First, individuals have to demonstrate that they were misinformed. It would be helpful to know from the Government what record is kept of telephone conversations on these matters in the context of our other debates about the computer. I understand that records are kept of telephone conversations between

843
individuals and the department. Secondly, in the context of Mr Timms' remarks, it would be necessary for the individual to show that as a result he acted to his detriment; or, more accurately, did not act and as a result suffered.
We are clear that if those two conditions can be fulfilled—that an individual can demonstrate that he was misinformed and suffered as a result—it is already established, and recorded clearly in Hansard of 8th March 1999, that that is the Government's intention. The Government have presumably given a great deal of thought to these matters. As in the case of the passported benefits in relation to the Tax Credits Act 1999, which is now on the statute book, there has been a great deal of interdepartmental discussion—not least between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury because the financial consequences may be considerable. The noble Baroness said on 4th May that the DSS was considering delaying the change. Is that still in the Government's mind and, if so, over what sort of time scale?
My amendment seeks to suggest that we should treat this as a matter of urgency and that the position with regard to compensation should be established before we conclude our consideration of the Bill. This is obviously a preliminary debate—we have Report and Third Reading stages to come—and we must consider at what stage it might be appropriate to press these matters to a Division.
It is a matter of concern, and we realise that the Government must consider it carefully. However, it does not seem to us at all unreasonable that we should ask the Government to make a decision while the House has an opportunity to take a view on what it thinks would be an appropriate response on behalf of the individuals concerned.
Lord Rix: As be noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the Minister of State, Stephen Timms, has made a number of promises in another place about a compensation scheme for widows and widowers who were not informed of the prospective reduction in SERPS. I believe that telephone calls to the Benefits Agency are recorded and kept for a maximum of six months.
This amendment seeks to place such a compensation scheme clearly on the face of the Bill. I welcome that, and I thus offer my support to the noble Lord. Unfortunately, the phrase "how long is a piece of string?" keeps entering my mind in regard to such compensation. My Amendments Nos. 91A and 92A are more specific in this area. However, I will withhold any further comments about them until later. I, therefore, support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in whatever decision and direction he may take.
Earl Russell: This amendment is very similar to Amendment No. 91A standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. However, it is a good deal less sweeping than our Amendment No. 92D, which we shall come to later. If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, should be minded to press the matter to a Division at a later
844
stage, we will remember that half a loaf is better than no bread—indeed, it may be a good deal more than half a loaf.
At least the facts of the matter are reasonably clearly agreed as they were set out by the Minister on 4th. May and on other occasions. It is agreed that a change was introduced by the Social Security Act 1986 and that the change was not communicated adequately to those who would suffer from it. It is also agreed that that remained true until at least this April.
The last time we discussed this issue, the Minister said that she had not yet discovered why the misinformation was disseminated. If she has now made that discovery, I will listen with interest. The crucial point that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made clear is that, as a result of the misleading information, a great many people have done what they otherwise would not have done and—more importantly—have not done what they otherwise would have done. In fact, many people have not made provision for their spouse's widowhood, which they most undoubtedly would have made had they known what the law was.
Knowing the law relating to social security is extremely difficult. Except for the present Minister, who is extraordinary in this respect, there are few of us, even Ministers, who outside the Chamber taken by surprise would know exactly what the law on social security was. So if Ministers do not know, how can we expect husbands making ordinary provision for their ordinary families to know when they have been told otherwise by people whose business it is to give them honest information? Outside public life, that would give rise to a strong claim to compensation.
The Minister knows that I am not inclined to make anything of the point that the country party has turned into the court and Treasury party. That happens all the time. However, I believed that Mrs Beckett's remark,
"I advise anyone who is married to a man who is lingering on 5th April 2000 quickly to shove a pillow over his face because it will halve the pension entitlement if the husband dies on the following day",
was perhaps taking the freedom of opposition to a rather extreme extent. The legal position would be interesting were anyone to take that advice—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that she would enjoy parliamentary immunity!
Earl Russell: That is just what I was about to say, but I was about to add that the pleading of parliamentary privilege might tend to bring that doctrine into discredit and might lead to as much political loss as legal gain. I believe that prudent Ministers do not let it come to that point.
In the past, the Minister has made distinctly encouraging noises on the subject. I have heard them and I have been distinctly encouraged. But distinctly encouraging noises and legally binding commitments where the Treasury is in the wings are not the same things. The Division Bell concentrates the mind wonderfully. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has allowed a stay of execution. We await developments.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: I welcome the amendment in the name of my noble friend as a first stab at dealing with what I regard as a serious problem. It is intolerable that a department of state should allow the situation to occur. As the noble Earl said, it is difficult for ordinary people to understand the law and they rely on what they are told by officials of the state.
However, I am concerned about the necessity for proof because I suspect that in many cases it will not be forthcoming. That does not make the problem of the person involved any the less. Indeed, I should think it would be even more frustrating if he knew that compensation was available but remained beyond his reach because he was unable to offer sufficient proof. I should have thought that a more drastic solution was called for, even to the point of deferring the operation of the scheme. I await the Minister's reply with interest.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Never has an amendment tonight been awaited with such interest. I suspect that never shall I disappoint so many people at once on one amendment. It relates to the provisions reducing inherited SERPS for widows and widowers similar to those put forward in another place. It is not dissimilar in principle to the issues raised in your Lordships' House at Question Time.
The proposed new clause would prevent implementation of the changes to inherited SERPS unless the Government have introduced a compensation scheme by 5th April 2000. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others make an alternative suggestion later.
The changes to inherited SERPS were introduced by the previous government 13 years ago. The stated intention was to bring SERPS into line with occupational pensions, where it is the norm to inherit half of the scheme, and so to ensure a level playing field between occupational schemes and state provision.
The implementation date for the changes, which apply to widows and widowers above state pension age and widows below state pension age, was set for the year 2000, 14 years after the original legislation. This should have given people who might be affected plenty of time to alter their financial arrangements.
It is common ground that those changes were not well handled by the previous administration. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, talked about the present situation being intolerable. What was intolerable was the situation that the Government inherited. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, says that if the Government do not come up with a satisfactory answer he will press the amendment to a Division. That is a bit rich, coming from the party which created this horrendous mess in the first place, and with huge costs that we seek now to address.
Earl Russell: Speaking for a party not involved in this, I wish to say that we know this Committee is amply populated with pots and kettles. Need we waste time saying so?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I rather think so, because the pressure is on the Government to solve a multi-billion-pound problem which we have inherited and which we only registered as a problem towards the end of last year. Yet we are being pressed, when over the past 14 years the previous administration failed to take action or do what they should have done.
I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in the major Opposition party or the Government, but the Government are being put on the defensive, to produce a solution involving multi-billions which was created by the previous administration, who are quick to criticise us for not coming up with a solution and very slow to apologise either to the Committee or to people at large for the mess they created, the failure to publicise and the inadequacy, therefore, of people's subsequent financial arrangements.
I was not seeking to make party political points, but it would well behove the Opposition, who in government introduced this change—that is their privilege—and then failed to publicise it, and continued to give misleading information for nearly 14 years, to take some responsibility for their actions, instead of seeking to turn the matter around on this Government for having failed to respond quickly to what an ombudsman may or may not currently be contemplating.
It is unwise, imprudent, ungenerous and unfortunate of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to try to turn the issue into one of this Government's incompetence, as opposed to his Government's maladministration.
Earl Russell: In the light of the fact that the misinformation has gone on under both parties, the remarks of the noble Baroness, the Minister, remind me of the marginal rubric in the UN delegate's notes: "Weak point. Shout."
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, the previous administration introduced this change, and therefore had a responsibility for publicising it. We did not, and we did not know that it had not been publicised. There is a total difference in our situation, and I am surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, does not accept that there is a difference—and a qualitative difference—between us.
We are well aware that this matter was not handled well, and we are very concerned that people have been worried about the reduction and the misleading information that some have received. But the costs of delaying or phasing in the change are substantial. To give an example, the cumulative cost of delaying the reduction would be more than £5.5 billion by 2010, and there would be a continuing cost of around £1 billion a year for some time after that. Those are the sorts of sums we are talking about.
If one were starting afresh with that sort of money to put into pensions, it is not immediately obvious that the pressure point one would seek to address would be to bring a SERPS 50 per cent pension up to 100 per cent for widows. To reverse the change, or to introduce an open-ended compensation scheme—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was absolutely right about that; it would

847
be an open-ended compensation scheme—would have the same early effect, but with a bill for expenditure in the future that would continue to increase.
There is a very real issue of proof. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me about telephone calls. No record is kept of telephone calls, any more than a record is normally kept of conversations at the desk. Paper records are kept for about six months. But if someone assented that he had received that misleading advice, I suspect it may well be the case that the Government would have to prove that he had not, rather than the contrary, because there would be no evidence to counterbalance it.
Lord Rix: That happened to me. I made two telephone calls—one in 1992, just before my heart operation and one in July of last year, during the currency of this Government. I received misleading information from the Benefits Agency in Newcastle. It appears that I have no means of proving that. But the Minister now seems to be saying that the Benefits Agency would have to prove that it had not received the call, rather than the other way round. I assure the Minister that I did make the call; otherwise I should not have entered into the SERPS debate in the first place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I accept entirely that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, did indeed make those calls. I was using that as an example to show how difficult it would be to meet the standard of proof suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.
At present, no one has suffered any financial loss as a result of those changes because they do not take effect until April 2000. The Government, including the Minister of State, have made it clear on several occasions that they will consider claims for compensation from individuals who have received incorrect information and have subsequently either acted to their detriment or failed to act to their benefit.
As I said, we are considering which of those two routes is the better to follow or whether there is a third route which we have not yet explored. Several different responses have been given this evening and a variety of other suggestions has been made. But reversing the change, opting to defer it or giving full compensation to people who claim, whether there is evidence or not, that they have been affected or given misleading advice, would produce significant and heavy costs. We cannot take that decision lightly. We are considering the matter carefully and we shall make an announcement in due course. It is no good the noble Lord being indignant with me about bringing information to the Committee. The Government have to make a choice on this extremely expensive issue which involves billions of pounds. The Government will not be rushed into making that decision in order to fit in with the timetable of this or any other Bill. We must do what we believe is right and prudent. We shall make an announcement in due course. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: I did not move this amendment in any way in a partisan spirit. I accept fully that there have
848
been problems with regard to misinformation both under the previous government and under the present Government. It is important that we should debate this matter in that way.
There are two issues: the first is the original change way back in 1986; and the second is the question of bad information being given to individuals who, had they had the right information, might have made different decisions and who have suffered as a result of the bad information they have received.
Lord Rix: I speak from personal experience. Sometimes those bad decisions were taken at the time when it was the law of the land. When I went as secretary-general to Mencap, where pay was not exactly over-generous, I decided to take an early pension. But I did that because at that time, the law of the land said that I would received SERPS and that if I died, my widow would also receive full SERPS. In other words, I took a pension many years before I should have done so on the understanding, as the law was at that time, that my widow would receive a full pension. I took that decision then.
Therefore, it is quite clear that those of us who paid in from 1978 to 1986 were doing so when the law of the land said that our widows would receive full SERPS. I am totally at a loss to understand how the noble Lord's government could overturn that in 1986 or how it could be supported by the present Government at this time. It seems to be a simple matter of contract which is completely overridden by retrospective statute. At the moment a mutual company is in the courts facing a bill for £1.1 billion for trying to argue against the need to pay terminal bonuses which it had contracted to make on certain life pensions. If the court finds against the life company, it will be in exactly the same position as would be this and the previous government if they too found themselves in court today.
Earl Russell: Is the noble Lord, Lord Rix, telling us that this Whitehall farce is not as funny as some others that he can remember?
Lord Rix: Taken as a plot for a Whitehall farce, it might have been seen as totally unacceptable.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I am not going down that particular route. There are two issues. The first relates to the initial decision and the second to the wrong information which, it is abundantly clear, was given both under the previous government and the present one. As regards the initial decision, that was debated at the time and Parliament took a view on it. A period of 14 years elapsed before that decision came into effect.
The basic point which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made in the first part of his intervention a moment ago relates to that decision. His particular amendment is rightly to be discussed separately from this one because he seeks to raise issues other than those I am dealing with now. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am

849
wrong, but my understanding is that the Government are in no way proposing to reverse at this stage the decision taken in 1986 as regards basic policy.
The second issue is the action which people failed to take, as the noble Earl pointed out, when receiving wrong information. There again, one must accept that that has happened under both governments. Ultimately, Ministers are held responsible. I leave unasked—I do not expect an answer—what happened to the officials who were responsible. Presumably, in many instances they have retired.
But having discovered that mistakes have been made both by this and the previous government, the question remains as to what it is right to do about it. Clearly, because the deadline is rapidly approaching and is only a matter of a few months away, it is important that a decision should be reached so that people know where they stand.
There are various solutions as regards compensation. The proposal put forward in the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which it is more appropriate to discuss separately, will be very expensive whereas the cost of my amendment is not clear because we do not know what the Government have in mind.
I put this point in the tone I used for my opening remarks. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to say that if as much information as we are going to receive is now available, Ministers should make up their minds as quickly as possible. My amendment seeks to encourage them to do so. As regards previous amendments to the Tax Credits Bill, the noble Baroness viewed with scepticism my attempts to encourage her to make rapid decisions. There is no reason why a decision should be delayed beyond the date I have suggested in my amendment. The sanction suggested is perhaps not entirely appropriate. We can turn to that at a later stage.
I turn to the question of the records. I am somewhat surprised by what the Minister has said about telephone calls. She will recall that with regard to the problems that arose with the payment of pensions and the breakdown of the department's computer, a number of people telephoned the department. My understanding is that in those circumstances a record is kept of such telephone calls. Am I wrong in recollecting that that is so?
In situations where there is clearly a record in writing, perhaps the department keeps the letters for only six months, but it is likely that those who received letters may have retained letters written more than six months ago. I pay tribute to the fact that the Government in another place, and the Minister in this House, have indicated that they propose to do something about this matter. They are not proposing to say, "Bad luck, that is the end of the matter". They intend to devise a system of compensation. However, I do not understand why there is a problem in devising such a system within a reasonable time-scale, at any rate before 5th April, which is the limit set in the amendment.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, there are difficulties here. Whether people receive a full widow's pension or half a widow's pension will depend
850
arbitrarily on the exact date. That matter would not raise particular problems if they have had 14 years to prepare for such an event, but if not, it will raise problems.
With regard to Amendment No. 73A, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, or that tabled by the Liberal Democrat Benches, I hope that it will be possible to press the Government to make a decision that is acceptable to the House. If this is not resolved before the Bill passes, the danger is that the House will not have an opportunity to express a view on what is clearly a highly unsatisfactory situation, on which I make no partisan point. However, we ought to try to resolve it within a reasonable time-scale.
I was hoping that we might have some further response from the Minister. If not, I shall reserve the right to return to this at a later stage. We shall consider the reply given by the Minister, but it seems that simply to say, "Wait and see", when the House will not be in a position to take a view opposite to or different from that of the Government would not be a satisfactory position. Somewhat reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Bereavement payments]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 54, line 16, after ("day") insert ("or a bereaved person aged between 60 and 64 when the spouse died")
The noble Lord said: We have already outlined the problem that has arisen in this case. In Amendment No. 74, we are seeking to suggest that those in this unsatisfactory situation may be in a more difficult position if the person who is bereaved and who expects to receive a pension is, so to speak, up against a deadline. I hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic answer. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I want to add the support of these Benches to the noble Lords physically on my left.
Lord Rix: Venturing into the detail of this part of the Bill is for me, as an amateur in these matters, rather like a boy scout with a first aid badge attempting brain surgery. But I wish to speak to the bereavement payments as a whole in the amendments before us.
Like other Members of the Committee, I welcome the fact that widowers will now receive bereavement benefits. But as I said at Second Reading, I am at a loss to understand why this reform, which was necessary to meet the principle of equal treatment of men and women, should also mean that widows will lose £500 million a year by the year 2020. It is a case of giving a little with one hand and taking away a lot with the other.
I am convinced by the arguments for extending the new £2,000 bereavement payment to people above state pension age, including women aged 60 to 64. The logic, such as it is, seems to me that, as the old payment was not paid to pensioners, therefore the new one will not be paid either. But as Age Concern and others pointed out, older people have the same needs on bereavement as people aged under pension age without dependent children.

851
To me, such a decision sits oddly with the Government's aim of targeting benefits to those who need them, unless there is evidence, which I have yet to see, that those over pension age are, as a group, less needy than those under pension age. In general, nothing will be paid to any pensioners when they suffer bereavement. I am therefore sympathetic to the aims of those amendments which extend the eligibility of the bereavement payment. In particular, there is a strong case for extending eligibility to women aged 60 to 64, at least until the state pension is equalised between 2010 and 2020.
I welcome the fact that bereavement payment has been doubled. Its value should now be protected so that it does not wither on the vine. But, in spite of this seemingly generous gesture, I am still concerned that women widowed in the future are liable to be short-changed. For example, as we have just heard, they might lose half of their late husband's. SERPS, and will not receive the additional bereavement tax allowance from April 2000. If we are building for the future, as I am sure is the intention, I am certain that those yet to be bereaved deserve greater fairness and greater security.
Baroness Amos: Amendment No. 74 is aimed at extending eligibiLty for the bereavement payment. It would allow people widowed between the ages of 60 and 64, at any time before or after the new scheme comes into force, to claim the £2000 bereavement payment. I should first make it clear that the clause will extend existing policy and allow men aged 60 to 64 widowed after the new scheme starts to claim bereavement payment. And when the pension ages of men and women are equalised at 65, women in this age group will also qualify.
The group that the noble Lord intends to help—widows aged 60 to 64—are pensioners. But bereavement benefits, like the widow's benefits they are replacing, are there to provide a measure of compensation from the national insurance scheme for men and women who have lost a spouse while still of working age.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, talked of the Government's commitment to targeting benefits to those who need them most. Other measures are in place to provide that support for pensioners and this Government have done much to build on that. In discussions this evening we have already talked about the minimum income guarantee. Our proposals are based on a clear set of principles and our reforms focus help from the state where and when it is needed most. We are spending £140 million more in the first year to ensure that this happens from the start.
The amendment would appear to allow retrospective claims from any widower aged between 60 and 64 when his wife died. That might mean, for example, giving the lump sum payment to an 80-year old man widowed 20 years ago. I should remind Members of the Committee that the bereavement payment, like the current widow's payment, is intended to be paid immediately on bereavement. The principle is that it
852
helps with immediate costs at the time of greatest need. Offering the benefit retrospectively to people whose need for immediate support has passed would undermine that principle.
Under the new bereavement payment that we are introducing, each year thousands of men will receive a benefit that they could never claim before; thousands of women will get double the amount they would get at present. The amendment would weaken the principles that underpin our reforms. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: I believe that the Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for clarifying the position with regard to this particular amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 54, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert ("or
() that the person was of pensionable age and in receipt of income support; and").
The noble Lord said: I intend to take the most direct approach possible on this amendment. If a person, no matter what his age may be, is on income support, he is receiving benefit to bring his income up to an acceptable level. Thus the logic behind the amendment is that, if that person is bereaved and there is a benefit available for covering the costs of bereavement, surely there is a case for making that payment available to someone who is on such a level of income that he is in need of income support.
I hope that we shall receive, shall we say, a warmer reception for this amendment than we have received for many of the other amendments that we have moved so far this evening. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: The noble Lord's amendment appears to be aimed at extending eligibility for the bereavement payment to widows and widowers of pensionable age who are receiving income support. Although I understand the noble Lord's concerns, I am afraid that I shall disappoint him. I believe that this amendment is the wrong way to address such concerns. It goes against a principle that has been at the heart of the widows' benefit scheme since it was devised by Beveridge. Widows' benefits have always been an insurance against unexpected death in working life. They are not compensation for the inevitable fact that all of us will die. They are, and always have been, intended for people of working age; and this will continue under our proposals.
The purpose of the bereavement benefit, as with the widow's payment it will replace, is to provide immediate help to those of working age in meeting unexpected costs which arise on bereavement. We recognise the great importance of having swift, non-means-tested help at such a time. That is why we have doubled the value of the payment. Of course, pensioners also need support and we are fully committed

853
to that aim. On bereavement, the social fund is available to help the poorest pensioners—and others—with funeral expenses.
I could go into some of the detail of the Government's other achievements with respect to pensioners but, bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, I shall not, unless noble Lords wish me to do so. However well intentioned, the amendment would undermine the fundamental principles of our reforms. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Addington: When we receive a response which states that the amendment would not fit into the Beveridge scheme, I always feel that we should perhaps have moved slightly further on than that. The noble Baroness also referred to "unexpected death". I cannot help thinking that people are living rather longer than they did when Beveridge was devising his scheme. Therefore, the example of not fitting into the existing scheme is something that we should be looking at rather more thoroughly than is the case at the moment. I heard the noble Baroness's answer and reserve my position to return to this subject at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 54, line 24, at end insert ("or was making voluntary contributions")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 82. The amendment refers to the qualifications for bereavement payments which appear in Clause 49. That clause contains various provisions. For example, the proposed new Section 36(1) states that,
"A person whose spouse dies on or after the appointed day shall be entitled to a bereavement payment",
if the person concerned satisfies various conditions. The proposed new Section 36(1)(b) provides entitlement to bereavement payments if,
"the spouse satisfied the contribution condition for a bereavement payment specified in Schedule 3, Part I, paragraph 4".
We suggest that bereavement payments should also be made if the people concerned have been making voluntary contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has already been helpful in setting out the provisions of this clause. However, it seems to me that voluntary contributions might also be a reasonable qualification for entitlement to a bereavement payment. We would appreciate her comments on that. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: The purpose of these amendments is to allow a widow or widower to qualify for the new bereavement benefits by virtue of voluntary contributions. The actual effect of the amendments would be to secure entitlement to bereavement benefits by payment of any voluntary contribution. I am not sure from what the noble Lord said by way of introduction that that was the intention behind this amendment.
854
Contribution conditions for the bereavement payment are no different to those which apply to the current widows' benefit scheme. We intend simply to carry them over to the new bereavement benefits. As far as voluntary or Class 3 contributions are concerned, it is already possible for them to count as paid contributions. Therefore a person may improve his or her contribution record by paying Class 3 contributions and so protect his or her right to a basic retirement pension or bereavement benefit for a spouse. These voluntary contributions may be paid up to six years after the relevant year, or longer in exceptional cases. Furthermore, a widow or widower can pay Class 3 contributions towards his or her late spouse's contribution record for the purpose of gaining bereavement benefits.
I can therefore assure the Committee that voluntary contributions will count for bereavement benefit purposes either if the late spouse has paid voluntary contributions to protect the benefit rights of his or her partner or if the partner seeks to make up the record to gain benefit rights. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by my explanation and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful for the explanation given by the noble Baroness. I am not quite clear whether she proposes to accept the amendment or whether she is simply saying that it is unnecessary.
Baroness Amos: I am saying that the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Higgins: In that case there seems little point in pressing it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 54, leave out lines 25 to 28
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to leave out some words from the Bill. I will, if I may, read those words as that makes the point as clearly as it can be made. The words are as follows:
"A bereavement payment shall not be payable to a person if that person and a person of the opposite sex to whom that person was not married were living together as husband and wife at the time of the spouse's death".
That restricts the bereavement payment to those who had been through a ceremony of marriage. The purpose of this amendment is to extend it to those couples who are, in the words of the Bill,
"living together as husband and wife",
without having gone through a ceremony of marriage.
Those words are quite sufficiently restrictive. The status of cohabiting is clearly known to social security law and has been so since the National Assistance Act 1948. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack for helping to clarify these points during debates on the Family Law Act 1996. So there is no danger of uncertainty if this amendment were adopted; it is perfectly clear what my amendment means.
I do not understand—particularly in this day and age—why the Government have seen fit to introduce this restriction. Most of us know from our own social experience—if not from reading, then from statistics, from Social Trends or other more academic sources—that many couples who live together without a ceremony of marriage are just as much regular, established couples as any others we know. There is no clear outward difference, except in the ceremony.
Why should those who have not gone through a ceremony—which, however much it may concern some people from a religious point of view, is not a matter of great secular concern—be penalised in this way? I cannot see that the state has an interest in what is basically a matter of religious concern. It is a matter in which some degree of separation of Church and state seems to be perfectly legitimate.
It is also a point which may be of electoral concern. We are told by Social Trends that 20 per cent of couples who live regularly together are cohabiting without marriage. My own experience, from looking at the names on the electoral register when I was canvassing in the last election, is very much in line with Social Trends' findings. For once in a blue moon, my sample must have been not untypical.
If the Bill is left in its present form the Government are saying to large numbers of potential voters, "You are not getting anything from us. You will have to look elsewhere". Purely in political terms—quite apart from any question of justice—that is extremely unwise advice for a government to give to the voters. There is no case in justice why cohabiting couples should not receive a bereavement payment; there is no case in terms of sheer political expediency for taking this line. It is out of line with the developments which are rapidly taking place. I do not see why the Government have taken up the position they have. It is a quite unnecessary restriction.
I hope that they will see fit to change it. When advice has ultimately reached the Minister—by what the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, once described as "that curious process of osmosis by which information reaches Ministers in this House"—she may be able to do something about it. Obviously this is not the kind of question on which one wishes to divide the House at this time of night; on the other hand, it is a serious question of principle; it is a question about what is the purpose of the state; it is a question about equality; it is a question about non-discrimination; and it is a question of sheer human need. I very much hope that the amendment will be taken seriously and will be successful. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: Our intention with bereavement benefits is to continue, as now, to base entitlement only on legal marriage between couples at the time of death and for entitlement to end when a person remarries or lives with another person as husband or wife.
We believe that a scheme based on marriage is right for two primary reasons. First, marriage is the basis, the cornerstone, of the contributory benefits system. This applies not only to this benefit but to others—for example, to war widows, to public sector pensions and
856
to many other benefits. Secondly, marriage provides a straightforward method of deciding whether benefits should be paid. It would be far more difficult and intrusive to administer and police the benefits if they were extended to unmarried couples.
Our intention is to provide the new support on bereavement in as direct and simple a way as we can. We have as far as possible maintained the current conditions of entitlement while extending the benefits to widowers. So, as with widow's benefit, entitlement to the new benefits will be based on legal marriage.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of wide-ranging points with respect to issues of principle and equality. These are general issues which I am sure this place will continue to debate. However, on the basis of my comments about the cornerstone of the contributory benefits system, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I understand what the Minister says: that the provision is based on current conditions of entitlement. That is not a matter of dispute between us. I also accept that marriage has been, as the Minister put it, a cornerstone of the contributory principle. But the Government, and not least the Prime Minister, tell us almost daily how much the world has changed since Beveridge. This is one of the ways in which the world has changed most. The status of cohabiting couples is quite different now from what it was in 1948. One can now include one's unmarried partner in one's Who's Who entry. I can think of plenty more symbols of that change. I shall not bother to produce them at this time of night.
The Minister then falls back on the argument that this proposal would make it much more difficult to police the benefit. But in all other social security law cohabiting and marriage are taken as being of equal status. It is one of the principal ways in which social security law differs from the law in regard to other ministries. We came up against this issue over and over again in debates on the Family Law Bill. If the Department of Social Security can manage it for practically every other benefit under the sun, I do not see why it cannot manage it for this one. Bringing this provision back in this form, in this day and age, is a thoroughly retrograde step, and one for which, whether it concerns the Government or not, they will lose a considerable number of votes—and rightly so.
I do not intend to divide the House at this time of night. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [New allowances for bereaved spouses]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 82 not moved.]
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 56, line 16, leave out ("pensionable age") and insert ("age 60, if the bereaved spouse is a woman, or age 65, if the bereaved spouse is a man,")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands also in the names of my noble friend Lady Lockwood and other noble Lords. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 86 and 89 in this group.
Amendment No. 82A is a probing amendment. It seeks clarification of the Government's thinking in this area. I know that my noble friend the Minister is only too aware of the financial problems that face very many women in Britain in their old age. Women face inequality in pay structures and have a history of low pay and interrupted, dislocated working lives. That is especially true of women with children.
While I am aware of the Government's important initiatives to reverse the sorry saga of women's pay inequality—for example, through the introduction of the national minimum wage and the working families' tax credit—the reality remains that women face an unequal struggle in their older years, despite the international legal obligations of equality in pension rights.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 89 reflect what I believe is the experience of bereavement. We all need look no further than our own families to know that bereavement has its own uniquely difficult timetable. People's reaction to the trauma and pain of bereavement depends on individual circumstances, but those of us who have suffered or observed the bereavement of a surviving spouse at close quarters know that it takes at least a year to feel any sense of normality returning to one's life. Physically, mentally, emotionally, a year makes sense.
That is why those Members of the Committee who put their names to Amendments Nos. 86 and 89 believe that 52 weeks is a far more appropriate time-scale for the period of a bereavement allowance than the 26 weeks in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give positive consideration to the two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I support the amendment on the grounds that it is unreasonable to expect someone to be able to adjust to the trauma of bereavement in only six months. Almost everyone who has suffered a bereavement understands that the year's anniversary is a turning point. That applies to the practicalities of learning to cope in a different way of life, especially for older women who have not been used to dealing with the practicalities of finance, household matters and so on. It also applies most particularly to the emotional trauma. I hope that the Minister will be able to support the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Rix: I too am concerned at the effect of Clause 50 which brings in the new bereavement allowance. I do not think the clause has had the attention it deserves because it hides the abolition of the contributory widow's pension. There are therefore a number of amendments on the Marshalled List which I support and which would improve a bad clause. As with Clause 49, I welcome the fact that the allowance will be paid to men as a result of the European Court case.
858
My main objection is that this is worse than salami slicing. A contributory benefit is being hacked and chopped at with a vengeance. The widow's pension is being replaced with a time-limited benefit of just six months. That change drives a coach and horses through the contributory principle. What about the millions of men who have been contributing to national insurance, some voluntarily, in the expectation that their widow will get a widow's pension? From 2001 many will not and they will never know what they should have received. As I said at Second Reading:
"Widows seem to be something of an easy target. They do not know when they will be bereaved and they probably will not know what they could have expected under the old dispensation".—[Official Report, 10/6/99; col. 1601.]
The Government have made much play of their commitment to women's issues, and I wonder whether the Minister's conscience has been pricked by the negative impact on the future income of many bereaved women, in particular those without dependent children. Women already have lower incomes than men. This measure simply makes matters worse.
It is a similar argument to the one which we will debate when it comes to my amendment on SERPS for widows. It may, I fear, yet end up with the Government in the European Court of Human Rights challenged on the legitimacy of cutting back on benefits to which people have already contributed.
One final point: if the Government are determined to enact Clause 50, I believe that at a minimum they must extend the allowance from six months. It is absurd to think that six months is long enough to cope with the effects of bereavement. As Age Concern has noted, the representations on this point made by them and all others on the consultation paper. Support in Bereavement, have apparently been entirely ignored. No one, except the Minister and her officials, seems to think that six months is long enough. I therefore support the amendments that seek to extend the duration of the allowance, as well as the earlier amendments to include those people who have made voluntary contributions.
I should add that I am pleased that additional safeguards have been included for those bereaved with dependent children, but they can be seen as mere crumbs of comfort for far larger numbers of sorrowing widows.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Amendment No. 84 in my name has been grouped with this set of amendments. The Committee will recall that on many occasions, most recently on Second Reading, I have spoken against the intention to remove widows' benefits that hitherto have been paid on a contributory basis. I understand that this is known as "modernising" widows' benefits. The Government's reason for incorporating this provision in the Bill is the need to equalise widows' and widowers' benefits so that widowers are entitled to benefits when their partners die. The modernisation consists of removing entitlement to benefits from widows over the age of 45 with no children or those who are no longer entitled to the widowed mother's allowance. Instead, both widows and widowers will receive a bereavement allowance for six

859
months only, plus an increase in the basic lump sum of £1,000 to £2,000, which incidentally I welcome. In addition, the SERPS addition is to disappear.
This provision represents a significant transfer of benefit support from women to men. Childless widowers over the age of 45 will gain but childless women who are widowed after 45 will lose. They will lose more than 19 years' benefit and all the additional pension that their husbands paid for through national insurance contributions. Women with children who are widowed at an early age will be particularly badly hit. A woman with small children widowed in her 20s or 30s will probably cease to be eligible for the widowed mother's allowance, now to be the widowed parents allowance, in her late 40s or early 50s.
Currently, the benefits system recognises that someone in those circumstances will find it difficult to enter or remain in employment while the children are young, and she may well find it difficult to get a job when they leave education. The provision in the Bill means that someone in these circumstances, who has perhaps been out of the labour market for 20 years, must sign on for jobseekers allowance at an age when other women are preparing for retirement.
When these issues have been raised previously the Government's case has been put to the House very ably by my noble friend the Minister. However, she knows that do not accept it. It is my belief that those who frame these policies think that things have changed for women far more than they have. It is true that many more career opportunities are now open to women than 30 or 40 years ago, but one has only to look at any gathering of professional or senior executive personnel to see at once that women still constitute a tiny minority of the better paid. Nicola Horlick is so exceptional that she is a constant news item.
The EOC report contains the not unsurprising information that women still on average earn 76 per cent of male earnings. A woman who has spent a large amount of time bringing up a family—this is still a socially desirable thing to do—is not likely to find matters easy in a highly competitive labour market when she is widowed. There is also the fairly common situation in which a woman will have spent much time caring for a sick or disabled husband before he eventually dies. The opportunity that she has had to update her skills and qualify for outside employment is likely to be minimal.
There is also the argument that nowadays a number of women benefit from generous occupational pension provision. I must tell the Committee that, based on some experience of negotiating these matters, most ordinary schemes, unless they are of the top-hat variety for very senior staff, are based on the assumption that there will be state benefit in addition. The same is true of survivors' benefits, which are rarely more than one half of the original pension, again on the assumption that there will be a state benefit entitlement. Even with the better final salary-type schemes, few people nowadays manage to qualify for the Inland Revenue limit. Therefore, while private occupational pension provision may be adequate for most people, it rarely qualifies even now as generous.
860
The Government further believe that to equalise widows' and widowers' benefits on the existing basis would be too costly. I question that. The widow's benefit is paid on contributions paid by the husband. It is intended to pay the widower on the basis of contributions by the deceased wife. In the light of current circumstances, since women have a more interrupted work pattern than most men, the entitlement of widowers is likely to be less and, therefore, equalisation will not be quite so expensive.
I return to my main theme. This is a contributory benefit. If we are to depart entirely from the social insurance concept with which we have lived since Beveridge and return to the days of means testing, and ultimately to the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor, there should be a proper debate about it. It should not be done in the fashion proposed in the Bill—a snip here and a snip there in the hope that no one will appreciate what is happening. If this contributory benefit goes, what will happen to others? This is not acceptable.
My amendment seeks to maintain the system as it is. It may not be very well worded, but that is what it is about. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can be persuaded to reconsider what is proposed. As I am sure she is aware, the provisions in the Bill are opposed not only by the Widows' Advisory Trust, of which I am a trustee—one would expect it to oppose them—but by the Trades Union Congress. Doubts have also been expressed by the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I await my noble friend's response with interest.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: The Government's proposals are the downside of equality, the argument being that if one believes in equality, both sexes after a bereavement should be equally required actively to seek work. I can understand the logic of that, but I also understand, and feel considerable sympathy for, the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. I am not sure that equality has yet gone that far.
There is also a problem, as there was with the SERPS amendments, of legitimate expectation. Many people have made provision for their spouses on the assumption that there would be a continuing widow's pension. If that is to change, people should have notice of it in good time so that they can make provision in advance to leave their spouses sufficiently well provided for when the time comes. The notice period contained in the Bill will not do that.
I am also worried about another issue. I had hoped to table a further amendment, but it has not yet been drafted. I hope that it will be ready on Report. At the moment, we have considerable age discrimination in employment. The effect of cutting the bereavement allowance to six months will be that after that people will be expected actively to seek work.
As things stand, if a woman is widowed at 50 and she has been the sort of wife who has stayed at home looking after children and keeping the house, she will have no qualifications or recent work experience. She

861
will not find it easy to get work, and the numbers in receipt of income support will increase. The statistics will not look good and people will start to ask questions of the Government.
I know that a code of practice has been issued on age discrimination, but it has not yet made much difference. Before any change to the bereavement allowance comes into force, we need to have in place proper legislation with teeth against age discrimination in employment. Beyond that considerable problem, I see all the arguments between equality and positive discrimination running round in a circle. Those arguments are a revolving door and governments never quite get the provision right.
Amendment No. 86 would extend the six-month period to a year. That is a simple and straightforward amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, spoke movingly. We on these Benches will undoubtedly support that amendment. We need further amendments, not all of which have been tabled. We need one to defer the commencement of the clause and one that requires a commencement condition of legislation on age discrimination in employment. I would be happy to discuss with other interested parties what other safeguards we need.
I accept the principle in the abstract of what the Government are doing, but I do not think that we are yet ready for it. We have not had enough notice, and I do not think that we have adequate safeguards. So I hope that between now and Report stage there will be a little more thinking. We need it.
Lord Higgins: Concern has been expressed in all parts of the Chamber about the Government's proposals. The Government propose to extend benefits to widowers as a result of the case which was brought in the European Court of Human Rights. However, the hand of the Treasury was immediately seen. It was felt that somehow the money must be clawed back. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to it being snipped here and snipped there. It gives cause for concern. Amendments have been tabled from different parts of the Chamber ranging from extending the period from 26 weeks to a year. Amendment No. 88 extends it to two years.
The idea that a reasonable adjustment can be made by a bereaved person within 26 weeks is not reasonable. One must hope that the Government will think again on these matters.
At the other end of the scale, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, extends the period up to pensionable age. It seeks to restore the previous position.
We all have to consider carefully between now and Report stage the right answer. However, it is clear from the whole Committee that what the Government propose is not the right answer. I hope that we shall have a reply from the Minister now. If not, we shall need to return
862
to the matter at Report stage. The Committee should express a view on what is appropriate in these circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As Amendment No. 82A is a probing amendment, I shall briefly explain why the clause is drafted using "pensionable age" rather than "age 60 for women and age 65 for men". I should first make it clear that Clause 50 will allow men and women aged between 45 and pensionable age when they are widowed to claim bereavement allowance. Pensionable age is now defined in the Pensions Act 1995 which, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, is the legislation which will phase in equal pension ages for men and women. That is why it is drafted in the way that it is. The other amendments before us make three different proposals dealing with the length of time for paying the new bereavement allowance. Amendments Nos. 86 and 89, tabled by my noble friends behind me, suggest that the benefit should be paid for a year instead of six months. Amendments Nos. 85 and 88 propose a period of two years. But I should like to start with the first amendments on the list, Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 87.
These amendments would, as we have heard, remove the time limit from bereavement allowance completely. In effect it would be the status quo. Our reforms, as set out in this Bill, focus help from the state where and when it is most needed, while helping those who can support themselves to do so. For example, we are spending an extra £140 million in the first year, to meet real need. Around 40,000 new widows and 15,000 new widowers each year will gain from the new bereavement payment—which at £2,000 will be double the existing widow's payment.
We are meeting the needs of families, by providing a weekly benefit for both widows and widowers with dependent children—the widowed parent's allowance will have the same entitlement conditions and be paid at the same rate as the existing widowed mother's allowance but will be available equally to mothers and fathers. In other words, the bereavement payment doubles the lump sum from £1,000 to £2,000 and extends it to men. The widowed parent's allowance has the same entitlement conditions as the widowed mother's allowance but also extends it to men. Both of those, I should have thought, are to be widely welcomed around the Chamber.
We shall be giving extra help to those who are aged 55 or over at the start of the new arrangements and who are widowed in the first five years after the changes are implemented. That is part of my response to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about giving people notice. We are indeed having a five-year transitional arrangement in which widows will be able to claim income-related help without signing on for work or being expected to be available for it. There will also be a special premium in income-related benefits to help ensure that their income will remain at the level of the six months' bereavement allowance.
However, the core of the difference between us is not the bereavement payment—everyone welcomes the fact that it is to double. It is not the widowed parent's

863
allowance that will replace the widowed mother's allowance, because everyone welcomes the extension of that benefit to men as well as women. The core of the debate is the six-month bereavement allowance.
The first amendments with which I am dealing would extend continuing support for widows in the form of the bereavement allowance until pension age, regardless of their circumstances or income. I believe that there is a generational shift that perhaps we have not all grasped entirely. Today, as many women are in work as men, 98 per cent of married women have had a job and 70 per cent of married women are in work while married. Increasingly, it is easier for women to find work than for men and women have no dependants. So why do we expect men, as widowers, to be in the labour market, available for jobseeker's allowance and actively seeking work? Why do we assume that men must find their own way in the harsh world outside but that women—who are as likely now to be in work as men and who are at least as likely as men to find it easy to work, particularly when they become older—are somehow dependent, are unable to make their way in the world and must seek certain privileges?
A woman nowadays may have a generous occupational pensian as a result of her husband's death and is therefore in no financial need. She may be in work—possibly earning an adequate salary or better—and she may have no dependent children. Why should that woman, simply because she is a woman, receive a widow's pension from age 52, 55 or whatever until retirement age? I do not understand why that should be the case.
That was the situation in Beveridge's day—of course it was—because women performed essentially unwaged work in the home. Nowadays, there are many women in the labour market earning over the national minimum wage and acquiring their own benefits in their own right. They find it at least as easy as men to get into work and, for the most part, they are widowed while they are in work. Why should such women be treated differently from any man in a similar situation? I do not understand that thinking, which I suggest—with all respect and courtesy—belongs to a different generation. That is not the experience of today's generation or of today's women.
When widows' benefits were introduced, widowers were not included in the system because it was assumed that they would return to work after the loss of their wife. I cannot accept that the situation for men has deteriorated to the extent that they, too, now need a benefit for life. It is also clear that the situation has improved for women, and it is much more likely that they will be in employment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that a woman would have to "go into work". I gently suggest that she is already in work and that bereavement happened to her while she was in work. As soon as she is ready—be it in a month, two months, three months or six months—she will want to return to work. Work is not a new activity for her: she has been doing it for the past 20, 30 or 40 years. It is just that, somehow, our social security system has not caught up, largely because it
864
was shaped in the days when women did not go out to work. We must reform that system in ways that are fair to men and women alike and which also reflect the world in which we live.
I shall give another example. In the age group covered by bereavement allowance—between 45 and pension age—it is assumed that the widower will be in work and will find it easy to work and the widow will not. Is that not the assumption that lies behind the views expressed this evening? That is simply not true. Of those aged between 45 and retirement age—which, admittedly, is five years later for men at present—there are more widows in work than widowers: 54 per cent of widows and 53 per cent of widowers are in work. Far from women needing support and being dependent, more of them are in the labour market and they have a better standing in the labour market than men. Yet we appear to be saying, like the Victorians, that women are clinging to their husbands like weeds upon a wall. I believe that that is no longer the case.
In the light of that, we believe that the provision of a benefit for life, regardless of circumstances—whether the woman has a pension, a salary or dependent children—can no longer be justified. We believe that we should help at three particular points. The first is immediately on bereavement when there are costs and unexpected stress and hardship. Hence, the payment of £2,000. The second point of stress is where there are children to be supported. The third point of stress is a six-month period when the widow is getting her act back together and deciding how to spend the rest of her life.
We identify those three points of stress, but we are not saying that a woman who has been in work, has been bereaved and can return to work more easily than a widower should none the less have a widow's pension automatically, as of right, irrespective of financial need, irrespective of whether she has dependants and irrespective of her circumstances just because she is a woman and therefore a widow and therefore needs more protection than a man. I do not believe that that is right. I believe that the world has changed and that we should not provide such protection as though widows are dependent and cannot make their own way.
I turn to the other two sets of amendments which would extend the period of time for widows and widowers to receive bereavement allowance. Those of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, propose a two-year period while my noble friends behind me suggest one year. Unlike the previous amendments, Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, these proposals acknowledge the principles behind the Government's reform. They merely challenge whether six months is the appropriate time as opposed to one or two years.
As I said, we believe that the current system does not distinguish between those who need continuing help and those who do not. Those who are earning a decent living or have a large occupational pension or life insurance see the greatest benefit and the poorest widows see the least: 35,000 widows see nothing of their widow's benefit because they immediately lose income support; and widowers receive no help at all.

865
The amendments accept this. They recognise that it is no longer appropriate to pay a life-long benefit to widows and widows without dependent children regardless of their circumstances. So the argument here is not so much on the basic principles, but on where the line should be drawn.
The Government are sensitive to the needs of those people who have recently become bereaved. We believe that six months is about right. We believe that it balances sensitivity to the needs of recently bereaved people with a recognition that after a period of readjustment people can, for the most part, return to the job they were holding. The length of that transitional period was something we considered very carefully when we first drew up our proposals.
We believe that the six months is about right. However, I have listened to the debate and was moved in particular by the speech made by my noble friend Lady Crawley. We shall reflect on what has been said tonight and consider the matter.
It is important to recognise that we are doubling the bereavement payment. It is important to recognise that we are extending the bereaved parent's allowance to men and women alike. As regards the six-month bereavement allowance, we shall consider whether the period is right. Men and women should be treated alike because today they are equally likely to be in work—indeed, she more likely than he. They will have equal access to the labour market and will equally have built up their benefit contributions.
That is the world in which we now live and why we are making these long-overdue changes. We are meeting the need where it lies at the immediate point. The basic amendments which would retain the present situation, even when the world in which those pensions were shaped has been transformed around us, is no longer viable. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I should like to congratulate the Minister on that speech. It is one of the best I have heard her make. The pride and egalitarianism behind it reminds me vividly of my noble friend Lady Seear at her best.
I understand and admire that emotion. Its annunciation is a major step towards the achievement of equality and I am pleased to hear it for that reason as well as for its rhetorical and intellectual quality. But it is not quite the whole story.
I hear what the Minister says about there being more widows than widowers in work. I also hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, says about statistics on equal pay. Those are both facts. We need to put these together before we have any sort of coherent figure.
I take the point of the reproach to me by the Minister about the woman not being in work and going out to work. I understand that this is no longer the normal picture. I accept that, and I welcome it. But I think all of us, including the noble Baroness, would agree that
866
there still are in the whole country many such people who have not yet come into the cultural change in which the noble Baroness has been quite rightly rejoicing.
So the question between us here comes down to one of timing. There I think there are some real issues. The pace of change, especially when it is a major cultural change of this sort, and the legislative steamroller driving it, is something on which we need some thought. I hope it is right that it should be a male voice saying this and a female voice resisting it. I think that is a good thing.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her promise to think about this again. I would be happy to take part in any discussions, formal, informal or otherwise, that may take place, and I await the results with a great deal of interest.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I disagree very profoundly with a number of the statements that she made. I was not speaking against equality. On the contrary, I am in favour of equalising the benefits. What I am not in favour of is taking benefits away in order to equalise, which is what is happening here. I suggested that it would not cost an awful lot to equalise on the basis of my amendment.
I do not agree that things have changed as much as my noble friend apparently thinks they have. I gave a number of instances of low pay and the disparity in male and female earnings which still exists. I also drew attention to the fact that many women before they are widowed have spent time out of the workforce, often looking after disabled or ill husbands. That is a very common experience.
It seems to me that a number of the points I made were not taken proper account of. There is also the very strong point that this is a contributory benefit, as I said earlier, and husbands contribute in the belief that if anything happens to them their wives will benefit. I disagree with its simply being removed as yet another snip away at the system of social insurance, which we have lived with for a long time and which I support.
Of course, it is not my intention to press the amendment to a vote this evening, but I shall consider carefully what has been said, because I certainly intend to return to it on Report.
Baroness Crawley: I thank the Minister for her reply. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that my noble friend is indeed a great and robust champion of equality, and always has been. I particularly appreciate the sympathetic way in which she said she could perhaps look again at our amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 89 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 57, leave out lines 26 to 32
The noble Lord said: The amendment would effectively remove subsection (5). This is an extraordinarily precise provision, suggesting that the

867
weekly rate of bereavement allowance payable to a person who is under the age of 55 at the time of the spouse's death should be reduced by 7 per cent multiplied by the number of years by which that person's age at that time was less than 55 and, even more precisely,
"any fraction of a year being counted as a year".
It is curious that subsection (5) states that the allowance shall be,
"reduced by 7 per cent. of what it would be apart from this subsection".
I simply do not understand how that provision is expected to work. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: The age-related scale which this amendment world remove is a longstanding arrangement. It was first introduced in 1971. Those who are aged 55 on bereavement, subject to the entitlement conditions being rnet, receive the full rate of widows' pension. Those aged between 45 and 54 on bereavement receive a percentage of the full rate. That follows a principle that has long underpinned the widows' benefit scheme. Those who are widowed later on in life have less opportunity to build up their own provision for retirement. Therefore, they may need more financial help than those widowed at a younger age.
We have considered the options carefully and believe that, for a number of reasons, it is right to carry over that arrangement to the new bereavement allowance. It is likely that it will be more difficult for those in the older age groups to adjust and the age-related scale provides extra help for them to do so.
Bereavement allowance will give them the breathing space they need before supporting themselves through occupational pensions and other income before returning to work. Of course, we are not expecting them to do it alone. For those younger widows and widowers who are not in work, our welfare-to-work programme
868
offers a comprehensive range of help and support, including advice on employment, training and benefits which will help them to return to, or seek, work.
Our reforms focus help from the state where and when it is most needed, while helping those who can support themselves to do so. I do not believe that this amendment is consistent with those aims and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Higgins: I understand the longstanding tapering arrangement to which the noble Baroness referred. I am not clear why subsection (5) includes the words,
"of what it would be apart from this subsection".
Baroness Amos: Subsection (2) provides for the weekly rate of bereavement allowance. Subsection (5) applies to bereavement allowance the rules which relate the amount of benefit to the age of the claimant when the spouse dies. The full rate of benefit is reduced by 7 per cent for each year that the claimant is aged under 55 at the date of bereavement. I should be happy to write to the noble Lord with examples of how that would work.
Lord Higgins: I still do not understand why it says,
"of what it would be apart from this subsection".
That seems to me to be inconsistent. Perhaps the Minister, in writing, will spell that out to me in some detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.

  Regional Venture Capital Funds
  Regional Venture Capital Funds
  Immigration and Asylum Bill: Secondary Legislation
  Immigration and Asylum Bill: Secondary Legislation
  Asylum Applications: Outcomes
  Asylum Applications: Outcomes
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Mothers and Babies in Prison: Report
  Mothers and Babies in Prison: Report
  Immigrants with Leave to Remain: Benefits
  Immigrants with Leave to Remain: Benefits
  Scotland: Murders by Persons Previously Convicted of Homicide
  Scotland: Murders by Persons Previously Convicted of Homicide
  Diabetes among Minority Ethnic Groups
  Diabetes among Minority Ethnic Groups
  KFOR: UK Contribution
  KFOR: UK Contribution
  Millennium Compliance Information for Businesses
  Millennium Compliance Information for Businesses
  Ministerial Meetings with KLA
  Ministerial Meetings with KLA
  Treaty of Lausanne
  Treaty of Lausanne
  South East Turkey: School Closures
  South East Turkey: School Closures
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Green Top Milk
  Green Top Milk
  Meat Hygiene
  Meat Hygiene
  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme
  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme
  Food Standards Enforcement
  Food Standards Enforcement