Sitting of 27 July 1999

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 19 October.

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

    Liaison Arrangements
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the operation of the substantive liaison arrangements between the Government and the Scottish Executive. [91598]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Liaison arrangements will be set out in concordats which will guide working relations between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive on a range of matters.
    Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether, when the Secretary of State says that the arrangements "will be" set out in concordats, he means that the concordats do not exist. Is that why there is so much confusion between his powers and those of the First Minister? Is that why, in the past two weeks, there have been so many turf wars between him and the Scottish First Minister?
    Dr. Reid: The concordats will be published once they have been agreed by the Scottish Executive and the Government. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the concordats do exist. They are there to promote concord between the two Parliaments in their working relationships.
    I am very sorry that the Opposition, including the Scottish National party and the Tories, have failed in their 20-year struggle to stop devolution, but the Scottish Parliament has been established; there is now a partnership of Parliaments; and it will succeed to the benefit of the Scottish people.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if changes are to be made to the way
    102
    in which Parliament operates they should be made on a considered basis, not on the basis of a narrow, populist appeal to English nationalism?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, those of us who have promoted the devolution settlement have spent most of our political life arguing for the unity of the United Kingdom and against the separatists and their narrow brand of nationalism. Unfortunately, the mirror image of that narrow brand of Scottish nationalism seems to be creeping into the leadership of the Conservative party, which is fanning the flames of English nationalism.
    Of course, in the wake of the devolution settlement, we shall have to change the superstructure. We are considering how we deal with matters in this House. Of course we shall reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. Of course we shall consider, once the Parliament and devolved legislatures have settled in, the role of the Secretary of State.
    However, the one area that we should be very careful about tampering with is the essence of the unity of the United Kingdom, and that is ensuring that every Member of Parliament in this House is equal and stays equal.
    Mr. Michael Moore: In the annual report published by the Government yesterday there is a reference to unease at devolution. Does the Secretary of State accept that some of that unease is occurring because of an apparent turf war between his new Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive? Does he maintain, as he did at last week's Scottish Affairs Committee, that this is an entirely media-inspired turf war, or does he think that it is about time that politicians at all levels reversed the tanks off one other's lawns?
    Dr. Reid: The unease that was referred to in the report—I take it that the hon. Gentleman has read the report, not just the media reports of it—was the potential unease among those people who might see the most radical constitutional steps for three centuries taking place and wonder whether Scotland might fall under the hands of the incompetent narrow nationalists who sit on the Benches behind him. I can assure him that he can be well at ease on that basis. We have no intention—nor have the Scottish people—of allowing Scotland to be divorced from the United Kingdom.
    As regards the relationships between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a partnership of Parliaments. They are united by the Labour Government leading here at Westminster and the Labour-led Administration in partnership in Holyrood.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: When my right hon. Friend next meets a member of the Scottish Executive, will he express his support for the stated intention of our right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) to go on fighting against all forms of small-minded nationalism for as long as it takes? When he meets the First Minister, will he pass on some advice—that there is nothing like the prospect of a reshuffle to concentrate the loyalty of all and sundry?
    Dr. Reid: I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing is further from my mind than a reshuffle. As regards the

    103
    recent speculation, I think that we would all be wise to remember exactly what is happening. For nearly two decades, there has been an alliance of forces against the devolution settlement. That settlement is the partnership of Parliaments. When we hear the names of Forsyth, Tebbit, Hague and the SNP, we recall that they have spent most of the last 20 years arguing against the establishment of one part of that settlement: the Scottish Parliament. They have utterly failed to stop that, and they are now directing their attack towards the other half of the settlement: Scottish partnership in the United Kingdom at the UK parliamentary level. We will not allow them to succeed in that attack, nor will the Scottish people. The partnership of Parliaments will succeed.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: In his liaison role with the Scottish Executive, will the Secretary of State discuss the remarks made yesterday by the First Minister's official spokesman to the effect that the other Ministers in the Scottish Executive are unproven and unqualified? Does he agree that Scotland would be better served by less spin of that kind and a little more action?
    Dr. Reid: Matters concerning Scottish Ministers are for the Scottish Parliament. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman how the Scottish people would be better served. Instead of the leader and parliamentary leader of his party putting in no appearance in this House, voting on nothing in this House, and asking no questions in this House, even during the period when the Scottish Parliament has not been sitting, SNP Members should stop taking money from a Parliament in which they do not believe, for what they are not doing.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Although it is recognised that some issues relating to the economy and infrastructure are the legitimate business both of Members of this Parliament and of Members of the Scottish Parliament, what guidance has been given to my right hon. Friend's colleagues in government regarding representations that might be made by SMPs in relation to such matters as the Child Support Agency and immigration, which should be jealously guarded as the locus and jurisdiction of Members of the Parliament here at Westminster, and should not be the business of SMPs—[HON. MEMBERS: "SMPs?"]—Members of the Scottish Parliament? Can my right hon. Friend clarify the line of responsibility and tell us what advice has been given to his colleagues in government concerning their response to such representations?
    Dr. Reid: As I said earlier, there is genuinely a partnership of Parliaments. It is the most radical constitutional settlement for 300 years. There is no route map for it, and no textbook that we can consult. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the First Minister and I are already involved in discussions to see that there is a symmetry of conventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] It means that both sides have equal rights and responsibilities. I am sorry that we have to explain such things in words of one syllable to those on the Opposition Front Bench. The rights and responsibilities of each Parliament will be respected. I am sure that we will work for the ultimate benefit of the Scottish people, because I believe that the partnership not only gives them
    104
    more control over their own affairs in Scotland, but solidifies their partnership in the United Kingdom in a way that has never been done before.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I assure the Secretary of State that when it comes to concord, we certainly desire it? Is it not the case, however, that the concord between him and the First Minister over the past few weeks has been somewhat subsonic? Has not the only means of communication between the Secretary of State and the First Minister been through the parliamentary Labour party—not a source of brotherly love and affection? Why are no concordats in place now, when the relationship should be up and running? Is the Secretary of State privy, for instance, to the internal paper round of the Scottish Executive? If not, is he not effectively cut out of all contact with decision making, save that which the First Minister wishes to give him? Is it not time to get away from the turf wars and lay some proper and open foundations for the relationship?
    Dr. Reid: Last week, apparently, Mr. McLetchie—who purports to lead the rump of the Conservative party in Scotland and is doing his best to disrupt the link between Scotland and the Union, which may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman—claimed that I was too powerful. The claim from the Opposition today is that I am not powerful enough. Once they have sorted out their line on my status, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    On the concordats, the reason for the delay, as I explained in great detail to the Select Committee, is that they are inextricably linked to the memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding is not between one Administration—the Scottish Executive—and the Government. It is between all devolved Administrations and all Departments of Government—including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the proposed devolved Assembly there. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that there has been some difficulty in recent weeks in reaching the final decision on the Irish situation. That is the main reason for the delay. There is no conspiracy.
    I would merely make one further point. The hon. Gentleman and the SNP like to dwell on personalities, which is a sure sign that they have nothing whatever to say on policy, and the longer they deal in soap-opera politics, the more obvious to the Scottish people that fact will become.

    Reserved Powers
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If he will publish a guide for the public on the reserved powers relevant to Scottish matters and how they are dealt with in the House. [91599]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): A range of important issues are reserved to the UK Government. Many of those are of crucial importance to ordinary people's day-to-day lives in Scotland—for instance, employment and taxation policies, social security benefits, occupational and personal pensions and the new deal. That is why, before the devolution referendum, each household in Scotland received a leaflet

    105
    summarising the reserved and devolved matters. Further information was issued ahead of the 6 May 1999 elections.
    Mr. Clarke: Despite the confusion that the chattering classes have sown in the Scottish media, I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about issues such as taxation, social security and other matters which remain the clear responsibility of this House. Given that Government policy and the reserved powers that we have retained and their impact on the daily lives of all the Scottish people are of supreme importance, will he continue to reassure the Scottish people that this Parliament will protect their interests, working in partnership, but very much a part of the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I can assure my right hon. Friend of that, and I can also assure the Scottish people that Labour Members of Parliament from Scotland will be here to involve themselves in ensuring that their interests are protected. When the people of Scotland listen to the criticisms that have been levelled by the leader of the Scottish National party and its parliamentary leader—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I see that the leader of the SNP is not here today again. As that hon. Gentleman is so interested in my role, I checked how many times since 2 July he had asked a question in the House—remember, this is when the Scottish Parliament is not sitting—and the answer was none at all. I checked how many times he had taken part in a debate, and the answer was none at all. And I checked how many times he had voted, and up until yesterday morning the answer was none at all—and I suspect that after the past 24 hours, it is none at all again. As I have said, people will want to ask what, exactly, moneys, allowances and Short money from this Parliament are being paid to the SNP for, since SNP Members are taking money from a Parliament in which they do not believe for something that they are not doing.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has reserved for himself 200 civil servants and a new official residence in Edinburgh, and that he has creamed £5 million off the Scottish block to be spent at his personal discretion? Why should the English taxpayer have to featherbed all that empire building in Edinburgh and overlapping extravagance between two of the Queen's rival Ministers?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman lives up to the Tory slogan, "Never get one thing wrong when you can get three wrong." First, I have not reserved to myself 200 civil servants. At the moment I have 50 and I may have more than 100 at the end of the day, compared with 4,200 for the Scottish Parliament. I have heard that called empire building, but it will surely be the first empire where the leader will know each member by his or her first name. Secondly, I have rejected the idea of a separate residence, and that is precisely why I have authorised negotiations on offices in Edinburgh where 20 of the 26 rooms will be allocated to civil servants. I did not want a separate residence. Ill-tutored though the hon. Gentleman may be from his reading of the English papers, he does not improve himself by reading some of the Scottish papers.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and
    106
    Chryston (Mr. Clarke) raises an important issue concerning the education of the public not only in relation to our powers and his powers but in relation to the powers of other elected representatives and the matters best dealt with by them. Are not constituents occasionally a little confused about the respective responsibilities of elected representatives? Do we not therefore owe it to them to provide them with information about who is the best representative to approach with a problem concerning the CSA, the social security system or whatever?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is right. I have never said that there is a simple solution to all those problems. We have to consider the fact that more guidance might be necessary, but, if we are in the world of grown-up politics, we should realise that we cannot carry out constitutional change of such magnitude without having to work through problems. The First Minister and I are attempting to do that—in a businesslike fashion and in partnership. I believe that that partnership is immensely beneficial to the Scottish people and it is certainly their preference. The one thing they want is people working together in partnership; the one thing they oppose is divorcing Scotland from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Secretary of State's Department has fewer responsibilities than at any time in its history, so why is he amassing an army of up to 130 civil servants with an annual budget of £5 million taken from the Scottish Parliament, which could be better spent by it in providing services for the Scottish people? Why is he undermining his own Government's devolution settlement while Scottish Executive Ministers are openly and publicly squabbling among themselves?
    Dr. Reid: With great respect, may I list the military hierarchy for the hon. Gentleman? An army consists of several thousand people, which is what the Scottish Parliament has. Beneath that is the brigade, which I do not have. Beneath that is the battalion, which I do not have. Beneath that is the regiment, which I do not have. Beneath that is the company, which is what I have. My company consists of about 100 people. The hon. Gentleman seems to be concerned about expense and the £5 million, but he obviously did not notice that all the details were issued by the Treasury on 31 March. They were available to him but, like his colleagues, he was probably not here. If the SNP spent a little bit of time working for its money, it would have been able to find out about these matters. The £5 million to which he refers is 0.03 per cent. of the Scottish Office budget.
    Let us consider what the SNP is receiving. I do not mind the hon. Gentleman taking two salaries and two parliamentary allowances, if he does so, but I know—[Interruption.] He may not, but I know that the SNP takes two lots of Short money: £134,000 here and £170,000 in the Scottish Parliament. In addition, it voted itself another £1 million in allowances at Scottish parliamentary level. If SNP Members are taking that sort of money, they should do some work here occasionally to represent the interests of the Scottish people.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman, who was such a marvellous Minister for the Armed Forces, should not allow himself to become so tetchy merely because he is now a member of a

    107
    partnership more improbable than any since Fox and North. For the benefit of everyone concerned, will he devote a little time during the forthcoming recess to compiling a list of those matters for which he is responsible as Secretary of State? He read out a great litany from the Dispatch Box during the last Scottish Question Time, but he was responsible for not one of those matters. We want to know what he is doing for his money.
    Dr. Reid: The reference to North and Fox reminds me that we should keep off the subject of foxes in the present context because other people will get tetchy. I was not at all tetchy. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go through the whole list again I shall do so, but I suspect that he does not. My main role in the House is to represent the interests of the Scottish people in all the reserved matters, which he well knows. My other role is to promote the devolution settlement. I have to play a part in negotiations on payment of the block grant and I also have some residual functions. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the nature of collective government means that it is important for Scotland to have its interests represented in Cabinet discussions on such matters, and for the position of the Scottish people to be made clear. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that, logically, no one who does not have to make the ultimate departmental decision for anything can play an important role, I would remind him that the total departmental role of the Prime Minister is national security and honours. I hope that he would not suggest that the Prime Minister has no authority or power.

    Regional Air Services
    Mr. David Stewart: What discussions he has had on the role of regional air services between Scotland and London in encouraging economic development. [91600]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I have had no such discussions recently, but I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, and my right hon. Friend keeps closely in touch with developments in this area.
    Mr. Stewart: The Minister will be aware that, today, the Government announced that British Airways can acquire the City Flyer Aviation Company, with the proviso that it gives up slots at Gatwick. He will also be aware of the great problem, at both Gatwick and Heathrow, in providing slots for vital regional services, which are essential for business and tourism. Will he agree to make representations to the Minister for Transport to fight for those slots at Gatwick and Heathrow for vital regional services, such as the Inverness-London route?
    Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend is well aware of the difficulty surrounding this issue, which is that we have to work within the context of European regulations. We fully recognise the need for the good links that he describes, which is why the Government have commissioned a special study on Scottish airports and aviation, and another study specifically on the links between Inverness
    108
    and London. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister share my concern that the chairman of Highlands and Islands airport has said that services can be secured from Scottish airports only for people living in Glasgow and Edinburgh? If so, what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Lady might be quoting that gentleman slightly out of context. The key point that Mr. Grant was trying to make was that there is concern that the good service between Inverness and Gatwick will be upgraded so that it goes directly to Heathrow, but that that should not be seen as a reflection on the good service that already exists between Inverness and London.
    Miss Anne Begg: The air links between Aberdeen and Heathrow are vital to the oil industry. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is no diminution in the frequency of flights from Aberdeen into Heathrow, or in the volume of the service?
    Mr. Macdonald: These are commercial matters for the airlines involved. However, we fully recognise the importance of the links between Aberdeen and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, not just for industry and business connections but for ordinary passengers and tourism to that part of Scotland.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister recognise that the growth of regional services of that kind depends on economic confidence but also on the confidence of operators and passengers in air safety? In any discussions that he has, will he do his best to resist the Government's half-baked proposals on National Air Traffic Services?
    Mr. Macdonald: The Government's proposals are designed to attract new investment to the air traffic control system and, therefore, to improve services and air safety. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome the fact that, as a result of the Government's approach in tackling these issues on a United Kingdom basis, we shall have two centres, one of which will be in Scotland. Were we in the situation that the nationalists would want, with separate states in the UK, we would not have the benefit of a centre in Scotland providing jobs in Scotland.

    Economy
    Mr. Russell Brown: What discussions he had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the impact of the Budget on the Scottish economy. [91601]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I shall discuss that matter with the Chancellor as necessary to ensure that his outstanding management of the United Kingdom economy continues to benefit Scotland, as it has done over the past two years.
    Mr. Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will be fully aware that the working families tax credit will be introduced in October. How many Scottish

    109
    families will benefit from that measure? Will he make representations to the Chancellor to ensure that families in Scotland are aware of this valuable means of tackling poverty?
    Dr. Reid: I commend to the House and to people in Scotland the working families tax credit which the Chancellor intends to introduce. This is another major step forward in ensuring that our economic competence is matched by social justice. More than 140,000 families in Scotland will benefit, with a minimum wage of £200 per week for families with one worker. That is part of our fight for social justice in Scotland, and is in addition to the 200,000 people who benefit from the minimum wage, the £1.8 billion extra on the health service, the £1.3 billion extra going into education, the lowest rate of inflation, mortgages and interest rates that we have had for a long time, and the lowest rate of unemployment in Scotland for 20 years. That is testimony to the competence of the Chancellor and the Government, and is the necessary platform to ensure that the lives of people in Scotland will improve year by year under the Labour Government in partnership with the Labour-led Administration in Edinburgh.
    Mr. David Prior: If the economy in Scotland is being managed so successfully, why are class sizes and waiting lists increasing?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is trying to surpass his hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) in getting facts wrong. He may have misread yesterday's press. The Labour Government's first target for Scotland was to deliver the Parliament, which we have done; the second was economic stability, and he will be aware that we have achieved that; and the third was to reduce waiting lists to below 75,000 by 2002. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to tell the House that we met that target two and a half years ahead of schedule when, one month ago, we reduced waiting lists in Scotland to below 75,000.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tackling low pay and family poverty has been a priority for the Government, unlike the previous Government, who believed that no income level was too low for a family to live on as long as it did not affect them or their supporters? Does he also agree that the minimum wage and the working families tax credit—both introduced this year—will lift thousands of Scottish families out of poverty? Those measures will start to end the national disgrace that we inherited from the previous Government which is that, at the end of the 20th century, one in four children are still living in poverty.
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no greater blight on a civilised society than poverty in families and among children and our senior citizens. That is why I am proud that the Chancellor's custodianship of our economy has allowed people in Scotland the biggest-ever increase in child benefit. I am also proud that we were able to increase the Christmas bonus for pensioners to £100, and that, in addition to the minimum wage, which has lifted hundreds of thousands in Scotland above their previous position, the working families tax credit will benefit 140,000 more families in Scotland,
    110
    including a considerable number of children. For old folks, families and young people in Scotland, the Labour Government are beginning to make life better than it ever was before.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: When he expects to announce the areas in Scotland to be included in the next programme of (a) regional development area aid and (b) European structural funds; and if he will make a statement. [91602]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The proposals for a new assisted areas map, including parts of the borders, were announced on 15 July. The safety net for the United Kingdom's coverage secured by the Prime Minister at the Berlin summit enabled the UK Government to propose that 49 per cent. of Scotland's population should be covered by the new map.
    As regards objective 2 of the European structural funds, it is important to target the areas to be nominated. Finalising these areas is taking slightly longer than anticipated, but every effort is being made to do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The reintroduction of regional selective assistance in parts of the Scottish borders region on 15 July was warmly welcomed. However, as I am sure the Secretary of State will acknowledge, not every community in the region can be included in the eligible area map. That puts extra pressure on communities such as Jedburgh in my constituency which have been left out. The local people are perplexed about that, and feel that no one is responding to their needs.
    When the European structural funds announcement on objective 2 is made, will the Secretary of State bear that in mind? Will he ensure that the whole Scottish borders region receives some coverage, so that compensating measures can be applied to communities that have not been given assisted area status? Will he also use all his powers to ensure that Members of Parliament are given adequate notice of the announcement, which will probably be made during the recess, and that we do not have to read about it in the newspapers?
    Dr. Reid: I will try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's last request is met to the benefit of hon. Members.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the assisted areas map. I think that the solution for Scotland was a fair one, which met Scotland's needs and resulted from the very partnership that I mentioned earlier. Not only did the Prime Minister negotiate a safety net for the United Kingdom, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the First Minister and I worked closely together. I think that the resulting 49 per cent. coverage was very fair. We should bear in mind that the United Kingdom is now much more prosperous than it was in Europe when the last map was drawn up, and that, owing to the present Government's policies, Scotland is now much more prosperous in the United Kingdom than it was. As I say, I think that the settlement was fair.
    As for objective 2, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman guarantees in regard to areas. We must ensure that the method of targeting is as efficient as possible. Because

    111
    we are now more prosperous, we can expect a diminution in the number of people who will be covered in Scotland. I will, however, attempt to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are brought to the attention of all who are involved in the planning.
    Mr. Douglas Alexander: I welcome the world-based approach to regional selective assistance, but would the Secretary of State be willing to meet me to discuss the impact of the new approach on my constituency?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend has already raised the matter with me informally, and had the courtesy to tell me that he would ask me about it today. I know how keen he is to ensure that the interests of the people of Paisley are protected. I will certainly meet him but, as I think he will accept, the settlement regarding the assisted areas map was very fair from our point of view. We worked it out in partnership with our colleagues in the United Kingdom Parliament.
    When a final announcement is made, it will be possible to make some technical adjustments to the map, but I do not hold out the probability of major adjustments.

    Websites
    Mr. Paul Flynn: If he will set up new websites for Government information on constitutional changes affecting Scotland. [91603]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): We are in the process of establishing a new website designed to illustrate the work of the Department. In addition, information on devolved matters is available on the Scottish Executive website.
    Mr. Flynn: I am delighted that my question resulted in such swift action.
    Will my hon. Friend assure us that the new website will be more engaging and more journalistic than many of the other Government websites? I do not know whether he had a chance to meet members of a group which is devoted to the cause of increasing use of the internet by the elderly, and which operates under the intriguing name Hairnet. They rightly argue that the elderly have most to gain from the increased use of the world wide web, along with those who are housebound, disabled or infirm. If those people can be introduced to the world wide web, they will have opportunities to roam the wonderful prairies of information and find out about things as exciting as the progress of the Scottish constitution.
    Mr. Macdonald: I should be delighted to receive further information about Hairnet, or Airnet. The website that we are developing was intended to come into operation during the next couple of weeks, but we want to have another look at it with the aim of making it a wee bit more "jazzy"—more interactive, and more useful to those who we hope will use it. It will be particularly useful to the groups mentioned by my hon. Friend, but it will also be useful to those—not just in Scotland but
    112
    throughout the United Kingdom—who are interested in both the operation of the constitutional settlement and the specific work of the Scotland Office.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am delighted to hear that the Scotland Office website will come back into operation after the disappearance of the Scottish Office one. Can the Minister help the House a little?
    In answer to an earlier question, the Secretary of State described some of his roles—a much more modest list than the one that he gave a month ago. Will the website tell us how he carries out his job? For example, is he privy to the paper round of the Scottish Executive? Is that how he obtains his information on the day-to-day running of Scotland? Will that be on the website?
    In addition, will the website identify what all his staff—that small company—are actually doing, what their remit is, what Departments they are covering, and whether they are duplicating the roles of civil servants in London, or of civil servants within the Scottish Executive? Will all that go on the website so that we can all know exactly what is happening?
    Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making great play of the fact that we do not see every paper that passes round the Scottish Executive. He knows that that is the convention even within Whitehall: we do not have access to all the different papers that float around different Departments, either. Departments share papers with each other for specific purposes. The Scotland Executive shares information with us for a specific purpose as well—so that we can represent effectively the interests of the Scottish people within the United Kingdom Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.

    Ministerial Responsibilities
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will list the matters in respect of which he has a shared role with the First Minister and the Scottish Executive. [91604]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): My role is quite distinct from that of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive. My main responsibilities are to represent Scottish interests in reserved areas within the Government and to promote the devolution settlement to Scotland. In doing so, I am responsible to this Parliament. What I share with the First Minister is a common interest in promoting the well-being of Scotland within the UK.
    Mr. Dalyell: In respect of the fire service—a part of the shared role—what response is there to the concerns of the Edinburgh fire master, Colin Cranston, about the future of progression core training at the fire service college at Moreton-in-Marsh?
    Dr. Reid: As my hon. Friend will know, the future of the fire service college is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. However, he will take full account of the views expressed in the context of the prior options review of the college at Moreton-in-Marsh. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's views and those of the fire master are passed on to the Home Secretary. I would not want the West

    113
    Moreton-in-Marsh question to become a running sore in this Parliament; I will therefore act on my hon. Friend's representations.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that responsibility for elements of transport are shared between here and the Scottish Parliament, when will the Government report on air links be published? When it is published, who will take the decision about regional air links: the Scottish Executive, the Scotland Office, as it is now known, the Department of Trade and Industry, or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?
    Dr. Reid: I think that it will be the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but, of course, there will be input from me and the Department of Trade and Industry. As the hon. Lady will know, a full study of regional airports throughout the United Kingdom has been somewhat impeded by difficulties connected with the legal procedures at one particular event in one particular airport. Everyone has been very careful not to transgress in any way the situation as regards terminal 5, lest others could reopen the whole inquiry and stop the terminal, but progress has been made on the regional airport studies. I am sure that the my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be as keen as anyone to get a final paper on the matter as soon as he possibly can.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: On the issue of shared responsibility between the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, may I commend the Secretary of State on the way in which he has very firmly laid down a marker in asserting that Scottish constituencies will be vigorously represented—at least by Labour Members—in the United Kingdom Parliament? Will he also confirm that he will work with the First Minister in making it clear to all hon. Members that Scottish Members will continue to play a vital and vibrant part in the United Kingdom Parliament?
    Dr. Reid: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend on both points. First, I have no doubt at all about the vigour and energy that Members of this Parliament—particularly Labour Members from Scotland—will continue to bring to their task. Secondly, I assure him that, as I have been doing, I shall continue working closely and in a businesslike fashion with the First Minister for the benefit of the Scottish people. It goes without saying—but bears repeating—that the Scottish people are extremely well served in their First Minister. He is a man of outstanding integrity and commitment, and ranks with those who have done most to deliver the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State will be working closely with the First Minister. Will the Secretary of State explain whether it is he who will have the unhappy responsibility of putting a veto on inward investment into Scotland, were the Government to decide that such investment was undesirable, or will that responsibility fall to some other Minister at Westminster?
    Dr. Reid: The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be dealt with in the concordats that will be
    114
    agreed between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland want no great advantages over any other part of the United Kingdom, but fairness in the distribution of resources. I share that aim not only with the First Minister, but, I hope, with the hon. Gentleman himself.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Leading Counsel
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will introduce measures to regulate the use and costs of leading counsel by litigants. [91628]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Government believe that litigants should be free to choose their advocate—whether barrister, solicitor or other authorised advocate. However, the new civil procedure rules specifically require the court awarding costs to have regard to what is proportionate to the issues at stake and the complexity of the particular case.
    Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware of the public disquiet over the high fees and restrictive practices endemic in the Queen's counsel system? Does he agree that the time has finally come to get rid of unnecessary double-manning; to pay QCs the rate for the job and not for their title; and to apply the new civil justice principle of equality of arms to advocacy, so that rich companies cannot buy themselves justice by hiring fat-cat QCs, whose services are out of reach of the pockets of their legally aided or conditional-fee funded opponents?
    Mr. Vaz: I am aware of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and assure him that the new rules, which we know will be followed, are clear. I also assure him that the rank of QC is not only established but is a recognition of distinction that is conferred on senior barristers. If he believes that there is any scope for improvement in the system, the Government will, as always, be happy to listen to him. However, I am satisfied, and the Lord Chancellor is satisfied, that our procedures are proper and appropriate.
    Mr. John Bercow: What was the cost to public funds of the use of leading counsel in financial year 1998–99? How does that figure compare with that of the immediately preceding year? What is the hon. Gentleman's best guesstimate of the likely outturn at the end of this financial year?
    Mr. Vaz: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to those questions—if I am allowed to say that—but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give him all those figures in the detail that he requires.

    Court Interpreters
    Ms Gisela Stuart: What steps his Department has taken to monitor the quality of court interpreters. [91629]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): With effect from 1 April 1998, the Lord Chancellor's Department, with the magistrates courts, agreed to use interpreters from the national register of public service interpreters whenever possible. The register is administered by the Institute of Linguists, which is responsible for monitoring the quality of the interpreters on the register. In Crown and magistrates courts, the aim is to use only interpreters from the register by the end of 2001.
    Tribunals also have an agreement with the Institute of Linguists for the provision of interpreters. With effect from September 1999, in-court assessments will be performed to ensure that interpreters maintain their standards.
    In civil cases, it is the responsibility of the individual claimant or defendant to arrange and pay for an appropriately qualified interpreter for his or her own claim or defence.
    Ms Stuart: I am grateful for that answer. I am sure that the Minister is aware of correspondence that I have had recently with the Birmingham legal interpreters' steering committee, which expressed its concerns about unqualified court interpreters being used in Crown court cases. That particular situation has been remedied. However, I am concerned that we should address the matter with some seriousness as the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is making its way through the House, provides for the use of interpreters for witnesses and defendants who have hearing difficulties or a speech impairment. I should be grateful for some reassurance that the measures that apply to court interpreters will be extended to that group of people.
    Mr. Vaz: Perhaps my hon. Friend, who speaks at least three other languages, should herself be on the national register. I am aware of the case that she has raised, as was the Department. We do not accept that it is right for interpreters to subcontract their work, which is what happened in that case. Of course it is important that we keep all these services under review, and the feedback from the judiciary and others in the court system will help us to maintain a proper register with all the relevant information. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the other points that she raised concerning the youth justice courts will be taken on board.

    Scottish Parliament (Opening)
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's visit to Edinburgh for the opening of the Scottish Parliament. [91630]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Lord Chancellor attended the opening of the Scottish Parliament in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Lords.
    Mr. Dalyell: How does the Lord Chancellor define the phrase elegantly used by Madam Speaker, who referred to a "shared role" between Holyrood and Westminster?
    Mr. Vaz: The Lord Chancellor and the Government welcome Madam Speaker's statement as providing helpful clarification for the House.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I wish that I could be so eloquent.
    When the Lord Chancellor was in Scotland, did he examine the system of Scottish land tenure, and did he return to England determined to introduce at greater speed the system of commonhold—one of the two promises that the Prime Minister made on which no action has yet been taken?
    Mr. Vaz: Unfortunately, the Lord Chancellor was extremely busy. He was unable to inspect the hon. Lady's estate and had to come straight back to London to deal with other business. The hon. Lady referred to commonhold, which of course is a manifesto commitment on which she will be hearing from the Government shortly.

    Judiciary (Communication)
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the role of the Lord Chancellor in maintaining communication between the Government and the judiciary. [91631]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): It has long been recognised that the office of the Lord Chancellor is both a link between the Government and the judges, and a bulwark of judicial independence. The Lord Chancellor, as the responsible Minister, is accountable to Parliament, as the judges could not be, for the overall efficiency of the administration of justice. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor recently restated this in a speech to the third worldwide common law judiciary conference at Edinburgh on 5 July. I have put a copy of his speech in the Library.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: In the first Session of this Parliament, the Lord Chancellor described himself as the Prime Minister's Cardinal Wolsey. He now says that he is the buffer between the Executive and the judiciary. Evidently he cannot perform both roles. If he cannot decide which role he is supposed to be performing, perhaps he should abolish his own position along with that of the other buffers in another place whose role he is abolishing on the grounds that they have no suitable function in the modern democratic age.
    Mr. Vaz: I think that the phrase ascribed to the Lord Chancellor came not from him but from Miss Frances Gibb, a journalist with The Times. The office of Lord Chancellor carries great authority within the Government. It upholds judicial independence and can mediate between the Executive and the judiciary when necessary. The Lord Chancellor can perform that function because of his seniority in the Cabinet, because he is head of the judiciary and because he is so widely respected in the profession.
    Mr. John Burnett: Will the Minister say whether, in the Lord Chancellor's communications with the judiciary, the subject of a

    117
    judicial appointments commission has been raised? What was the reaction of the judiciary to such a commission and how did it feel it should be constituted?
    Mr. Vaz: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot disclose the conversations or correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary, as these are matters of confidence. The Lord Chancellor, as he told the Select Committee on Home Affairs last year, has not ruled out a judicial appointments commission. It is not a priority at present, and he will make his mind up in due course.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister, in referring in his initial answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) to the Lord Chancellor's role as that of a bulwark, showed some sensitivity about the phrase which he ascribed to the distinguished legal correspondent of The Times. Whether bulwark or buffer, does not the Lord Chancellor recognise that perhaps his description of himself in his speech to that conference might be greeted by hollow laughter by many members of the legal profession who remember that the Lord Chancellor is perhaps the Prime Minister's oldest crony? Perhaps many members of the legal profession who traditionally have supported the Government party might nevertheless be concerned that this Lord Chancellor does not regard himself as the defender of the legal profession, but is very much in the Prime Minister's pocket.
    Mr. Vaz: That is utter nonsense. The Lord Chancellor conducts the various duties of his high office with enormous dignity and integrity. The hon. Gentleman ought to know better.

    Judiciary (Independence)
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What steps the Lord Chancellor takes to ensure the political independence of the judiciary. [91632]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Lord Chancellor takes every measure to protect the independence of the judiciary, including by ensuring that our judicial appointments system is based solely on merit. For example, as I shall be announcing later to the House, he has asked Sir Leonard Peach, until recently the Commissioner for Public Appointments, to provide a report to him on the operation of the appointments procedures in relation to Queen's counsel and judicial appointments.
    As I said earlier, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor recently restated the role of his office in a speech to the third worldwide judiciary conference at Edinburgh on 5 July.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for that assurance. As planning inspectors are involved in a judicial capacity—albeit on matters relating to town and country planning—does the Minister share my outrage that a recent advertisement asking people to apply to become planning inspectors included the phrase, "Freemasons need not apply"? The Minister may say that this is a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister. However, as it is
    118
    such an outrageous unfairness, may I ask him to ask the Lord Chancellor to consult the Deputy Prime Minister on the incident?
    Mr. Vaz: I have not seen the advertisement so it is extremely difficult to comment on it. As the hon. Gentleman correctly realises, this is a matter for the planning inspectorate and for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, if the hon. Gentleman sends me the advertisement, I will have a look at it.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is not the independence of the judiciary from political sniping particularly important when a judge is conducting an independent tribunal? My question is prompted by the sniping by some at Lord Saville, who is conducting the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the judiciary is above party politics. As I have said on numerous occasions in this House, our judiciary is the best in the world. We have people of the highest quality who are full of integrity. It is quite wrong for people to attack judges in that way, knowing that they do not have the means to reply.
    Mr. David Heath: Is not it right that independence is best guaranteed by the appointments procedure? Would not it be better if in the appointment of judges there were more transparency; if in the appointment of magistrates we adhered to the system of equity that is in place; and if appointments to the shrievalty were not done at all, as they are a waste of time?
    Mr. Vaz: Our system is a good one, and I can see no flaws in it. It produces people of merit on the High Court Bench and in the magistracies. I am happy, as is the Lord Chancellor, for the procedures to continue in this way.

    Welsh Language (Courts)
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: If he will make a statement on the use of the Welsh language in the courts of England and Wales. [91633]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): We are making every effort to ensure that a bilingual service is available in Wales, including providing for court hearings to be conducted in Welsh.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that answer. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is concern in Wales that his Department has been slow in producing Welsh language schemes as required under the Welsh Language Act 1993? Will the Department recognise the equal validity of the Welsh and English languages in the courts of Wales and, for that matter, England, through practice directions by the courts themselves and in face-to-face contact with the public through the court service?
    Mr. Vaz: I hope that my Department is not slow. I have no evidence to suggest that it is not working swiftly on the matter. A draft copy of the scheme is with the Welsh Language Board. We intend to consult on it widely. We are pleased to note that there are several

    119
    bilingual judges and that there is a practice direction about the use of the Welsh language. If my hon. Friend has any evidence to suggest that we are not acting as swiftly as we should, will he please let me know? We regard the
    120
    matter as serious and believe that the practice direction has rightly highlighted the concerns. We want to ensure that the Welsh language is used in court proceedings when people want it to be used.

National Air Traffic Services
3.31 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed sale of shares in National Air Traffic Services.
The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): In response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), the Government have announced today their intention to proceed with a public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. A copy of the answer and the response to the consultation document are in the Vote Office and the Library.
This is a new and innovative enterprise, providing a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors and creating a new partnership company that will deliver a safe, modern and efficient air traffic control system for the future. For some time, considerable—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I want no running commentary from the Opposition Front Bench while the Minister is making a statement at my request.
Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
For some time, considerable concern has been expressed by many official bodies and individuals about the problems arising from the growth in air traffic. Those concerns have centred on safety, on long-term investment and on management control. In response, the Government have produced radical plans for dealing with air traffic control. We have consulted widely and we are now in a position to announce our proposals.
The public-private partnership for NATS will create a proper separation between the operation of air traffic control and its safety regulation, so as to enhance safety. The operational strength and the safety record of NATS are among the best in the world, but it needs a wider range of management skills and access to capital to meet the challenges of the future, and in particular to cope with the ever increasing rise in traffic.
We want to build on the strengths of NATS, bringing in new management skills, in particular project management expertise; to improve aviation safety; to secure long-term investment of £1 billion over 10 years; and to retain public accountability in a strategic industry. Safety is paramount and always will be.
Last week's report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs (Transport Sub-Committee) summed up the matter. The United Kingdom has an excellent safety record and we have to work very hard to maintain it. We must always guard against complacency, but we should also avoid scaremongering. The Civil Aviation Authority's safety regulation group will continue to regulate aviation safety to the highest standards. There will be no profits before safety in the NATS public-private partnership or anywhere else in United Kingdom aviation.
The aviation community, the Select Committee, the former Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the trade unions and others have been calling for years for safety
122
regulation to be separated from service provision. This public-private partnership will create a proper separation between the operation of air traffic control services in the new partnership company and their safety regulation in the separate independent Civil Aviation Authority. It will provide NATS with more flexibility in investment and management decisions, give NATS the commercial opportunities that it lacks in the public sector, provide the right structure to maximise efficiency, and introduce the commercial, financial and project management expertise that NATS needs.
Our new partnership company can do all those things relatively quickly, and only it can provide all those benefits. It will be a real partnership. The Government are retaining a 49 per cent. stake in NATS, while NATS staff will have a 5 per cent. share. There will be an equal element of gifted shares to all employees, with an opportunity to buy more. A private-sector strategic partner will take the remaining 46 per cent. of the company.
The strategic partner will give NATS access to private capital, enable that capital to be utilised to best effect, and supplement NATS' operational strengths with investment and project management skills, and with commercial experience. That will enable the company better to meet the key investment needs that we face in the United Kingdom. Around £1 billion will have to be invested over the next decade. In time, that will provide the ability to grow the company internationally, extending NATS operational excellence worldwide.
The Government's involvement with the new partnership company will continue. We will appoint some of the company's non-executive directors, and there will be a specific requirement for board unanimity on the specific matters necessary for protecting the taxpayer's financial interests, such as the policy for dividends or reinvestment.
The Government will hold a golden share and will have statutory powers to direct NATS to act in a certain way in the event of crisis, war or national emergency, or to enable the Government to protect national security and the United Kingdom's bilateral and international obligations. The joint and integrated civil and military use of air traffic control systems can and will continue under the public-private partnership.
However, the Government and the strategic partner are not the only interested parties. A key innovative feature of the new partnership company will be a new stakeholder council. That will bring together Government representatives, the strategic partner, NATS management, customers and staff representatives in a forum for full and open consultation about the company's plans and strategies for tackling the challenges that we all face.
Operationally, NATS is one of the best air traffic services in the world. We will build on that, and the public-private partnership will guarantee the future of both Prestwick and Swanwick as part of a two-centre strategy. We want to maintain and enhance NATS' operational excellence. We want to build on its strengths by adding new access to private capital so as to ensure more robust investment. We want to access better management to ensure the completion of both the Swanwick and Prestwick air traffic control centres. We want to give the company an edge in the changing international world of air traffic management.

123
This is a whole new approach to the management of our air traffic control. It embodies a new safety framework, a new public-private partnership, a new form of management structure, a new form of public accountability and regulation, a new commercial freedom giving access to long-term investment, a new stakeholder council representing all the industry, and a new range of employee rights and security.
The Government are committed to establishing United Kingdom air traffic control as a world leader, securing enhanced safety not just in the skies above Britain, but throughout the world.
Mr. Jenkin: Let us be clear that the Minister for Transport did not volunteer her statement. Why must the Government be dragged kicking and screaming to the Dispatch Box to explain the detail of one of their most controversial policies? Why did the right hon. Lady deliberately withhold until this morning the answer to the written parliamentary question due yesterday? Why was it given only after she had briefed the press and after she had been given a free ride on the "Today" programme? What respect does that show for Parliament? When will the Government show some respect for their own Back-Bench Members and the rest of the House?
I have looked forward to today's statement, and I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for its occurrence. We would naturally welcome a straightforward privatisation of national air traffic control that gave clear ownership to the private sector and that was properly regulated for safety by the Civil Aviation Authority. We shall examine the small print of the new privatisation very carefully. It has all the hallmarks of another convoluted compromise, like the public-private partnership on the tube, when the Deputy Prime Minister was forced to accept a Treasury-driven deal in which he did not believe.
I have four key questions: what is the nature of the privatisation; who will be in control; what are the implications of possible foreign ownership; and what have been the costs of more than two years of Labour dither and delay?
First, what is the difference between this public-private partnership and privatisation? Does the Minister agree that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck? If the Government are transferring 51 per cent. of shares and day-to-day control to the private sector, why is that not privatisation? The trades unions think it is privatisation—so do we; so does the City; and even most of the right hon. Lady's party thinks that this is privatisation.
Is the Minister haunted by Labour's anti-privatisation scare stories from before the election? The Prime Minister then attacked the Conservatives, saying that
"the Government cast around for any hapless part of the public sector to privatise. Air traffic control is floated as a possibility".—[Official Report, 16 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 15.]
That notion was described as crazy by the then Labour transport spokesman, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who went on to declaim to an ecstatic Labour conference:
"Labour will do everything to block this sell-off. Our air is not for sale."
124
Where is he today? Why has the Minister for Transport not had the courage to tell her own Back-Bench Members that this proposal is a privatisation?
Secondly, who will be in control? If the Government own 49 per cent., employees 5 per cent. and the private sector 46 per cent., who will actually control the business? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she intends, as stated in the conclusions to her consultation which were published today, to allow the private sector clear operational control?
Thirdly, why have the Government spun the names of potential bidders in the media, but not—even now—come clean with the House? Will the Minister confirm that the Government are contemplating the sale of the controlling stake in Britain's air traffic control system to a foreign bidder? Will she confirm that the name in the frame is Thompson CSF of France? Has she discussed with the Secretary of State for Defence the crucial questions that that may raise about foreign intervention in matters of United Kingdom national security?
What is the relevant expertise and experience of a French-owned company—40 per cent. of which is, incidentally, French Government-owned? What can that company bring to the deal when France has one of the worst, most heavily unionised and chaotic air traffic control systems in Europe? Is it the third way to privatise over here so that a foreign Government can have a stake over there? Or is this another example of what Scots call the auld alliance?
Finally, why have the Government been dithering for more than two years? Does the Minister not realise that while the Government were searching for a way to spin this privatisation in the media and her Department was missing its slots in the legislative timetable, Britain's air traffic system has been starved of capital investment and has had its investment plans shelved, as is pointed out in today's devastating report from the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? That means that congestion and delays are being stored up for the future so that business men and holidaymakers will be kept waiting in airport lounges or sitting around on aircraft runways waiting longer for take-off because of Labour's years of indecision. Is this not another example of Labour's contribution to a standstill Britain?
Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman talked about me getting a free ride, but the only free ride I get is when he is at the Dispatch Box. He cannot make up his mind. First, he says that this is privatisation, then he asks who has control. One reason why we did not go down the route taken by the previous Government is the mess of privatisation that they introduced. We saw the mess that they made of Railtrack, which was recently exposed by the National Audit Office. The previous Government left us with a mess that had to be sorted out.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it has taken two years to get this far. It is because we first had to untangle the mess that we inherited and ensure that the Swanwick centre was put back on stream. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) had to sort out the mess over the centre at Prestwick because of the botched private finance initiative attempts of the previous Government. The decisions that we have announced today will underpin and safeguard Swanwick and Prestwick.

125
In his confused response to the statement, the hon. Gentleman raised several scare stories about the future of the national air traffic system. It is precisely because we will not put profit before safety that we have not gone for full-scale privatisation. The Government will retain strategic responsibility for NATS through the golden share. That will be entrenched in any legislation in a way that ensures that our stake cannot be changed in order to go to full-scale privatisation. We are determined to ensure that the safety of air travellers is protected.
The hon. Gentleman asked about foreign control. He seems more prepared to believe what he hears on the radio and reads in newspapers than to read the documentation before him. The Government have not approached any bidders—but yes, several people are interested in our proposals because they see their attractions. There will be not a flotation of NATS, but a trade sale to a strategic partner chosen through a rigorous competitive process that will take into account any questions of national security or of not being suited to the security and safety aspects. There will be stringent suitability tests and we will be able to filter out unsuitable investors of whatever nationality. The Government will maintain the right to veto the transfer of substantial shareholdings.
In addition, by ensuring that the employees of NATS have access to a shareholding, we are recognising their expertise and concern about the future of the service to which they contribute. In doing that, we are also ensuring that their pensions are protected and that they can look forward to the expansion of NATS rather than the haphazard, ill-thought-out proposals of the previous Government, announced by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and reaffirmed in the Conservative party manifesto.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point about why the announcement is being made today. We wanted to make the announcement earlier, but we required a response from EUROCONTROL on the European charging system. That became available last week and a parliamentary question was tabled on Friday. That question was quite clear on the Order Paper, and we answered it this morning. We also ensured that no information about the proposal was made public prior to the answering of that question, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth. If the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) had been awake at 7.10 am—he is plainly not awake at the moment—he would have heard me say to Mr. Naughtie that I could not provide details about the announcement that we would be making later today.
We have secured the future of National Air Traffic Services in a way that protects the safety of the travelling public and allows the expertise of NATS to be available internationally, which it could not be previously. We have witnessed the previous Government's mistakes and we have learned from them. We have been prepared to listen and we have acted.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is precisely because safety and the control of our airspace has political and, above all, defence implications that many of us believe that this is a wholly unsuitable organisation to be offered up to the profit motive. If the arrangement goes ahead, what will happen to the independence of airspace planning? As Swanwick is not working and will not,
126
apparently, work for some time, will the taxpayer be left with a heavy contingent responsibility? That would not be acceptable.
Will it be possible to maintain the independence of vested interests for airspace planning, which is tremendously important? Finally, why was the Government's response to my Committee sent to us in the form of a memorandum that cannot be placed in the public domain until it has gone through the Main Committee when, frankly, a Command Paper would have been suitable?
Mrs. Liddell: On my hon. Friend's last point, the Government chose a memorandum as a way of responding quickly and fully to the Select Committee. I make it absolutely clear to the Committee and the House that the Government have no objection to that memorandum being published, should the hon. Lady choose to do so. We chose that method as a means of speedily sending a response to the Committee because we were anxious that these very important issues should be placed fully in the public domain as quickly as possible. No disrespect to the Committee was intended, and we are more than happy for those details to be published.
My hon. Friend asked about the independence of airspace planning. That is preserved. She asked also about the danger of the taxpayer having to make contingency payments for Swanwick. One of the attractive reasons for adopting these proposals is our desire to ensure that the taxpayer will in future be relieved of the costs created by the absolute mess that the previous Government made of the contract for Swanwick. That is not dissimilar to the mess that they made of the channel tunnel rail link, when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had to intervene to ensure that there was a proper contract to protect the interests of the British taxpayer.
Mr. Tom Brake: Before the election, Labour said:
"Our air is not for sale."
It is very obvious now that at least half of it is up for grabs.
I have a few simple questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. What guarantees can she give that a future Government will not sell the Government's share? What estimates have the Government made of the impact of their proposals on the implementation date for Swanwick? What re-evaluation of the public-private partnership proposals have the Government undertaken, as recommended by the Transport Sub-Committee to—as it said in its report:
"ensure that they are entirely compatible with the safe and expeditious movement of air traffic"?
What ceiling have the Government placed on any bonuses or options that senior NATS management might derive from this sale, so as to reduce the chances of creating any NATS fat cats? Finally, will the Minister comment on the relevant expertise in air traffic services of National Grid, which I understand may be the frontrunner for providing the service, or of any other possible bidders?
Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman asked several questions. He asked whether any guarantees could be given that no future Government would seek to privatise

127
air traffic control. As he knows, no Government can bind their successor, but written into the Bill will be a provision to ensure that, should a future Government decide to take that route, further primary legislation would be needed. That is as much of a guarantee as any Government can give about their successor.
Swanwick is now on stream to come into full operation in about 2001–02. The technical handover has taken place and training and testing of the systems is under way. Those arrangements will lead to much better project management, which will help the second centre at Prestwick. A project manager has already been appointed for Prestwick and we are expecting a full analysis of the business case in the next couple of months. Therefore, this proposal will speed up the process of getting a proper two-centre policy under way as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked about safety guarantees. As I pointed out in the statement, we intend to secure a separation of the safety responsibilities of the Civil Aviation Authority from the operational responsibilities of the new partnership company. That has been in demand for some time. The Government see the logic of that, which is why we have proceeded in this way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to fat cats. That is an extremely valid point, because the previous Government's privatisations showed that they were prepared to create fat cats at the taxpayer's expense. We shall protect the taxpayer through the Government's shareholding and through the Government's appointment to the new partnership company of directors whose concerns will include the remuneration of personnel of that company.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the previous Government's privatisation proposals, which, when in opposition, we opposed. We did so because, under the previous Government's proposals, our air would have been for sale. By separating the safety requirements of the CAA from the operational responsibilities of the new partnership company; by ensuring the existence of the golden share and the establishment of the shareholder company; by requiring that the Government appoint non-executive directors to the board of the new partnership company; and by our involvement with EUROCONTROL and the announcement that it made last week on the European charging system, we are in a position to put in place safeguards that would not have been put in place by the previous Government. That is why we have gone for a unique approach in a new partnership company. We have learned the lessons of the mess made of privatisation by the previous Government.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important requirement facing air traffic control is to ensure that the new centres at Swanwick and Prestwick are successfully brought into operation without further delays? Would it not be better to allow the top management of air traffic control to concentrate on those major technical and managerial issues without being diverted by a major and complex privatisation? As air traffic control in this country runs at an operating profit, if it is the Government's main objective to allow air traffic control to raise money privately for investment, why do they not
128
allow a public sector National Air Traffic Services to borrow in the market in the same way as is envisaged for the Post Office?
Mrs. Liddell: My right hon. Friend has raised a number of issues. He asked about the development of Swanwick and Prestwick—an issue in which he takes a special interest. Through the public-private partnership, we shall be able to ensure that there are no further delays in getting Swanwick and Prestwick on stream. As a result of the previous Government's incompetence, the delays at both Swanwick and Prestwick have been unacceptable. Faced with an increase in traffic of 6 per cent. per annum—8 per cent. last year—we need those two new centres on stream very quickly indeed.
My right hon. Friend asked about the pressures on top management. One reason why we have gone for a public-private partnership is that we want to be able to enhance and enlarge the management expertise within NATS. One considerable difficulty that we experienced when we came into government was the lack of project management at Swanwick. As a consequence of the lessons learned from that, an external project manager was appointed to allow the Prestwick development to go ahead. Rather than hampering top management, introducing a public-private partnership will assist top management to deal with the complex issues that will require £1 billion of investment over a 10-year period—an extremely complex matter.
The right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Friend."] Indeed, he is a right hon. Friend. When I was struggling for a way to emphasise how good the Government's proposal was, I looked to the words of my right hon. Friend, who stated on 11 June 1998:
"This package, taken together, will guarantee the highest safety standards as air transport increases in the future. It will retain a large public stake and golden share in NATS. And it will ensure that NATS can finance its future investment effectively within a secure framework of safety and economic regulation."—[Official Report, 11 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 637.]
I could not have expressed it better myself.
However, our proposal is not solely a revenue-raising exercise, although the previous Government put a price of £500 million on NATS. Our proposal will allow an opportunity to raise capital much more freely on the international markets, and it will allow it to be done without Treasury constraints. It will allow a degree of flexibility that could not be guaranteed within the public sector. It will also ensure that prudent use of the public finances will enable us to continue with the economic growth that has been secured by the Government through a sensible economic policy, which the Opposition seem now to have adopted.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I tell the right hon. Lady that my constituents, a number of whom work at the West Drayton centre, will be profoundly unimpressed by her attempts to shuffle the announcement through in a written answer the day before the summer recess? On my constituents' behalf, I express my warm thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for ensuring that the matter is being properly and publicly debated.
The right hon. Lady has no comprehension of air transport safety matters. Is it not the case that countless airlines across the world are owned wholly by the private

129
sector, are regulated by the appropriate regulatory authorities and perform entirely competently and safely to standards equivalent to those in the public sector? Is it not also a fact that air traffic delays are now running at 10 per cent. of civil air transport movements in United Kingdom airspace? In view of that and the inordinate delays both with the Prestwick centre, which is still in project definition, and with Swanwick, why has not the right hon. Lady come to the House much sooner to put that shambles to rights? Will she bear in mind that there are a number of private sector airports with private sector air traffic controllers that do a perfectly good job with regard to air safety?
Mrs. Liddell: That is the longest intervention that the hon. Gentleman has made without mentioning Europe. He will know, if he has contact with air traffic controllers at West Drayton, that there has long been uncertainty about the future of NATS, largely because of the mess that we inherited from the Government whom he supported. I judge it a matter of some importance to end that uncertainty, so that those who work in NATS can be taken fully into account as our proposal moves forward. Had we received a response from EUROCONTROL earlier than last week, we would have been able to publish the proposals earlier than last week.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about privatised airlines. NATS is not an airline. We seek to take the best of the public sector and the best of the private sector and work together in partnership, with safeguards and controls that guarantee the national interest, security and safety.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned air traffic delays. As he will know if he has visited West Drayton, over the past year NATS has gone to considerable lengths to try to limit the number of air traffic delays over United Kingdom airspace, and has made some improvement. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the international impact of air traffic delays.
One of the great benefits of the proposal before the House this afternoon is that it will enable the considerable expertise of NATS to be marketed internationally, so that we can take our experience to other countries which seek to learn from Britain's experience and, in that way, seek to improve air traffic not just nationally but internationally in a way that benefits all passengers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. As a number of hon. Members seek to ask a question on the statement, may we have brisk questions and answers so that I can call as many hon. Members as possible?
Ms Sandra Osborne: My right hon. Friend said that the speculation over the years about NATS has caused constant insecurity, and I agree—but does she agree that we are now faced with another two years of turmoil while the PPP is introduced? When will phase 2 of the new Scottish centre begin, and how will that be funded? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the early-day motion in my name, signed by 140 hon. Members, calling on the Government to consider in detail a public sector alternative with greater commercial freedom? What action have the Government taken on that? Can she confirm whether the receipts will be used for investment in NATS
130
or for other transport matters? Finally, does she agree that, when hon. Members jet off for their summer holidays, they should ponder seriously the future safety of national air traffic control?
Mrs. Liddell: I have discussed these matters with my hon. Friend, who takes a considerable interest in matters at Prestwick. She mentions the uncertainty that has existed over Prestwick, but she will be well aware of the considerable difficulties in moving ahead with the Prestwick project because of the private finance initiative proposals that we inherited from the previous Government. Now that we have resolved those difficulties with today's announcement, we should be able to press ahead with the Prestwick proposal. It will also allow the management strengthening that is required to process that as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend also referred to the independent publicly owned company proposal from the trade unions. We considered that in some detail—it contains some excellent ideas—but it would still have meant that NATS would not have had the commercial flexibility to raise internationally the capital required to secure its future in the long term.
With regard to the receipts from the public-private partnership, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already pointed out that the arrangements mean that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has been able to secure an even better settlement in the comprehensive spending review so that we can ensure an integrated transport system that operates in the United Kingdom's interests. Phase 2 of the new centre at Prestwick will be funded under the partnership, and the Government will fund it until then.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Many of my constituents who work for NATS will be confused and bewildered by this muddled statement. Can the Minister come clean with the House about what will happen to the £500 million that will be raised from the sale? Is not the reality that that money is needed to pay for the massive overspend on the Jubilee line, and that that is what is driving this weird Government announcement?
Mrs. Liddell: The massive overspend on the Jubilee line is much more than £1 billion, because of the ineffective contracts that we inherited which could have been designed only by someone who had no experience of drawing up contracts. The hon. Gentleman was a Transport Minister, so he should be hanging his head in shame. Were it not for the overspend on the Jubilee line, we would have been able to release even more expenditure for public transport in London and elsewhere, so we will take no lessons from the previous Government on how to draw up contracts.
Mr. Tony Senn: Is the Minister aware that her statement owes much more to Mrs. Thatcher than to Labour's manifesto, and that the way in which it was put confirms our fears that the Government distrust the public sector and want to see it mixed up with the third way? Is she also aware that today, Great Western Trains was fined £1.5 million for the accident at Southall two years ago, and that nothing that she says will remove people's doubts about safety when profit runs a service as important as this?

131
Is the Minister also aware that it is no comfort to know that the proposal was dictated by the Maastricht criteria, which require restrictions in public expenditure? The money will go towards paying for the Balkan war or keeping income tax down for the richest people, which is the one pledge that has been kept.
Mrs. Liddell: Mrs. Thatcher would never have taken into account the requirements of the employees of NATS. She would never have enshrined the golden share; ensured that there were Government-appointed directors and a requirement for unanimity among the board; put a stakeholders council and a stakeholders agreement in place; or retained statutory powers of direction for key Government interests. Similarly, she would never have ensured that safeguards were put in place to ensure that the taxpayer, as well as the travelling public, is protected. We have learned from the mistakes of Mrs. Thatcher and her supporters, which is why we are putting in place a public-private partnership that will add to the air traffic service, not detract from it.
Mr. David Wilshire: As one of Heathrow's Members of Parliament, may I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her party's U-turn? May I also congratulate her on adopting sound Conservative and capitalist approaches to providing public services? Will she keep in mind the fact that my constituents who live near Heathrow are far more concerned about aircraft safety than about who owns air traffic control? Will she assure the House that, as a born-again capitalist, she will ignore the socialist dinosaurs on the Benches behind her?
Mrs. Liddell: I do not respond to soundbites. The hon. Gentleman's constituents who live near Heathrow will be able to testify to the safety approach taken by NATS. We seek to build on that and scaremongering from either side of the House will not be appreciated.
Mr. John McDonnell: Hon. Members will be aware that Heathrow is in my constituency. My constituents have more aircraft above their heads than anyone else in this country—and if the proposal is seen to contribute in any way to a reduction in safety, they and the people of this country will never forgive this Government. What has happened to change Government policy in the two years and eight months since a Labour spokesman said, "We will not sell the air traffic control service."? We demand an explanation. In my view, the proposal, which will raise £500 million, is Treasury driven, but we should not be selling the safety of our skies.
Mrs. Liddell: If this Government thought that the proposal would do other than enhance the safety of the travelling public and those who live around airports, we would not have proceeded with it. We see a need for enhanced and strengthened management and more finance in NATS, which will ensure that it has the investment to allow it to deal with the growth in traffic that is taking place. That is precisely why we have proceeded with this private-public partnership. We inherited a situation in which the previous Government had been determined to proceed with a wholesale privatisation that would not
132
have taken safety into account. We have learned the lessons of Railtrack, which they sold for a knock-down price with no concern for safety. We are determined to enshrine partnership in the proposal, taking the best of the public and private sectors so that we can enhance not only safety, but future opportunities for air traffic controllers.
Mr. Eric Forth: I congratulate the Minister on taking this significant first step towards an exciting new future for the air traffic control system. I hope that the Government will continue to move towards an objective that we would support. Will she explain her rationale for the trade sale? Is it a result of her unique experience in the private sector and the lessons that she learned there? As a result of the thrust of her policy, will she consider naming this new service the Ronald Reagan memorial air traffic control service?
Mrs. Liddell: One of the lessons that this Government have learned is never to look to the previous Government when it comes to contracts. The contracts that we inherited—on the Jubilee line, the channel tunnel rail link, Swanwick and Prestwick—were bizarre. The right hon. Gentleman does himself no service in trying to undermine what this Government seek to do in relation to air traffic control. Private sector advisers warned previous Governments about the folly of their privatisation proposals, and his Government were not prepared to listen to them.
Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, given the rise in traffic around Gatwick airport from 27 million to 40 million, there is understandable nervousness about today's decision? Does she agree that, as the air industry is one of our premier industries, it is important to maintain public confidence? Are the air traffic control systems of any other country under private sector control?
Mrs. Liddell: Countries such as Canada and Switzerland have equity involvement in their air traffic services. We have looked closely at international examples. My hon. Friend says that people are anxious about air safety. I do not underestimate that, particularly given that people saw the mess that the previous Government made of privatisation. That is precisely why we have put, and will continue to put, safety at the centre of our proposals, and why we have put in place strong Government safeguards to ensure that the national interest is given priority.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is the right hon. Lady content that the present air traffic control systems are safe from computer attack? What safeguards does she expect to put in the Bill to ensure that the new owners will retain the integrity of the computer systems?
Mrs. Liddell: The air traffic control systems currently in operation are well tested and tried. The new systems that are being put in place at Swanwick are being subjected to a rigorous process of testing. Technical handover has already taken place, and testing and training are being carried out. The Government will retain a veto over any measures planned by a prospective stakeholder partner in this enterprise which we feel might jeopardise the integrity of the systems. We believe that the safety of

133
the travelling public is paramount, which is why we pay tribute to those who work in NATS and to the systems that they operate with enormous safety. That should be recognised on both sides of the House.
Mr. Martin Salter: May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for meeting Members of Parliament who represent constituencies under the major flight paths, or who have serious reservations about the proposed public-private partnership?
I have three specific questions for my right hon. Friend. First, given the failure of the Rail Regulator to improve safety standards on our railways following the disastrous decision by the previous Government to privatise our railways, what confidence does she have that the new regulatory framework will be any better? Secondly, why are the air traffic controllers implacably opposed to the public-private partnership? Who knows best about aircraft safety: the people who have given us the safest and most reliable system in the world, or some politicians and a bunch of City investors? Thirdly, what should I tell my constituents who are concerned about overcrowding in the skies above the Thames valley and who were greatly encouraged by the statements by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) just seven months before the general election?
Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for taking the opportunity to bring a delegation of Members of Parliament, from constituencies that surround airports, to meet me last week. A number of important points were raised at that meeting. Since last October, there has been a lengthy consultation process on these proposals and we have listened closely to the responses, which have been published and are available in the Vote Office and the Library.
My hon. Friend referred to the Rail Regulator's previous record. I remind him that we introduced the Railways Bill precisely so that we could strengthen the Rail Regulator's powers. The Civil Aviation Authority will now have sole responsibility for the safety aspects of air traffic control operations. That is what all the industry experts, including the Transport Sub-Committee, have asked for.
My hon. Friend mentioned the concerns of air traffic controllers about the Government's proposals, but they became aware of them only this morning. Our proposals take into account a number of points that they made in their own proposals. He should bear in mind the fact that they, too, advocated an equity-based solution. We are determined to ensure that the partnership that we are putting in place includes the best from the public sector and the best from the private sector.
My hon. Friend also talked about overcrowding in our skies. That is precisely why we need a public-private partnership that can proceed. quickly and get on stream the two new centres at Swanwick and Prestwick, so that as air traffic increases the structures and facilities available for managing our skies is up-to-date and forward looking.
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move to the statement.
Hon. Members: More, more!
Madam Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Secretary Straw.

Political Parties (Funding)
4.21 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the funding of political parties.
We came to office committed to reform. Our three commitments were, first, to require large donations to political parties to be disclosed; secondly, to outlaw foreign funding of political parties; and thirdly, to invite the Committee on Standards in Public Life to look into the wider question of the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom.
The committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Neill of Bladen, was given that remit in November 1997 and reported in October 1998. The committee's review was comprehensive and authoritative. Because of the range of matters covered, it was not practicable to legislate in the current Session of Parliament, but I promised to publish a draft Bill before the summer recess, and I am doing that today.
The draft Bill is contained in a White Paper which provides the Government's overall response to the Neill committee's report. We intend to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible, taking full account of comments received from right hon. and hon. Members and from outside organisations by 15 October.
I shall summarise the main points of the White Paper and draft Bill. The Bill takes forward the two specific manifesto commitments to which I referred earlier, and which were endorsed by the Neill committee. Donations to political parties of £5,000 or more at the national level and of £1,000 or more at the local level will have to be made public. Furthermore, it will be unlawful for a political party to receive donations from an individual who is not registered to vote in the United Kingdom, or from companies that are not incorporated in the European Union and also carrying on business in the United Kingdom. Provision is also made for shareholder approval for donations.
There has also long been concern over the amounts that political parties are able, without restriction, to spend nationally at election times. The existing law, developed in the last century, already regulates very closely what can be spent by or on behalf of candidates at elections at constituency or local ward level. However, in the present day a large part of the effort and money devoted to winning elections is spent by parties not at a local or constituency level, but nationally and not on behalf of specific candidates.
The Bill therefore provides for new national spending limits on election expenditure, and agrees with the Neill committee that the limits should be set at a level substantially below the amounts spent by the two main parties in 1997, to avoid what Neill described as an arms race in spending between the parties.
On that basis, Neill recommended and the Bill provides a limit of £20 million for the main parties involved in a United Kingdom general election, with lower limits for parties that do not field full slates of candidates, and for other elections. When the Bill is introduced it will also contain provisions for regulating third-party spending at the national level, as recommended by the Neill committee.

135
To enforce the restrictions on donations and expenditure, the draft Bill places obligations on the parties at both local and national level to keep and submit accounts. That will apply particularly to the recording of donations. The scheme in the draft Bill, which sets a de minimis level of £50 for internal reporting, follows the Neill committee's recommendations.
All political parties will wish to study these detailed provisions carefully over the forthcoming months, but if the object in view can be served with some simplification or easement, the Government will be open to suggestions.
Annexe 1 of the White Paper contains a detailed chart setting out each of the Neill committee's recommendations, and the Government's proposed response. The one recommendation that we have not pursued is the recommendation that income tax relief should be allowed on donations to political parties. The Government take the view that that would amount to state aid by another route, and would divert expenditure from other priorities.
Some political donations are made not to a party as such, but to groups within a party or to individuals, including Members of Parliament. We agree with the Neill committee that comparable requirements should be imposed in respect of such donations, and the Bill, as introduced, will cover that. We would welcome views on whether the obligation to report such donations should fall on the party in question or on the person who receives them, and on whether donations that are currently recorded in the Register of Members' Interests should be put on a statutory basis.
The Neill committee made a number of suggestions for change relating to referendums. The Government accept them all, as I made clear when the Neill report was published last October. It is important to ensure that the two sides in any referendum campaign have a fair opportunity to put their case. We therefore propose to include state cash support on an equal basis for the two umbrella campaign organisations, with free mailing and access to referendum broadcasts, as the Neill committee suggested.
The committee also made recommendations about the position of the Government of the day in any referendum campaign. As it suggested, a Government are almost bound to be closely engaged in the subject matter of a referendum; but there is a point at which the Government should step back, and leave it to political parties and other campaign groups to make their case to the electorate. The draft Bill therefore provides for a 28-day period running up to the referendum poll in which the Government of the day should not issue material to the public on the subject matter of the referendum. Other rules, similar to those providing for election purdah periods, will also apply.
In one respect, however, the Government have gone further than the Neill committee's recommendations. In our judgment, it would be unfair and inconsistent with everything else that is proposed if referendum campaigns could be skewed by the injection of disproportionately large funds that happen to be at the disposal of a particular party or campaign group. We therefore propose to set limits on all organisations involved in referendum campaigns. In the draft Bill, the limits are £5 million for the two designated umbrella organisations and for
136
political parties with two or more Members in the House of Commons, and £500,000 for other political parties and campaign organisations. Those restrictions on spending would run from shortly after the date when a Bill providing for a referendum is introduced in Parliament. As Neill recommended, referendum organisations will also be subject to the same requirements as political parties in regard to foreign donations and other related matters.
I have left until last one of the most important provisions of the draft Bill. The Neill committee recommended, as have many others, the establishment of an electoral commission, and the Government agree with that recommendation. The commission's first function will be to oversee observance by political parties and others of the new regulatory regime; but I believe that we ought to go further. The commission will therefore be charged with making recommendations on changes to electoral law. We also envisage its having, in a wider sense, an important role to play in voter education. I want it to encourage people to vote in elections and referendums, and to help to explain the democratic system in a wholly non-partisan way. The draft Bill also provides for the electoral commission to take over, at a later date, the functions of the parliamentary boundary commissions and of the Local Government Commission for England.
It is paramount that the electoral commission should be wholly independent of the Government of the day. The draft Bill therefore provides the strongest safeguards of that kind which our constitution can lay down. The commissioners would be appointed by Her Majesty on an address from the House of Commons. A Speaker's committee would be established to oversee the commission's budget.
The Neill committee's report rightly emphasises the vital contribution, which we should celebrate, that political parties make to this country's democratic life, but for too long, public confidence in the political system has been undermined by the absence of clear, fair and open statutory controls on how political parties are funded. All of us here want to encourage citizens to play a full part in this country's political system, and that must include encouragement of voluntary donations to political parties.
The Neill committee report gives us all the chance to make significant improvements in this vital area of our national life. Today's publication of the draft Bill and White Paper provides the detail of the Government's intentions. By providing greater honesty and openness to our political system, we hope to restore public trust and to promote greater confidence in our democracy.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for his customary courtesy in giving me early sight of the statement—a novelty that I am still getting used to.
I add my congratulations to the Neill committee on a thorough and detailed work that contains much that will improve our democratic way of life. Having started on that friendly note, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to comment on some glaring omissions in the draft legislation?
Why, for example, despite yet more assurances and promises today, is there nothing in the draft legislation—which is, after all, all that right hon. and hon. Members and the public have to comment on in the consultation

137
period—on banning blind trusts, let alone any proposals for the detailed working of such a ban? Is that because five senior members of the Government used such funds: the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House?
Why does the proposed legislation do nothing to end the scandal of cash for policies, or to stop a repeat of the Bernie Ecclestone and Formula One affair? Will the legislation stop organisations such as, say, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, to which this small donor will make no further donations, and the Political Animal Lobby from buying policies at election time? Given that large donors to Labour have been given positions both in and by the Government, why is no effort made to ensure that all donations are not only without strings, but seen to be without strings?
How does the draft legislation propose to ensure that donations do not buy positions in government? [Interruption.] That was an important question, which the House perhaps did not hear. I asked the right hon. Gentleman how he intends to ensure, given that there is nothing in the draft legislation, that donations do not buy positions in government.
Why are trade unions given a privileged position in the legislation? Why does it require a disregard of the fact that they might be affiliated to a political party, a disregard that will not apply to any other organisation?
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not agree with the Neill proposal for tax relief on political donations of up to £500—but surely he will concede that the cost of such a measure would be barely more than the Government are spending on their own special advisers?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, although the Government will be subject to restrictions for only 28 days before a referendum is held, other organisations will have such restrictions for up to six months?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, according to his draft legislation, no candidate will be allowed to stand as, for example, an independent socialist or a pro-London candidate without first setting himself up as a political party?
How are national limits on spending to be enforced for a period of one year before a general election when we do not have fixed-term Parliaments?
Finally—it is a sensitive and delicate question, but nevertheless an important one—given the legislation's proposals on Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Sinn Fein will be able to receive foreign donations—for example, by channelling them through the Republic?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady's comments at the beginning of her statement, and particularly for her thanks—I gave mine in my statement, but am very happy to repeat them—to the Neill committee for the excellence of its work and recommendations.
The right hon. Lady is obviously very sorry that I have shot her fox by accepting all of the Neill committee's recommendations. Consequently, she has been left thrashing around in a state of amnesia about the Conservative party's record on political funding. The simple truth—an apology from a Conservative spokesman would be in order on the matter—is that we would have
138
needed neither the Neill report nor the draft Bill had the Conservative party not sunk the funding of political parties—its party—to such depths.
Moreover, neither the report nor the draft Bill would have been necessary had not the previous Government—of whom the right hon. Lady was a member—repeatedly refused to refer the funding of political parties to the Nolan committee. Time and time again did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister demand that the previous Government do so, but they point-blank refused.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the interesting issue of blind trusts. The body of the report—not only the Bill, but the whole of the White Paper is subject to consultation—makes it clear that, for the simple, straightforward and very prosaic reason that parliamentary counsel ran out of time in drafting—[Laughter.] The right hon. Lady may laugh at that, but she knows two things very well. First, this Government have a heavier legislative programme than previous Governments. Secondly, parliamentary counsel's time is limited. She asked me what we were doing about blind trusts. The answer to her question is given in full on pages 23 and 24 of the White Paper, which she has had for hours. If she had read it—if she had used that time sensibly—she would have seen that the Government have accepted every single one of the Neill committee's proposals on blind trusts.
The Government have always been clear on the issue of blind trusts. In our evidence to Neill, we said that blind trusts should be the subject of prohibition. What did the Conservative party—not the previous Government, but the current official Opposition, led by the current Leader of the Opposition—say about blind trusts? It said:
"We believe that there is an argument in favour of a form of blind trust."
So the right hon. Lady comes to the House not knowing her own party's policy on the issue of blind trusts. The party preceded that reference to blind trusts with the following absolutely stunning statement in respect of political donations:
"We believe that there is a perfectly honourable case to be made for anonymity".
The Tories' pursuit of that case for anonymity was one reason why the reputation of the political process was plunged so low during their time in government.
The right hon. Lady asked me about donations being made only without strings. There is no suggestion that donations should be made with strings, although I know that the Conservative party has great difficulty with that, given its record. Indeed, the whole purpose of a transparent system of reporting and disclosure and strengthening the regulation of the honours system is that we do not want to replicate the process that we witnessed in the 1980s and early 1990s, when there was a strange coincidence—I put it no higher than that—between those who gave large donations to the Conservative party and those who received honours or other favours.
The right hon. Lady asked me about special advisers. I do not think that she should complain about the money that the Opposition receive from the public purse. We sought to gain a reasonable increase in the money that the Opposition received from the public purse and we were systematically knocked back on that. We have been generous to a fault. The Opposition now receive £500,000 for the Leader of the Opposition's office alone; altogether

139
the Opposition receive £3.4 million—an increase of 250 per cent.—and it remains an open question as to whether the British taxpayer is getting value for money from the Opposition.
The right hon. Lady asked about the trade unions. Neill recommended no change in the regime for trade unions. They are already properly regulated and have been the subject of much tighter regulation than the shareholder disclosure regime that we plan to put in place. The national limits that we propose should apply for one year before an election takes place. I understand the right hon. Lady's point that people do not have precise notice of when an election will take place. I am happy to discuss that with all right hon. and hon. Members, but if the right hon. Lady thinks about the matter, she will appreciate that it is essential that the limits should apply for longer than the four or five weeks of an election campaign. In practice, most expenditure by a political party is not expended until after the election whistle is blown or, as in early 1997, when it is obvious when the election will take place. However, there is some election spending in the preceding period and it is important that the regulations should cover that.
The draft Bill contains special provisions relating to Northern Ireland to protect the identity of donors, if necessary. They apply to all parties, but of course, as we have made very clear, we are ready to accept comments on them.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome the statement, which goes a long way towards the major cleansing of the British political system for which some of us have argued for a number of years. Hopefully, it will also end the slide towards money-driven rather than issue-driven politics, and we shall return to issue-driven politics. I have just one or two queries.
First, I welcome the £20 million cap, but does my right hon. Friend not think that £20 million is too high and that it is a desirable objective to reduce by as much as possible the amount of money that is swilling about in British politics? Secondly, one effect of the proposals will be that anyone who has lived outside the United Kingdom for as long as 20 years will still be able to make donations to British political parties. That is as a result of the changes that the previous Government made to the right to vote. Does my right hon. Friend think that there is a case for limiting the right to vote to people who have been outside this country for up to only five years—and, therefore, for changing the eligibility to make donations?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend recall a little scam, whereby the drinks and tobacco industries have the main advertising hoardings in the country all booked up for most of the year, but at election time, they mysteriously and suddenly become available to one political party? Is there anything in the proposals to address that problem?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The figure of £20 million is a matter of argument. It is what Neill proposed, and we have sought assiduously in the draft Bill to follow the Neill recommendations in their detail, as well as in their spirit.
On overseas electors for the British Parliament, it is unarguable that if people are on the electoral register to vote in this country, they should be entitled to make
140
donations to the political party of their choice. There is a separate question about whether the rules laid down in the mid-'80s—which allowed people with a rather distant connection with this country to vote, such as those who have not been resident here for 20 years—should continue. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has proposed that the period be reduced to five years, and we are considering that carefully.
On the drinks and tobacco industries, we are seeking in the draft Bill to control the behaviour of political parties. There are limits to what can or should be done in a democracy, although none of us on this side of the House approves of the way in which the drinks and tobacco industries used to monopolise poster sites on behalf of the Conservative party.
Mr. Richard Allan: We warmly welcome the Home Secretary's proposals—especially for an electoral commission, which we believe to be long overdue. Will he consider accepting our proposal to give the commission a formal role on advising on the question in a referendum, as we believe that to be vital in conducting fair referendums in this country?
Will the Home Secretary consider the implications of devolution for this matter? Party responsibilities for matters such as funding are now, quite properly, devolved to national parties in the various parts of the UK. We hope that he will be sensitive to that, rather than requiring powers to be taken back centrally to parties in London.
Is the Home Secretary concerned that the draft Bill might prevent young people under 18 from becoming subscription-paying members of a political party by confining donations to registered electors? Will he consider that issue, so that we do not exclude from taking part in the political process the young people who often seem to be sadly lacking from it?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the issue of an upper limit on individual donations? In so doing, he might do his bit to try to end the dependency culture, whereby a party leader becomes so dependent on particular large donors—such as those who give £1 million a year, for example—that he finds it impossible to kick the habit, even when that person has been shown to be fundamentally unsuitable to make such donations?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of Neill's proposals and our response to them. We are not proposing that the commission should advise on questions in a referendum. Once the commission is established, it will be seen whether that is considered an appropriate role for the commission, which may take the view that advising on the wording of a question in a referendum could lead the commission into partisan areas.
In practice, while there has been argument about the questions in the referendums that we have had in this country in the past 25 years, everyone has known what the issue has been. It has been clear: do we stay in the Common Market, or leave? Do we vote for a National Assembly for Wales and a Scottish Parliament? In future, do we vote for a change in the electoral system, or not? Do we vote to join the euro? It is not a huge problem.
On devolution, I accept the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's comments. We acknowledge in the draft White Paper that many parties—this applies particularly

141
to the Liberal Democrats, but increasingly to others—have a federated structure, and we must be sensitive to that. He will understand that, with some small exceptions, the question of elections within the UK is a reserved area, however. We have sought to square the circle properly in the draft Bill but we are open to proposals and comments on whether we have got it right.
There is no proposal in the Bill that should for a second have the effect of preventing a United Kingdom resident who happens to be under 18 from making donations to political parties, but if such a gremlin has crept into the drafting, we shall ensure that it is removed. The purpose of that part of the Bill is to restrict foreign, not under-age donations. We are happy to have donations from people of any age.
The Neill committee considered upper limits on individual donations in some detail. I do not believe that they are practical. It is far more effective to cap spending and have full disclosure of donations than to try to cap what individuals may give. With the best will in the world, if we go down that route we end up with all the complications that have been found in the United States, where, in practice, a level playing field is not secured for the political parties and a great deal of evasion is encouraged, to small purpose.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. A lot of hon. Members want to ask questions and I have to think of protecting the later business, in which many hon. Members have said that they would like to speak. Let us have short questions and short answers, please.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend has announced a major change in the way in which the financial operations of elections are conducted, and I expected no less. He rightly started with the Neill recommendations. I am not altogether happy with the upper figure of £20 million, which may be open to discussion, but the most important aspects are the electoral commission and the electoral commissioner. The initiative that the commissioner can show will be available for the first time to keep a close control on the financial operations of elections.
How much time does my right hon. Friend envisage the commissioner being able to devote to the job? Will it be a full-time or a part-time post?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his endorsement. He speaks with great experience, not only as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee but as a long-serving former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. We will want to draw on his experience, as we want to base the independence of the new electoral commission on the model of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The first part of the Bill gives the commission wide powers and restricts the powers of the Secretary of State, because some changes in electoral law will be able to be proposed in the House only if they have been endorsed by the commission. I would anticipate that the commissioner's would be a full-time post, and there would certainly need to be a substantial number of
142
full-time staff as well as other part-time commissioners. We intend to ensure that the commission can do a proper and effective job.
Mr. John MacGregor: As a member of the Neill committee, I warmly welcome the Government's acceptance of the vast majority of our recommendations, and in particular those on referendums, both because there was some doubt whether the Government would accept them and more especially because it was very clear to us in the hearings that we held around the country that the funding arrangements for the earlier referendums under the present Government left a great deal to be desired.
The Home Secretary referred with approval to the Neill principle that strong and healthy parties are essential to the functioning of a strong democracy. The second part of the sentence to which he was referring goes on:
"as a means of engaging very large numbers of people … in the whole democratic process."
In that respect, the recommendation for tax relief on small donations from large numbers of people was, we thought, crucial. One of the effects of our recommendations and the Government's acceptance of them will be some diminution in donations from other quarters, hence the importance of encouraging such donations to fill the gap. Will the Home Secretary think again about tax relief?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and especially for his welcome for what I said about accepting the regime for referendums. I am aware that a canard was flying that there was some doubt about the Government's position, but I made it clear, in an interview on the day that it was issued, that we welcomed the whole of the report. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in the debate in early November, I again made clear our acceptance of the referendum proposals.
I understand that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) has strong views about the proposals to make small donations to political parties tax-deductible. The Government take a different view. We are of course open to representations, although they would have to be very strong to make us change our mind. I do not accept that the degree of people's involvement in a democracy would depend on whether they could get tax relief on their donations.
We have a pretty vibrant, working democracy in this country. Not enough people are involved in the system, and all political parties would like more people to get actively involved in politics. They would also like politics, through civics courses, to become more central to the education of the nation's children. There are other ways of achieving that, and I believe that if there is a case for giving state aid to political parties—including state aid for political education—that aid should be given explicitly, rather than through the happenstance of individuals' donations on which tax could be deducted.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will we have to wait until the electoral commission has finished its work before further reforms to the electoral system, beyond those in the White Paper, are introduced? I am thinking especially of a rolling register to cover the millions of people missing from existing registers, and of the registration of homeless people. If those reforms are

143
to be blocked because the electoral commission will be required to finish its work first, some of us would consider that the cart had been put before the horse.
Mr. Straw: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We will not have to wait for the electoral commission to complete its work. Indeed, as the Under—Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has already announced, we have separate proposals from the all-party electoral working party for other changes to improve the process, and they include the introduction of a rolling register.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I generally welcome the Home Secretary's statement, but I seek clarification on two matters. First, will funds from outside Wales be allowed to be given to political parties fighting elections to the National Assembly for Wales? Secondly, will the electoral commission be relevant to the Assembly, and to local government in Wales?
Mr. Straw: I know of no way in which we could prevent motor vehicles travelling across the Severn bridge from carrying donations to the Welsh Assembly. The idea that we could recreate Offa's dyke, fill in all the gaps and thereby put a wall around Wales is not a proposition that even the right hon. Gentleman would want to pursue. The proposals that I have set out are for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about local government in Wales. That is a reserved matter, but the organisation of local government boundaries in Wales is a devolved matter for the National Assembly for Wales. The White Paper makes it clear that, if the National Assembly wished the review of those boundaries to be taken over by the electoral commission, we would be open to making provision for that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have to say that this statement is a darn sight better than the one before it. [Laughter.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that trade unionists in particular will be very pleased at the announcement that shareholders will be able to subject donations to a vote of approval?
Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recall that a few years ago I proposed to the Labour party's national executive committee that a sum equivalent to the amount that a political party spends on all its candidates in an election would be sufficient as an upper limit? That amount is roughly £6 million now. Will he have another look at that proposal?
Finally, will my right hon. Friend accept from me that this is a most opportune statement? It could not have come at a better time, especially given that the Tories are run and financed, year on year, by Mr. Ashcroft. Will he also understand that, in the run-up to a general election—more than at any other time—the Labour party must set the agenda? That is what this proposal does.
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for the tenor of his remarks. His point about trade unions is important. We submitted party funding to an independent committee
144
comprised of people of all political persuasions and none. We asked it to consider the matter independently and impartially, and to implement proposals. The committee said that no change was required in the regime for trade unions, but that huge changes were necessary in respect of company donations.
I contrast the way in which we have proceeded with the way in which the previous Conservative Government ruthlessly sought to hobble Opposition parties in a wholly partisan way. They hit in particular at the Labour party's sources of funds while protecting their own. Their sources included donations from companies in the UK and abroad, but also from very shady individuals, including Asil Nadir. It remains to be seen whether the Tory party has given back his £400,000.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: There, we have had the true motive behind the Home Secretary's statement. He should accept that this action is, in some respects, an act of reprisal by the Labour party and that aspects of it will effectively hobble the Opposition. The Government are not content simply to have an overwhelming majority in the House, with destroying any opposition in the other place, or with having a supine load of journalists mesmerised by the power of the Prime Minister's press secretary.
Does the Home Secretary accept that some of his proposals—in particular, the decision to require disclosure of donations in excess of £5,000—will hobble the Opposition? Does he agree that many people will be deterred from giving fairly modest sums to political parties—as the Home Secretary says that he wants them to do—because the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will set investigative journalists on them to dig up as much dirt as possible? Does he agree that that will not improve the democratic process?
Mr. Straw: If this had been a reprisal, I would have been conducting it under friendly fire. The hon. Gentleman should have seen the face of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) as he spoke. The proposals are based on an independent report, which the Conservative Front-Bench team has demanded—having done a full pirouette from the previous position—that we should implement in full. That is precisely what we have done, and I am very sorry to have discomfited the Conservative spokesmen.
The hon. Gentleman remains unreconstructed, taking the view held by a former treasurer of the Conservative party, Lord McAlpine, whose solution to party funding was entirely straightforward. Lord McAlpine said:
"I do not think that we ever should have shown how we spent our money. The Conservative Central Office is not a charity dedicated to helping the sick and suffering,"—
perhaps an open question these days—
"it is a fighting machine dedicated to winning elections."
He also wrote:
"There was a black hole in the Party's finances … The solution was easy: we gave up publishing accounts."
That was the approach then taken by the Tory party. I am glad to see that those views remain represented, red in tooth and claw.
Dr. George Turner: Can my right hon. Friend say more about what will happen with

145
shareholders? Many shareholders are pension funds that hold their power on behalf of others. Many of us do not want our pension funds to do what many have done in past and fund the Tory party on the false premise that it is good for the economy. This Government have shown that the Labour party is good for the economy. Surely our companies should not be involved in party politics unless their shareholders overwhelmingly say so.
Mr. Straw: The principle that my hon. Friend lays down was accepted by the Neill committee, and we set out our response to that on page 26 of the White Paper. We propose, as Neill did, that there should be a requirement on company directors to seek shareholder approval for donations, including donations that involve non-commercial sponsorship. Neill proposed that the cycle of approval should take place every four years. That is in the draft Bill, but we are open to suggestions as to whether it should occur more often.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), can the Home Secretary confirm that the 20-year rule was part of a Bill, passed quickly at this time of year in 1989, which also increased the limits on by-election expenditure, that such a Bill cannot in a narrow space of time be passed without bipartisan support and that all aspects of that Bill—before publication and including the 20-year rule—were agreed by Lord Hattersley, the shadow Home Secretary, on the advice of Walworth road?
Mr. Straw: I do not know all the detail, but I can confirm that the Representation of the People Act 1989 was a bipartisan Act, and that my noble Friend Lord Hattersley was shadow Home Secretary at the time. The right hon. Gentleman is therefore correct but, 10 years on, that does not mean that, because something was passed with bipartisan support, it should not be open to review. The proposal should be open to review. We seek on this issue, as we have on electoral processes, to proceed as far as possible on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with this Bill, he has put within our grasp an end to sleaze in the funding of political parties? Does he agree that those who opt out of paying tax in this country should also opt out of funding political parties, at least for five years until they are no longer on the electoral register, in line with the principle in the Neill report that funding of political parties should be limited to those who live, work and carry on business in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Straw: I hope and believe that my hon. Friend is correct to say that the proposals in this Bill will help clean up British politics and put an end to sleaze in the funding of our political process. On the restrictions on overseas donors, we want the political process to be funded by those who have a stake in it. That is why we seek a ban on foreign donations, whether from individuals or companies. We define that by reference to the domicile of the company but also by reference to whether an individual is on the electoral register.
Mr. Martin Bell: I wish also to query the proposed £20 million limit for a political party campaign.
146
That seems to me an extraordinary amount of money that will keep parties spending more than they can safely raise and keep them beholden to the big contributors. Surely a cheaper politics is a more trustworthy politics. Perhaps we could, for as little as £2 million or at the most £5 million, take politics out of the hands of the big contributors and give it back to the people.
Mr. Straw: The sum of £20 million was that proposed by Neill. It is important that the limit should be realistic. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who also made that point, for failing to answer it.
The simple truth is that the original regime that we now operate was established at the end of the previous century when almost all election spending took place at a constituency level. There was virtually no national party spending, and the dates on which elections took place varied from one part of the country to another. It is interesting that the total level of spending at a constituency level at the end of the 19th century was, in real terms, very substantial, and ran to much more than is spent today at a constituency level because the constituency was the focus of the campaign. Today, for reasons that everybody understands, there is a greater focus on the national level.
Neill was correct to say that the regime should recognise that arrangement, but the committee has also proposed to reduce for future elections the amount that was spent at the previous election. I recall that the Conservative party is reported to have spent about £27 million at that election, and the Labour party £26 million. I think that £20 million is therefore a reasonable restriction. If the figure were much lower, the restriction would not take account of the realities of modern campaigning.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: In the case of institutional shareholders, would pension funds and insurance companies be required to consult their policyholders before using their votes at annual general meetings on political funds?
Mr. Straw: No, they would not. That is a separate but very live issue about the degree to which those who exercise shareholder power consult the beneficial interest, which is typically those who have put money into a pension fund, and how they do so through trustees. We are strongly supporting measures to strengthen the role of trustees in the control of pension funds.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome the statement in principle. The Home Secretary will know that, in Scotland, the political parties came to an agreement along the same lines before the recent election there. I refer him to the jocular reply that he gave the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) earlier regarding spending by UK parties in devolved elections. Does he agree that the transfer of funds and resources from London to Edinburgh or Cardiff during or before such an election is a serious issue? Given that he has already distinguished in his statement between local and national donations, will he consider that matter further?
Mr. Straw: Unless we were to put walls around different parts of the United Kingdom and abandon the

147
single currency that was introduced for England and Scotland in 1707, it would be impossible to work out how, in practice, we could prevent donations being made to Scottish political parties by people in the rest of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, I do not believe that to be desirable within what is a union of this kingdom.
The Bill contains clear regulations regarding the donations that people make to political parties in Scotland and elsewhere, and a clear regime for the spending of those political parties. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will not have had time to read the White Paper but, if he looks at page 40, he will see, set out in column D, the proposed spending limits for the Scottish Parliament. Obviously, that figure is pro rata. The limit is £1.5 million for each political party in a general election for the Scottish Parliament, compared to £20 million for parties in a national general election. That is a sensible way to proceed.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not downright scandalous that the whole dirty, murky world of party financing was not touched on by the Conservatives for obvious reasons, particularly because they used money that was known to be stolen?
I press my right hon. Friend again on the question of tax exiles. Why should someone who is technically a British citizen and entitled to vote here but who, for obvious tax reasons, ensures that he or she does not spend more than 90 days a year in the UK be in a position to finance a political party? Such a case is, of course, in the news, and demonstrates that the Tory party is almost exclusively dependent on such a tax exile. We need to change that, and I tell my right hon. Friend that, if that is not dealt with in the Bill, some of us will hope to press an amendment, which is likely to be supported by our hon. Friends.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend was entirely right to draw attention to the disreputable record of the previous Conservative Administration in refusing to clean up British politics because they knew that the spotlight would turn on the murky record of the Conservative party.
I am glad to welcome converts, wherever they come from, but I remind Conservative Members that, when the mere suggestion was made that the issue of party political funding should be referred to the Nolan committee, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said,
"I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed."—[Official Report, 21 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 95.]
148
The Conservatives did not want an inquiry because they did not want it to reveal what they knew to be the truth. Their view was the view of Lord McAlpine—that the best way to avoid scrutiny was simply to avoid having any accounts.
I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about people who are tax exiles, but it seems to me that the position of tax exiles must be dealt with through Finance Bills. It is unarguable that, if someone is lawfully on the register to vote in this country, that individual must be allowed to make donations to a British political party that is registered in this country. I do not understand how we could retreat from that principle, although I appreciate that amendments may be tabled to the Bill from all quarters, and I look forward to the argument on them.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the Government's response to recommendation 89 of the Neill committee grotesquely inadequate? That recommendation established the following principle in these words:
"The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case."
There is no mention there of the 28-day limit that the Government are putting in, in their so-called acceptance of that recommendation. Is it not blindingly obvious that the Government intend to raid the public purse on a massive scale in the months leading up to a referendum, stopping only a meagre four weeks before polling day?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman never improves his case by the hyperbolic way in which he presents it. He is wrong. We are putting in place, in statute, restrictions on expenditure by Government that his Government would never have dreamed of. We can have an argument about whether 28 days is the precise period—I am happy to do that—but the 28-day period follows the principles that Governments of both parties have followed in respect of what is call the election purdah period for elections that take place within a Parliament, and we intend to stick to the principles in the Bill, not only to their letter but to their spirit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We are now going to move on. We shall be coming back to these matters again later.

Personal Statements
5.18 pm
Kali Mountford: Madam Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a personal statement.
In response to the 10th and 11th reports of the Standards and Privileges Committee published today, I should like to apologise to you and to the House. I regret that I find myself in this position and that my actions have caused difficulties for members of the Social Security Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee. What started out as a genuine attempt to be helpful to the deliberations of the Social Security Committee unfortunately went very wrong.
Unfortunately, because of personal and family problems coupled with a series of health problems resulting from surgery that was not successful, I have not been able to spend as much time as usual in and around the House. Had I been able to be here, I might have had a fuller grasp and understanding of the implications of these procedures and not done things which, on reflection, were rather silly. I have of course sent my resignation to the Chairman of the Social Security Committee and apologised to the members.
I fully accept the findings of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I deeply regret my actions and apologise both for my original error of judgment and my delay in being totally forthcoming in this matter.
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Ms Mountford.
5.19 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a personal statement.
The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, in its 10th and 11th reports published today, has made criticisms of my behaviour concerning a draft report of the Select Committee on Social Security. I want the House to know that I accept fully the judgments of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and apologise unreservedly to the House for my part in this matter. The circumstances, which are referred to as "mitigating", are set out fully in my statement to the Standards and Privileges Committee, as are my reasons for declining to name a colleague without that colleague's permission.
I believe that hon. Members should accept reports of the House that are critical of them. It is the duty of each of us to take responsibility for our actions, and I do not shirk that duty today. Finally, I am deeply grateful to you for allowing me to make this unreserved apology to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Touhig.

Points of Order
5.21 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a point of order that goes to the heart of the way in which the Government discharge their obligation to be straight with Parliament and the public.
Last Thursday at Treasury questions, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, in relation to the new individual savings accounts, or ISAs:
"In the first two months following their launch, savers invested more than £4 billion in them—more than twice as much as was invested in PEPs and TESSAs during exactly the same period last year."—[Official Report, 22 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1324.]
This morning there was a raft of press reports on the subject. I quote from page 11 of the Financial Times, which states:
"Gross sales of Isas in the three months to the end of June were £1.6 bn compared with £3.9 bn gross sales of Peps in the second quarter of 1998."
[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not like—
Madam Speaker: That is a matter of argument. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Davies: At first sight, at least, the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House last Thursday is inconsistent with subsequent reports. Therefore there is great confusion in the press and among the public. I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether the Chief Secretary has given you any indication as to whether he 0intends to make clear in the House a matter that has been muddled by the Government's unhealthy obsession with spin-doctoring and with—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising policy matters with me. He knows very well that I have no responsibility for the comments made by Ministers or hon. Members. Certainly, I refuse to comment on reports in the national press. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench Member, so if he wishes to pursue the matter when we come back, he is free to do so—he has the Order Paper—and if he wishes to pursue it while the House is in recess, he can make written representations to the Minister concerned.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that, at no time today, did you receive any request from the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for Transport to make a statement on the matter of air traffic control, and that Ministers were forced to come to the House only as a result of you granting a private notice question to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)?
I ask that because I thought that I heard on the radio this morning—as no doubt you did, Madam Speaker; I know that you are an assiduous listener to the radio in the morning—the Minister saying that she could not reveal anything to the public until she had revealed it to Parliament. Can you confirm that you received no such request from the Minister, until she was forced to come to the House by you, following a request from my hon. Friend?
Madam Speaker: I received no request from any Minister to make a statement today. I did receive a request

151
from a member of the Opposition for a private notice question. Of course, I used my judgment and the authority given to me by the House to grant that private notice question.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of your sympathetic reception yesterday to the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and myself in relation to the possible ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo and the dire pollution at Pancevo and other places in Serbia, and given that we shall not be back before the beginning of the Serbian winter, have you had any request from the Foreign Office to make a statement on that urgent matter?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Foreign Office or any other Department of State that it wishes to make a statement on Kosovo.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the huge public concern about the growing of genetically modified crops, and you may be aware of a statement in one of the newspapers this morning to the effect that the Government may be placing a cloak of secrecy over the location of GM crops being grown throughout Britain. Have you had any requests from a Minister to make such a statement and, in view of the seriousness of the possibility of secrecy surrounding crop trials, which have overwhelming implications for many people, do you not think that there should be such a statement?
Madam Speaker: I sometimes wish that I could tell the House what I think about it. On a more serious note, no, I have not received any request to make such a statement today.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    WARM HOMES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION (FIFTEEN YEAR PROGRAMME)
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy, supported by Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Angela Smith, Maria Eagle and Ms Linda Perham presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up and facilitate the carrying out, over a period of fifteen years, of a programme of action to provide at least 500,000 households per year with a comprehensive package of home insulation and other energy efficiency improvements; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 November, and to be printed [Bill 149].

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Finance Act 1999

  Disability Rights Commission Act 1999

  Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999

  Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, Etc.) Act 1999

  Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999

  Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999

  Access to Justice Act 1999

  Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

  Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999

  Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Act 1999

  Employment Relations Act 1999

  Local Government Act 1999

Funeral Parlours (Planning)(Amendment)
5.27 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in connection with the change of use of premises intended to be funeral parlours.
I cannot claim that the Bill quite ranks with the awesome list of legislation that has just received Royal Assent, and I do not expect that it will have the same success in passing through the various stages that it would need to in the House. Nor, the House will be relieved to know, do I intend to spend more than a minute or two explaining it.
The Bill is a modest measure, which arises from the very same perplexity that was mentioned in the House in an Adjournment debate on 11 June 1999 when the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) said:
"I have no objection to funeral parlours and funeral directors operating in the high street."
I utterly share those sentiments. In the long run, as Keynes said, we are all dead and we need such services.
The hon. Gentleman also said:
"The vexed issue of planning and funeral parlours is of great concern to my constituents. For many years, one of my constituents lived next to an excellent local newsagent … where sustenance for mind and body was available … To her horror, one day she found that a funeral parlour had appeared almost overnight in the small parade of shops."—[Official Report, 11 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 961.]
The strange fact is that, in my constituency of West Dorset in the town of Sherbourne,almost identical events transpired, and one of my constituents woke up one fine morning to discover that an entirely innocuous shop was about to be turned into a funeral parlour. As it happens, my constituent passed her days pleasantly sunning herself in her front garden and did not wish—if I may be forgiven the phrase by the House—to see a procession of stiffs passing her front garden. She thought that she had the usual remedies available to her; that she could go to the district council and ask that her case be put. She expected that the funeral parlour proprietor would then be able to put his case and that the matter would be adjudicated in the ordinary way.
Alas, it so happens that, under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, that is not the case. Class Al of that order allows the transformation of any
154
item in a long list of kinds of business premises to be achieved without planning permission, as long as that transformation is into another of the classes listed in class A 1.
Class A1(f) is entitled:
"For the direction of funerals".
I am a profound proponent and supporter of the order in general and there is a desperate need to allow businesses to be flexible and change their premises and for different kinds of businesses to emerge on our high streets, but funeral parlours are not quite like all other forms of shop. They bear rather more resemblance to other things, which are not included in that list and which cause concern to constituents. Hence, they have to go through the planning procedure.
This modest Bill is entirely intended to bring to the attention of the officials and Ministers responsible the urgent need to remove paragraph (1) from class A 1. That would hardly make major legislative history, but it would have the beneficial effect that neither my constituents nor those of the hon. Member for Ealing, North would awake on any day to find that such a horrible event had occurred without the slightest redress being available. If there is a purpose for ten-minute Bills and for private Members coming to the House to try to change legislation or to bring such matters to the attention of officials, this is a classic example of that purpose.
My constituents in Sherborne feel extremely strongly about this matter, which has probably attracted more attention from the local press than most of the great matters of state. I suspect that they and the constituents of many other Members around the House would be profoundly grateful if the Government took the appropriate steps, even though I foster no illusion that the Bill is likely to be passed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Eric Pickles and Mr. David Lidington

Funeral Parlours (Planning)(Amendment)
  FUNERAL PARLOURS (PLANNING) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Oliver Letwin accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law in connection with the change of use of premises intended to be funeral parlours: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 November, and to be printed [Bill 150].
Orders of the Day
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order of 15 July,
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    DATA PROTECTION
    Queen's recommendation signified.
    That, in respect of service in the period starting with 1st April 1999 and ending with 31st March 2000, the salary of the Data Protection Registrar shall be £66,290 per annum.—[Mr. Hill.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    ROAD TRAFFIC
    That the draft Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Termination of Restrictions) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
    Question agreed to.

  Economic Stability and Public Services
  [Relevant documents: Bank of England Annual Report 1999 and the Eighth Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 1998–99, on the Monetary Policy Committee—Two Years On (HC 505).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  5.32 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): This extremely welcome debate allows the House the opportunity to discuss the Government's approach to modernising our economy and to modernising—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I apologise to the Chief Secretary; I should have said at the outset that Madam Speaker has decided that there should be a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in the debate.
  Mr. Milburn: I, too, shall bear that in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will be immensely relieved to hear it. The Government are pursuing twin objectives: the creation of an enterprise economy and the creation of a fair society. Creating wealth is the way to create jobs, opportunity and prosperity, but an enterprise economy requires a society in which the talents of all our people are deployed to the full. When we came to office, we inherited failures in both the economy and our public services. They in turn reflected outdated means of making economic and public spending policy. Modernisation of both is the key to creating a dynamic economy capable of sustained growth and reliable public services capable of meeting modern needs.
  On 1 May 1997, we set ourselves two key objectives to help to build a stronger economic future for Britain: first, the establishment of a new economic framework to secure long-term economic stability and to put an end to the damaging cycle of stop-go and, secondly, to begin to strengthen Britain's productive potential by tackling the long-standing weaknesses of the British economy with policies to increase employment opportunities, to raise Britain's productivity performance and to build a fairer society. We had to do that against a background of mounting uncertainty and instability in the global economy. The economy that we inherited from the previous Government was set to repeat the cycle of boom-bust that has been the British disease for the past three decades or more.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Does the Chief Secretary think that the economy is in an upswing or a downswing, or have the Government abolished the business cycle?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall come to the details of where we are—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) would calm down for a moment, I shall have a word or two to say to him before too long. I shall come to the detail of where we are in the economic cycle in a moment.
  As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) is aware, we have been creating a form of economic stability that this country has long longed for: low inflation, low

  157
  interest rates and employment growth. Most outside commentators now accept the forecast of between 1 and 1.5 per cent. growth, which the Government made in the pre-Budget report last November. At the time, the Conservatives and many independent commentators pooh-poohed that, but thankfully, independent commentators are coming round to the Government's way of thinking.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I spy an hon. Gentleman who is coming round to the Government's way of thinking.
  Mr. Bercow: I fear that it is a case of the right hon. Gentleman seeing pigs fly before his very eyes.
  While the Chief Secretary mulls over the question of whether the economy is in an upswing or a downswing, may I ask him another question? What assessment has he made of the European Commission's proposal, in February 1999, for the imposition of lower rates of value added tax on labour-intensive industries?
  Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Gentleman is obsessed with Europe. Indeed, the Conservative party has increasingly become a one-issue party: its sole obsession is Europe. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate is about economic stability and public finances, which is precisely what my speech will be about.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party's muddled position on Bank of England independence given yesterday—that the issue should be referred to a commission to look at the workings of the Monetary Policy Committee—shows that, had the Tories been in power, we would have had two years of muddle? We would not have had the lowest short-term interest rates for 30 years and the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years, inflation would have been out of control and the economy would have been in chaos.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Chancellor is not even at first base on those issues. I presume that he aspires one day to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he cannot even answer the most basic question about monetary policy: is he in favour or against independence for the Bank of England? We do not need a review; we simply need him to answer yes or no. I am happy to give way to Conservative Members now if they can confirm the Conservative party's position on this. Apparently, they cannot.
  The Conservative party's record speaks for itself. When we came to power, consumer spending was growing at an unsustainable rate, inflation was set to rise sharply above target once again, and there was a large structural deficit in public finances. By no stretch of even the most fevered of Conservative Members' imagination could that be described as a "golden economic legacy". Rather, we inherited an economy flawed by serious and fundamental weaknesses.
  During the 18 years in which the Conservative party was in government, Britain's growth was substantially below the G7 and European Union average and we suffered two deep and damaging recessions. During those
  158
  18 years, Britain had lower investment levels than any of the member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We also had higher average inflation than any other major industrialised country, with one exception—Italy.
  When this Government took office, our first priority had to be to secure long-term economic stability. The events of the past two years demonstrate beyond all doubt that, in a world of ever more rapid international financial flows, monetary and fiscal stability is the precondition for economic success. We achieved that by setting clear objectives, establishing proper rules and requiring openness and transparency in the way in which we do business.
  On clear objectives, price stability through a pre-announced inflation target—a symmetrical target, I remind the House—and sustainable public finances through tough fiscal rules—
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Obviously, the Government are to be congratulated heartily on controlling inflation. That has been quite splendid and fully successful. However, there is the problem of house prices. Although there is an attempt to include an aspect of that in the retail prices index, it is not very successful and the matter is becoming increasingly serious. Will my right hon. Friend say something about that problem?
  Mr. Milburn: I understand my right hon. Friend's concerns about these issues. In pursuing and creating economic stability, we also want to achieve a stable housing market. I have listened carefully to what some of the major lenders have to say about the current state of the market. My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Halifax has said:
  "The current favourable affordability position will continue to underpin a healthy housing market over the remainder of 1999, we see no evidence to suggest that the market is returning to a 1980s style boom."
  We have been pursuing policies for economic stability by setting out clear objectives. The golden rule is that over the cycle we balance the current budget. The sustainable investment rule requires that, as we borrow for investment, debt is held to a prudent and stable level.
  There should be well-understood rules. We have a new system of monetary policy making, at the heart of which is the independence of the Bank of England and its open letter system, and an equivalent and equally important set of fiscal procedures that are legally enshrined in the code of fiscal stability.
  We must also have transparency in policy making, with an open system of decision making in monetary policy through the publication of minutes, a voting system and full reporting to Parliament. We should have the same openness and disclosure in fiscal policy, with key fiscal assumptions independently ordered.
  Those are the new rules of the game. They are especially important for Britain, which, more than most nations, has been subject to boom-bust cycles and changing policies.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The Minister says that those are the new rules of the game. Will he confirm that those rules fail to satisfy the Maastricht treaty in the degree of independence given to the Bank of England?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman should direct that question to his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor—Maastricht man—because he is the man who signed the Maastricht treaty.
  Giving operational independence to the Bank of England for setting interest rates is at the heart of the new framework that we have established. Before the House today is the Bank of England's first annual report to be published under the new monetary policy framework. The new style accounts are welcome. They contribute to the greater accountability and transparency that we envisaged when the Bank of England was reformed. For the first time, the Bank's annual report is on a statutory basis. It is particularly welcome to have a clear statement of the Bank's objectives and strategy, to have a director's report reviewing the Bank's performance against its objectives, and much more information on how the Bank uses its own resources.
  The aim of the new financial framework established by the Bank of England Act 1998 is to provide proper incentives for the Bank to make efficient use of its resources in pursuit of its functions, and to make it more transparent and more accountable, especially to Parliament, for what it does. It is still early days, but we believe that the Bank is on the right track. Indeed, that view is confirmed by the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury on the work of the Monetary Policy Committee, which was issued yesterday. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and his colleagues on the Committee for their hard work in producing it.
  The Committee's report underlines the success of the new framework. The Government will respond to the points raised in the usual manner. The report agrees that the Chancellor's decision to reform the monetary policy framework has been vindicated over the past two years. I particularly welcome the Committee's agreement with the Chancellor on two key points. First, that maintaining the same inflation target for a period of time adds to the credibility of our inflation policy. Secondly, that the symmetrical inflation target adds important flexibility to ensure that deviations of inflation below the target are taken just as seriously as deviations of inflation above the target.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Chief Secretary says that he welcomes those changes. The Bank of England's report states that one of the objectives is to manage the Bank's resources responsibly. How can he square that with the Government's enforced sale of the Bank's gold reserves?
  Mr. Milburn: That is an extremely tired old tune—a tune that, unfortunately, was partially interrupted during our last Treasury questions. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman wants to return to it.
  Mr. Bercow: He wants to return to it because it is valid.
  Mr. Milburn: We are happy to debate these issues, but the fact is that, like other major industrialised nations—
  160
  both in Europe and elsewhere—we are determined to give the United Kingdom a balanced portfolio of reserves, and that is precisely what we have done. We held too much stock in gold, and not enough in other currencies. We balanced the portfolio, and I would have expected the hon. Gentleman, and other Conservative Members, to welcome that.
  Mr. Blunt rose—
  Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Davies: As my right hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury says that the activities of the Monetary Policy Committee staved off recession. Does it not follow that, had we not advocated the independence of the Bank of England under the Conservatives, we would not have staved off recession—a quarter of the world is in recession now—and would have returned to the Tory years of unemployment, spending cuts and higher taxes?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend puts his case—and indeed, the truth—very succinctly.
  The Committee's report underlines the success of the new framework. As I have said, the Government will respond to the points raised in the usual manner, but the key point is this. Despite some of the reservations expressed in the report, now, for the first time, interest-rate decisions are made in the long-term interest of the British economy rather than for short-term political reasons.
  There were doubts at the outset about the rightness of this approach, many of which were expressed in the House at the time. It is now clear, however, that it is delivering the goods. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) just said, inflation is low, and is expected to remain close to target. What is more, for the first time in generations we can look forward to a period of sustained low inflation.
  Interest rates peaked at 7.5 per cent., and the Bank of England has been able to cut them seven times in just 10 months. Short-term interest rates are now at their lowest for over 20 years, long-term interest rates are at their lowest for over 30 years, and mortgages have not been cheaper for a generation. We have been steering a course for stability in what are uncertain and troubled times for a global economy.
  Of course we cannot build a modern enterprise economy overnight. With a quarter of the world in recession, trading conditions have been difficult for many firms, and we know that that is especially the case for manufacturers. But, as we indicated in last year's pre-Budget report, the economy is set to grow by between 1 and 1.5 per cent. this year, and by between 2.25 and 2.75 per cent. next year. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that, even now, employment continues to grow. It has risen by 400,000 since the general election, and more people are in work than ever before. Long-term unemployment—I hope that Conservative Members in particular will welcome this news—has fallen by more than 50 per cent., and youth unemployment by more than 60 per cent. Conservative Members' constituencies,

  161
  among others, have been net beneficiaries of those dramatic improvements in the fortunes of many thousands of people.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Why, in that case, did the Chief Secretary—along with his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer—decide to tighten the fiscal screws by £40 billion, necessitating those low interest rates in an attempt to rescue the economy from the downturn that he thereby created?
  Mr. Milburn: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman during the early part of my speech, when we came to power we inherited an economy that was structurally flawed and, moreover, in which inflation was clearly back in the system—not surprisingly, perhaps, given that the previous Government had ignored all the Bank of England's advice about interest rate policy. They made the classic error which, I am afraid, has been repeated time and again over the past 20 or 30 years. Short-term political considerations forced changes to the economy which, in the long and indeed the medium term, did not prove beneficial for the economy or for other people.
  Everyone now sees that Bank of England independence is working—everyone, that is, with one exception. Conservative Members have never supported Bank of England independence. [Interruption.] Oh, some did. They are about to come out of the closet on the last day of the parliamentary Session. That is very welcome. A last-minute conversion is better than no conversion at all.
  Mr. Tyrie: As I made clear in a speech when the Bank of England Bill was going through, I have been sympathetic to Bank of England independence for many years. Indeed, I was involved in the working up of a proposal for a measure of Bank of England independence in the mid-1980s, when the Labour party vigorously opposed any form of Bank of England independence. It did not even have the courage to put it clearly in its manifesto before the people at the last election.
  Mr. Milburn: The only small piece of advice that I have for the hon. Gentleman is to keep his head down if he wants promotion in today's Conservative party, because the policies that he advocates will not find favour. The Conservative party's position was to vote against the Bank of England Bill; it voted against Bank of England independence. It has restated its opposition on countless occasions since then. Last October, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), said:
  "We would not have given up control of interest rates in the first place".
  The Leader of the Opposition said:
  "They"—
  the Government—
  "have given up control of interest rates when they should have kept hold of them."
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is always forthright in his views, said:
  "We think it was a big mistake, we opposed it at the time, we said no good would come of it".
  Now they say that they are having second thoughts about it.
  162
  The truth is that the Conservatives are at sixes and sevens on Bank of England independence. They can see Bank of England independence working, delivering the goods and providing the economic stability that our country needs, but they still yearn to scrap it. They hanker for the days when it was politicians who set interest rates—the days of the late 1980s and early 1990s when they decided to put up interest rates to 15 per cent. and when inflation was in double figures.
  Today's Conservative party has learned nothing from those past failures. Making the Bank of England independent has helped Britain to steer a course for stability. The Conservatives would put all that at risk by returning us to the era of stop go, which was so damaging to the long-term interests of the British economy.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I will give way one more time and then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend being a little unfair to the Conservative Opposition because at least there is some fancy footwork going on? Does he not agree that they have realised what a terrible mistake they have made in opposing independence of the Bank of England? They have realised that they must change their mind and have set up some committee, which will report that they should change their mind and let them off the hook. They do not have the guts to say that they made a mistake and were wrong.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Under the present arrangements, does fiscal policy, or monetary policy have priority? My understanding is that the brief to the Bank of England is to set monetary policy in the light of the Government's fiscal policy. Therefore, in that sense, the Bank does not operate independent monetary policy.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman, who claims to know something about these issues, should make a much more serious point than that. He knows fine well that, unlike in the late 1980s and early 1990s, fiscal policy and monetary policy are working together. That is right for this stage in the economic cycle. I presume from his remarks that he continues to oppose—
  Mr. Flight indicated dissent.
  Mr. Milburn: Oh, the hon. Gentleman does not continue to oppose Bank of England independence. He had better confer with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) because I suspect that he might have a different view. Certainly, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has a contrary view to the right hon. Gentleman, so those on the Front Bench had better get their position sorted out.
  Precisely because we now have a more transparent, more open and more accountable system of running both fiscal and monetary policy, we can get the two working together. It is not the late 1980s and early 1990s, when

  163
  monetary policy and fiscal policy clashed, with all the damage that that did to the British economy, but a period when fiscal policy and monetary policy are working together. The results are clear: low inflation, low interest rates, unemployment down and employment up.
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. Milburn: Have I given way to the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. St. Aubyn indicated assent.
  Mr. Milburn: In that case, I will make some progress.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I will.
  Mr. Gardiner: My right hon. Friend has said that those on the Opposition Front Bench must get their policy right, but does he not agree that they do not have one policy—in fact, they have three policies? As he has pointed out, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is clear. He has gone on record many times. He has a good track record on the issue. He agrees with the Government. Why he is on the Opposition Front Bench, goodness only knows, but that is not my right hon. Friend's responsibility. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is clearly maintaining the party line on the issue—he says that it should not change—and there are those who want to kick it into touch with the commission, so there are three different party lines on the issue.
  Mr. Milburn: If only my hon. Friend were right—I suspect that it is many more than just three. That is just the Front Benchers. As we have heard, there are many different positions among those on the Conservative Back Benches. I hope that that review of the policy on Bank of England independence continues for many months.
  Mr. Edward Davey: May I ask the Chief Secretary a hypothetical question? If there were a danger of the Conservative Opposition returning to government, would not their lack of clarity on what is a key issue threaten economic stability in Britain?
  Mr. Milburn: I was going to call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend because he was so nearly on-message. He is absolutely right. The Conservatives' stated policy is to return us to the bad old days of stop go, boom bust. That is precisely what we have taken out of the equation by giving, rightly, operational independence to the Bank of England. That is not a decision just for today or tomorrow. It should be a decision that all parties can agree on in perpetuity.
  Meanwhile, the Government are determined to go on making decisions for the long term. Frankly, we have had too much of short-termism. It has brought instability to companies and uncertainty for taxpayers. In the modern world, creating a platform of economic stability is the essential pre-condition for long-term economic success.
  164
  That is what the Government have been doing in the past two years: getting the fundamentals in place for lasting long-term prosperity. However, stability is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for a successful economy. Our challenge is to raise the trend rate of growth in the UK. To do that, we are taking action to improve productivity, investment and skills.
  We have done so by cutting tax rates for businesses, by investing in science and in research and development, by encouraging competition, by investing in and reforming our education system, by creating employment opportunities and by making work pay through the new deal, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the 10p starting rate of income tax.
  All those are policies that will benefit Britain both now and in the long term. They represent a decisive break from the failures of the past, yet they are all opposed by the Conservative party. It has simply failed to understand that the old ways of economic policy making simply will not do in the new global economy. Similarly, the old ways of public spending policy have passed their sell-by date.
  I say that for three reasons. First, in today's global economy, any country that ignores the need for fiscal responsibility will soon be punished. Secondly, the old annual cycle of public spending produced a mirror reflection in the public sector of the short-termism that bedevilled much of the private sector in the British economy for many decades.
  Thirdly, the old ways of making public spending decisions did not focus properly on what really counts for the public—not the level of expenditure, but what we get out for what we put in.
  Today, after two years of reforms to get the fundamentals right, we have re-organised how public service is conducted, and we are changing the way in which public services are run. We have made three major changes.
  First, we have established clear and transparent rules for the conduct of fiscal policy. The golden rule and the sustainable investment rule mean that fiscal policy will operate in a manner that keeps borrowing under firm control and requires current taxpayers to pay for current spending, because they benefit from it.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No; I shall push on.
  A stable and prudent debt ratio will ensure that fiscal policy is run responsibly and does not threaten the stability of the economy or impose an undue burden on future generations.
  As I said, we inherited a situation in which the national debt had doubled and public finances were running out of control. However, our prudent and decisive action has cut public borrowing by £32 billion in the past two years and brought public debt down towards 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. The current Budget is in balance, and, in the next five years, total net borrowing will be lower than in any single year in the previous Parliament.
  Only today, I have published provisional outturn figures showing that the control total for 1998–99 was more than £2.7 billion below plan. By getting control over the public finances, the Government are now living within our means. Yet, we have also been able to commit

  165
  significant extra investment for our key public services: £40 billion extra for health and education; £3.6 billion extra for housing; and £1.7 billion more for transport. Each of those sums is an investment in the future and creating a fair and decent society.
  Secondly, we have been able to plan for the long term. Our three-year spending plans give Departments and public services the certainty and stability that they need to plan beyond the one-year time horizon. Departments have been given firm multi-year spending limits within which they are able to prioritise resources and plan ahead, providing a more stable foundation for managing those public services. The new control regime we have established allows underspends to be carried forward and spent on Government priorities, rather than forcing Departments to waste public money on pointless end-of-year spending splurges.
  Consistent with the fiscal rules, we have also made a clear distinction between capital and current expenditure, to ensure that worthwhile capital investment is not squeezed out by short-term pressures, as it has been in the past. We are doubling public sector capital investment to modernise Britain's infrastructure.
  Since the general election, we have turned the private finance initiative around. We have signed £4 billion-worth of PFI deals, and we have PFI working in sectors, such as health, in which it has not worked before.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: If the right hon. Gentleman has, as he says, developed firm three-year spending plans, why was the Chancellor reported, in The Times of 7 June 1999, as saying that he would relax the spending plan for year three and allow Departments to submit new bids for spending in 2001–02—which just happens to be the probable year of the next general election?
  Mr. Milburn: I have a very small tip for the hon. Gentleman: he should not always believe what he reads in the newspapers, not even The Times.
  Precisely the same warning applies to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford—who, a moment before the debate started, was twittering on about individual savings accounts and the House being misled. The truth—as he would know, if he had bothered to read the report in the Financial Times—is that the figures to which he alluded represent only one section of the savings industry and were only an early snapshot. The Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds represents only ISA managers who are unit trust firms. The AUTIF figure, therefore, does not paint the whole picture. I therefore advise the hon. Gentleman to believe what he hears from the Government, rather than what he reads in the Financial Times.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for responding to my earlier point of order. Does he agree that he could clarify the position—and prevent any misunderstanding at all—simply by providing the comparative figures for ISAs and personal equity plans on the basis of comparing tax-exempt special savings accounts with cash ISAs, and PEPs with equity ISAs? If he would do that, we should be absolutely clear on the real position and on the record of the new vehicle—the ISA—as compared with the PEP, and there would be no basis for misunderstanding.
  166
  As I said in my point of order, the trouble with the Government is that they are obsessed with all types of spin-doctoring, but will not present to the House clear facts or clear, comparable statistics.
  Mr. Milburn: I am extremely disappointed in the hon. Gentleman—I really am. I am very, very disappointed in him. Before the debate, he rang me, asking me to explain the position. I tried to do so, and even faxed him a copy of the press release issued by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. However, he has sought to ignore all that. The figures that I gave to the House last week were exactly those that my hon. Friend issued only a few weeks ago in her press release.
  We know that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and other Conservative Members do not like ISAs, but savers do—and they are voting with their wallets.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I shall not.
  In the first two months since ISAs were launched, savers invested £4.2 billion in them, which is more than was invested in PEPs and TESSAs, put together, in the corresponding period last year. That is what I said then, and it is what I say now. I say it because it is the fact.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford has made a fool of himself, and I shall not give him an opportunity to do so again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I will not.
  Thirdly, all of that is built on a new approach that emphasises that public spending on our public services is investment in exchange for reform. It is money for modernisation.
  Government today are judged on whether their services achieve their core objectives: educating children, treating patients and catching criminals. Therefore, our focus now is quite rightly on outputs, not on inputs—on the products of our spending, not only on the scale of our investment.
  The Government's public service agreements are at the heart of the new approach. Published in December 1998, PSAs are a contract with the people—a promise of lasting improvements in their public services. PSAs establish 350 policy targets and 175 efficiency targets that Whitehall Departments will deliver in exchange for the extra investment that we are making. Therefore, although we are making extra—record—investment in our hospitals and schools, £40 billion of extra investment has to result in £40 billion of improvements.
  No one is pretending that the Government are able simply to wave a magic wand to transform our public services—transformation will take time, effort and investment. Equally, however, no one should doubt our determination to do so, or the progress that we are already making.

  167
  Some hon. Members do not believe in providing our public services with the investment that they need. When we announced our public spending plans, the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "The Government has been reckless with Government spending".
  The shadow Chancellor—who is not in the Chamber today—said:
  "These are extremely irresponsible reckless commitments that you shouldn't commit the country to".
  He also said that
  "It was madness to embark on this public spending programme".
  The shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wells, said that our spending plans
  "represent a very substantial and dangerous increase in public spending."
  There we have it: reckless, madness, dangerous. That is the Tory's verdict on our spending plans. Now, however, Conservative Members say that they want to match our plans. Their position simply does not add up. I say that not only because of what they have said about our public spending plans, but because of what they have done. In debates on the past two Finance Bills alone, they have proposed to take billions of pounds from the self-same services that they now say that they support.
  The truth is that Conservative Members are as much at sixes and sevens on public spending policy as they are on policy for Bank of England independence. Try as hard as they might, they simply cannot escape their past.
  This debate throws into very sharp relief the key differences between the Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition. The Government have made the Bank of England independent, creating a platform of economic stability. The Conservatives would remove that independence, and take Britain back to the old days of boom and bust.
  The Government have introduced the new deal and helped more than 100,000 young people back into the world of work. The Conservatives would scrap the new deal, and turn their backs on a whole generation of unemployed young people. This Government are introducing the minimum wage and the working families tax credit precisely in order to make work pay. The Opposition would scrap both and would land 1.5 million of the poorest families in the land with a £24 a week tax rise. Finally, the Government are investing an extra £40 billion in our schools and hospitals—£40 billion that the Tories would cut if they ever got back into office.
  The Labour Government are building a stronger economic future for our country, but the Conservatives would put all that at risk. At the next general election the British people will be faced with a clear choice between today's Conservative party, which is the most extreme in living memory, and this new Labour Government who are working to create an enterprise economy and a fair society that benefits low and middle income Britain alike.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As the House knows, we recently passed the Finance Bill, which received Royal Assent earlier this afternoon and is now an Act of Parliament. Its contents are depressingly
  168
  familiar; it is a massive tax-raising measure that the country regrets. This afternoon, we have an opportunity to debate public expenditure, the other side of the equation.
  Of course there is a direct connection—almost a symmetry—between taxation and expenditure, because Governments raise taxes in order to spend and spend what they raise in taxation. However, in this case there is a particular symmetry that the Government may regret and that certainly breaks the promises that they made before the general election. I refer to the fact that there is a huge cumulative tax increase and burden on the country, which by chance is almost exactly matched by the increase in social security expenditure that the Government have announced and is already under way.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I want to develop this point.
  It is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of the tax figures in the Government's documents, so we turn to the House of Commons Library which uses figures from Government sources, but strips away the camouflage and gives the true unvarnished picture. The Library has produced a useful table which takes each of the Government's three Budgets so far and analyses the tax increases in the year in question and the continuing increases each year. Thus, we have from an authoritative source a cumulative figure for the tax increases already announced by the Government amounting to a staggering £40.7 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is only an interim figure. If the Government keep to their record it may increase in next year's Budget, but it represents a huge cumulative burden. I refer to facts, not speculation.
  The very helpful table that has been assembled for us by the House of Commons Library includes the ending of mortgage interest relief, the increase in stamp duty, the abolition of the married couple's allowance, the insurance premium tax increase and the withdrawal of dividend tax credits that are costing pension funds £5 billion a year and rising.
  Mr. James Plaskitt: The right hon. Gentleman expresses a preference for Library source tables. Will he confirm that there is a Library table that shows that when the previous Conservative Government first came to office, the share of taxes paid by United Kingdom residents represented 34 per cent. of gross domestic product, and when they left office the figure was 37 per cent.?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. We had a proud record of reducing the burden of taxation and the Government are putting it into smart reverse. I understand the hon. Gentleman's attempt to avoid the record, but I am afraid that it exists. I notice that he did not even respond to the point I made, so perhaps he agrees with the cumulative figure of £40 billion. Perhaps he supports it.
  Mr. Bercow: We all noticed the attempt by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) to distract attention from the uncomfortable facts of the Government's stewardship. Does my right hon. Friend

  169
  agree that what he has just told us and what the House of Commons Library figures confirm testify to the uncharacteristic prescience of the noble Lord Hattersley, who observed as long ago as 13 March 1995 in The Guardian:
  "Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the party of higher taxation and proud of it, or it can be the party of higher taxes which it is afraid to admit, ashamed to describe and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party."
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have already given the House the evidence that Labour is a high taxation party. Some Labour Members choose to welcome it, some choose to criticise it, some choose to admit it and some choose to disguise it—but nothing can alter the facts.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. I know that the reshuffle is imminent and the hon. Gentleman wants to catch everyone's eye, but I want to fill in a little bit of the other side of the equation.
  I mentioned social security expenditure, but again the figures are opaque. Nowhere in the Budget report is a clear description of social security expenditure. For instance, it excludes the large item under the title "Working families tax credit". Initially the Government pretended that that was not a tax measure at all. They called it a tax credit and pretended that it was a tax cut, but even they had to admit that it is actually an item of expenditure. We find on page 178 of the Red Book that income tax credits
  "score as public expenditure under national accounting conventions."
  So they came clean on that one, but they did not include it in the table that lists social security expenditure. Instead, they put it in under an intriguing item called "Accounting and other adjustments", which amount to almost £13 billion a year.
  When we add in, as we must, those accounting adjustments, we find that social security expenditure will rise during this Parliament by £38.2 billion. That is what I mean by neat symmetry. Tax is up by £40 billion and social security expenditure by £38 billion. It contrasts starkly with what the Prime Minister promised before the general election, when he said:
  "as we get the welfare bills down … then we can release more money into education and health and the services where we really want them."
  He also said:
  "By the end of a 5-year term of a Labour Government, I vow that we will have reduced the proportion we spend on the welfare bills of social failure … This is my covenant with the British people. Judge me upon it. The buck stops with me."
  It is perhaps unfortunate that the House of Commons Library has provided us with the percentage increase every year. It is quite interesting that in the three years ending in March this year—in other words the last year under the Conservative Government and the two years of expenditure that we left behind—social security expenditure fell by 0.2 per cent. a year in real terms. That has now been converted into an increase of 3.2 per cent. a year. So the Prime Minister is well on his way to breaking his pre-election promise.
  170
  It is also odd that there is no reference to that in the very interesting work of fiction entitled, "The Government's Annual Report". One would have thought that, as it was not just a promise by the Prime Minister but a vow—which, presumably, is even stronger—it would have found its way into the Government's report on their own performance. I thought that the Government understood that regulators must be independent. If they wanted someone to write such a report, they should have got someone else. There is not a word in the report about this vow or covenant—despite the fact that the figures show that social security expenditure, instead of being cut, is rising by 3.2 per cent. a year in real terms.
  Ms Sally Keeble: If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on talking about the cumulative costs of social failure, how does he justify the £158.8 billion extra that the Tories spent on unemployment during their term of office?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We had unemployment benefit and, when people came out of work, they received social security expenditure. However, we got unemployment down. Part of the golden economic legacy that we handed to this Government was falling unemployment. All the measures that we undertook to achieve that were opposed by the whole Labour party—all the supply-side measures, privatisations and public sector reforms were resisted by Labour. I am proud that we created an unemployment record in this country which was the envy of the EU. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like the facts about social security.
  I remind the Government that they had a solution. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was put in to think the unthinkable about public expenditure. He did so, and he was sacked for it. By the end of this Parliament, every taxpayer in the country will be paying £17.50 to the social security budget every day, a rise of £70 a week for every taxpayer. That is the price of Labour failure.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: As well as cutting the working families tax credit, would the right hon. Gentleman cut child benefit or disability benefit if he were back in the Treasury today?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Many reforms are necessary to the social security budget. We achieved an annual cut in social security expenditure by the time we left office, so we are not suggesting that the Labour Government do anything that we did not—we delivered, and we put the money into other expenditure items, such as health and education. The Labour Government have promised to bring down the costs of the welfare state and then spend the money on education. They have failed to do that, and the figures that I have quoted show that beyond dispute.
  Mr. Sheerman: I know the right hon. Gentleman to be, at heart, an honest man. In his speech, will he address the reality of the Government's fine economic record in terms of inflation, employment and interest rates? Will he say that the Government are doing a pretty good job? The right hon. Gentleman is describing the great success of his Government, who suffered the worst defeat since 1828, whereas we are riding high in the opinion polls because we are delivering economic success day after day. I know that it hurts the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues

  171
  to be in opposition. Every day they must get up and hope that something bad happens to the Government. However, it is all good news, and it is hard being in opposition in those circumstances.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Let us get on to some of the other issues. What about expenditure on the Passport Agency? The hon. Gentleman wants us to move away from social security, which clearly embarrasses the Labour party. The Chief Secretary mentioned the importance of efficiency targets and public service agreements. How come, therefore, the Passport Agency—to take one example—is such a shambles?
  We read in the Budget report that there is to be an important-sounding, high-level Cabinet Committee—with the codename "PSX"—to be chaired by the Chancellor to ensure that the performance of Departments measures up to their targets. What went wrong with the Passport Agency? What are the Government going to do about it? They have taken away the charter mark, but will they take away the money? Will the Home Office be punished—or will it get more money—for the demonstrable failure of that part of the Government's service?
  What about London Underground? It is a fiasco. Under the efficiency targets, and the tutelage of that important-sounding Committee, will transport get more money, or will it be punished by receiving less?
  What about waiting lists? People now must join a waiting list to get on a waiting list. That is a failure—another broken promise. Will the Department of Health get more money, or less? Let us hear from the Government about that Cabinet Committee—or does it meet in secret?
  I am willing to refer to other items of Government expenditure, but the overall picture is of a tax-and-spend Government. They have erected two huge pillars—extra taxation and extra expenditure on all the wrong things. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That was an interesting response from Labour Members, who apparently believe that an extra £38 billion for the welfare state is the way in which money should be spent. Why did the Prime Minister not tell us that before the election? Why did he promise to cut expenditure? There is some explaining to be done by Labour Members—who must hurry if they are to be in time for the reshuffle tomorrow—of whether they believe in what the Prime Minister promised before the election or not.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Would the Opposition scrap the working families tax credit and reverse the tax changes that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am coming to the working families tax credit, which is a good example of the churning from taxation to expenditure that is so inefficient. In many cases, the same people who will receive the benefit will be paying the taxes to finance it. People will get the benefit if they have an income of up to £38,000 a year. Those people will be paying taxes to the Chancellor, who will give it to the social services system. The money will be churned round the system, and they will receive back some of the money that they have paid in tax. That is inefficiency and waste.
  172
  There is also a direct effect from the massive transfer of money from taxation to expenditure by way of the additional burden on businesses. The British Chambers of Commerce has calculated that, over the lifetime of the Parliament, British business will be paying a cumulative extra tax of £30 billion. Last week, we debated the energy tax. We asserted that the tax would not just be no good for the environment, but would be bad news for manufacturing industry. Industry will be paying the taxes and will receive back only a fraction in the offsetting cuts in national insurance contributions.
  We did not know during that debate how quickly we would be proved right by an independent report, published by Business Strategies, which stated that, far from creating jobs, the long-term effect of the energy tax will be to lose 156,000 jobs to the British economy. According to the same independent report, it will widen the north-south divide, and productivity in the British economy, as a consequence of the energy tax, will decline by 0.8 per cent. That is a terrifying indictment of what is admittedly a draft tax, but it is a tax that the Government are committed to—they have already written the £1.75 billion of extra revenue into their Budget estimates.
  Taxes are not the only problem; there is also the administrative and regulatory burden. Even Lord Haskins, the Labour peer who heads the regulatory task force, has complained that small businesses are being turned into benefit offices for the Government and will not be compensated. The Institute of Directors estimates that the regulatory burden alone will cost British business £5.047 billion a year. That will cost jobs, profit and investment.
  The Prime Minister talked about a new partnership between Government, business and industry to improve competitiveness, and called it a new pledge. I do not know whether that is new for the Parliament or for the millennium, but I know that it has coincided with Britain dropping from fourth to eighth in the world league of competitiveness.
  The Government's response is a series of gimmicks. To contrast with the £30 billion of extra taxation on business, they announced in the Budget that they were setting up a venture capital fund to give back to industry £20 million through an administratively complex and interventionist measure, whereby civil servants pick the lucky beneficiaries. That is a completely trivial response to a serious problem.
  The Government have treated savings in exactly the same way. They say that they want to boost savings as an alternative to spending on welfare, but they put up the taxes on savings. There was a £5 billion a year raid on pension funds and then we had the administrative fiasco of replacing PEPs and TESSAs with ISAs. The Chief Secretary's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was completely inadequate. The industry is recording a drop in the amount going into ISAs, but the Government deny reports from the people who are actually selling the products.
  It is not surprising that the savings ratio has fallen. It has fallen all the way through this Parliament and continues to fall. The Government are damaging the wealth-creating process on which all their expenditure plans depend.
  Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), in a typically in-your-face

  173
  contribution, told us that the Conservative party was the only low tax party. The other side of that equation is that it is also the low public expenditure party. Will the right hon. Gentleman think the unthinkable and tell us where the cuts in public expenditure should fall? If he is suggesting the social security budget, perhaps he will tell us which social security expenditures he wants to cut.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening when I described the Government's failure to control welfare expenditure. We did it; they failed. I am asking them to return to the path of expenditure that we laid down. I have also made clear some of my criticisms of the working families tax credit, which is disguised in the Budget report and perversely goes back to many of the people who pay the taxes in the first place.
  The Conservative party has always believed in properly funded public services and we supported the Government's expenditure on health and education in so far as it actually went to the classroom and to patient care, but we maintain our opposition to the overall total of Government expenditure, precisely because of the £38 billion extra welfare expenditure, which, interestingly, the Government do not even deny.
  The Government's tax-and-spend policy threatens employment. Part of our golden economic legacy was almost the lowest unemployment rate in Europe: the envy of the European Union. It was difficult to achieve, but we did it by understanding that it is a matter not of spending money, but of creating the right conditions for employment to thrive—in other words, lower taxes and fewer regulations.
  The Government's new deal is a very expensive way of achieving not very much. The cost per job is more than £11,000. The money is wasted and would get a better return, even in the narrow sense of extra employment, if it were returned to the businesses and the people who create it in the first place.
  Mr. Flight: My right hon. Friend spoke of the risk to employment created by the fall in savings. Is not the real risk that investment cannot be sustained to support the type of stable growth to which the Chief Secretary refers if our economy has a lower rate of savings?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend underlines my point about the failure of the savings culture. The Government came in with a professed aim of encouraging savings, and have done everything to reduce them, so the consequence that he mentioned will follow as surely as night follows day.
  Sometimes the Government's rhetoric shows some understanding of the issues. The Prime Minister is apparently envious of the job creation record of the United States. When he is there, he seems to realise that lower taxes and fewer regulations are at the root of the United States Government's awesome ability to generate prosperity and employment. The Government cannot do the same here, because they are hooked on the wrong economic model. Instead of converging on the United States economy, they are converging on the European Union economy.
  Will the Government now, for the first time, give the figures for the national changeover plan, under which public money is being used to prepare for the euro?
  174
  Unspecified amounts have been allocated to fund unspecified items on an unspecified time scale. The time scale is in the hands of either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—I cannot remember which—who are in dispute over whether to hold a referendum. Meanwhile, money is being spent without parliamentary or public sanction to create an impression of inevitability.
  Earlier today, we had the hilarious spectacle of a Minister privatising the air traffic control network without using the word "privatisation". Where does that fit into the Government's fiscal arithmetic? The Budget report has a figure of £4 billion a year inked in for asset sales. Is some or all of that to come from air traffic control? If not all, what else do the Government intend to privatise, or is the figure simply based on hope? The privatisation has nothing to do with improving the performance of the British economy; it is all about dressing up the revenue figures.
  The Government should come clean about where they will get their revenue from and how they will spend it. The picture presented in the Red Book is the opposite of the clarity and openness that was promised. The Government have changed most of the definitions that the public understand. The public sector borrowing requirement was a term familiar to the House for many years, but it is now called the public sector cash requirement. The control total, another term familiar to the House, has been abolished. Privatisations are called public-private partnerships and, as I mentioned earlier, expenditure on social security is now dressed up as accounting and other adjustments.
  How will the public come to understand the taxes that are being paid and their application unless the Government bring clarity to their documents? Those documents cannot disguise the fact that the Government's instincts and habits, demonstrated over their three Budgets, are to raise taxes. It is also clear, from this and other debates, that they cannot be trusted with the resulting public expenditure.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: Giving the Bank of England operational independence as part of the new framework for economic stability was a bold and courageous move by the Government. The report from the Select Committee on the Treasury was published yesterday and is one of the documents relevant to this debate. It shows that the move is paying off already.
  The arguments for the Bank of England's operational independence—for an independent monetary policy—were strongly supported by two former Conservative Chancellors, and by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), my former colleague on the Select Committee. He will remember that the arguments for the change were that it would bring greater credibility, more transparency and accountability, greater stability and a better inflation record—after all, most countries with independent central banks have a better inflation record than those without.
  The report concludes that it is probably too soon to reach a definitive judgment on the record of the Monetary Policy Committee, because it takes 18 months to two years for the full impact of the committee's decisions to work through to inflation outcomes. However, the Committee was able to say with confidence that the MPC

  175
  had made a highly successful start. It has established its credibility, judged by inflation expectations. Long-term interest rates have fallen sharply, and gilt yields have also fallen. According to independent forecasters, public expectations have not kept pace with the new environment, but the MPC has achieved credibility.
  In addition, inflation has been on target, or near it, throughout the period, with the worst outcome only 0.7 per cent. above target. The MPC has managed that without tipping the economy into recession. That major success was achieved because the MPC took prompt action when recessionary dangers loomed by cutting rates swiftly and sharply, by 2.5 per cent. We should also praise my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for setting a symmetrical target. That has given the MPC far greater flexibility to use rates to bring inflation down and to do so in a way that protects employment.
  Finally, the MPC's record on transparency is also very good. We know the voting records of its members and, although it is not yet possible to associate individuals with arguments or opinions, that is a matter to which we shall return. The publication of the minutes is now very prompt, thanks to a request from the Select Committee. Also, members of the Monetary Policy Committee have answered questions with openness and frankness when they have come before the Select Committee, and in public as well.
  That is totally new. I remember Lord Lawson, when he was Chancellor, coming before the Select Committee in the 1980s. When he was asked about his policy on interest rates, he said that he put up interest rates when he wanted to, and lowered them when he wanted to: further than that he would not go. Nowadays, the arguments behind decisions are exposed to public debate.
  The Monetary Policy Committee has responded to other suggestions from the Select Committee. It has reduced the time taken to publish the minutes of its meetings, as I said. The Select Committee asked the MPC to explain the transmission mechanism—the effect on interest rates of changes in interest rates. That is the sort of question that ordinary people ask, and the MPC gave an explanation. We also asked the committee to survey what the public think about inflation, and to determine people's inflation expectations. Such innovations are very useful.
  As I have shown, the Select Committee found that the Monetary Policy Committee had made an excellent start in terms of transparency, credibility and adherence to inflation targets, while at the same time avoiding recession. Although it cannot be denied that those achievements have been accomplished against a benign inflationary background, the MPC had to take into account last autumn's major shock to the world economy. It has not been entirely plain sailing for the MPC, but it has responded quickly and well.
  The Monetary Policy Committee has also learned by experience. It has been argued that too many small steps have been taken, moving interest rates 12 times in a period during which the US Federal Reserve moved them only three times. There has been some argument to the effect that the increase in rates in June 1998 was not the right move, and that the MPC was working from faulty information. Even so, the committee's record is good.
  176
  The Select Committee report contains some suggestions for improvement. To make the process more predictable, the MPC should consider adopting the policy of the US Federal Reserve bank's open market committee of announcing a bias in future policy after each meeting. That might be a useful innovation.
  The Select Committee also noted a problem with the status of the inflation forecast—a criticism levelled by the International Monetary Fund. Given that the Monetary Policy Committee is now responsible for monetary policy, it should assess its inflation forecasts regularly. Also, greater emphasis in the MPC's inflation report on external inflation forecasts would allow comparison with the Committee's own forecasts.
  The Select Committee report also identifies an important role for the Court of the Bank of England. It is right that the members of the Monetary Policy Committee should be experts, but the Court of the Bank of England represents regional and sectoral interests. As well as overseeing the MPC, it should represent those interests effectively.
  I turn now to the question of accountability. Without blowing the Select Committee's own trumpet excessively, I should like to put it on record that the Committee has managed to establish a credible system of accountability. The system used to be pretty poor—there was no golden age of accountability before the Monetary Policy Committee was set up. Leading academic and City experts now give on-the-record briefings. Those experts include Charlie Bean, David Miles, David Walton, Roger Bootle and Bridget Rosewell, to whom I pay tribute. There are regular hearings on the inflation reports, at which members of the MPC are questioned closely about their thinking and decisions.
  Reports are made to Parliament, and today I am talking about the sixth such report that has been compiled. Candidates for membership of the MPC are first sent questionnaires and are then subject to confirmation hearings to assess their suitability, competence and independence. I understand that the Opposition are worried about this last requirement, but I can assure the House that it is checked as part of the confirmation process to which all members of the MPC are subject.
  Although there has been one reconfirmation hearing, the Select Committee has been commended by the Bank of England and the Treasury for the conduct of the confirmation hearing process. I should like the hearings to be given a statutory basis, but that is an argument for the future. We shall continue to make the MPC accountable by requiring it to explain its decisions and the thinking behind them.
  Mr. Sheldon rose—
  Mr. Radice: I shall give way because I have injury time.
  Mr. Sheldon: I should put it on the record that the confirmatory hearings pursued by my right hon. Friend have been a source of considerable gratification to all Select Committees. He introduced the hearings himself,

  177
  and they have been extremely valuable. The reconfirmation hearings that he has mentioned today will be of even more value in the years to come.
  Mr. Radice: I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, although it is not I but the Committee, some of whose members are in the Chamber, who deserves his remarks.
  We want to make judgments on the decisions and actions of the MPC where appropriate. We shall put forward constructive suggestions for improvement where necessary, and we shall report to Parliament, the Bank of England and the Government. It is welcome that the Opposition are considering our policy, and I hope that they will use the evidence that we have collected about the process over the past two years.
  Mr. Tyrie: May I give the right hon. Gentleman a little more injury time? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to have more outsiders on the MPC, and fewer people from the Bank? Does he think that MPC members should be given longer terms, and that terms should be non-renewable so that members cannot be subject to influence or the concern that they may not be reappointed?
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman's final two points are worth considering and we have made suggestions on them. The balance is about right at present, but those are matters for consideration.
  The House of Commons is often criticised—usually by the press, whose members, naturally, are not listening to this debate. Select Committees also come under fire from the press, although journalists—particularly from the specialist press—at least attend them more often. However, the Select Committee on the Treasury has played an important and constructive role in expanding accountability, and will continue to do so.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and his Committee on an excellent report, much of which the Liberal Democrats entirely agree with. The right hon. Gentleman rightly touched on the need to put confirmatory hearings on a statutory basis. A former Chief Secretary to the Treasury—he is now the Secretary of State for Social Security, though we do not know whether he will remain so after today—promised that a Minister would discuss with the House confirmatory hearings for all public appointments once there had been a chance to review their role. Some time has passed since then, and the Government should produce a full report on whether hearings have a role to play in our democracy.
  I agreed with what the right hon. Member for North Durham said in reply to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). There is a need for greater independence for the Bank of England, and I hope that the Select Committee on the Treasury will continue to push for it.
  I was disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who seems to favour recycling, since much of what he said was very familiar. It would have been nice to hear about the Conservatives' alternative economic policy, or at least about whatever policy review the party is setting up now.
  178
  He failed to address the key issue in today's debate—economic stability. How would the Conservatives promote it?
  The Government are right to make economic stability a key objective of macroeconomic policy. Ending boom and bust—to coin a soundbite—is incredibly important if we are to raise the trend rate of economic growth, to ensure a clear framework for investment for the private and public sectors and to increase economic growth and reduce unemployment.
  The Government have been vague about their definition of economic stability. Presumably they use some key variables—interest rates, exchange rates, investment and inflation—but they have never been clear about what they mean by economic stability, and we must try to analyse their performance by examining those variables. The right hon. Member for Wells mentioned the Government's annual report, which was published yesterday, and which rightly referred to the Government's success on inflation and interest rates.
  By building on the independence that they gave to the Bank of England, the Government have achieved a good record on inflation and interest rates. Risks remain on inflation, such as the possibility—receding and less strong than it was a few months ago—that the pound might collapse, thus importing inflation. House price and asset price inflation are possible worries, but the Government's record is broadly good, and the forecasts are good. The inflation position is certainly better than that achieved by the Tory Government.
  The Government are right to say that both long-term and short-term interest rates are low, historically speaking. However, when compared with those of our competitors in Euroland, Japan and the United States, the record is not quite so good. The Government must be aware that both nominal and real interest rates are key factors in business investment and our ability to compete in the world. A question remark remains over the Government's record on interest rates.
  The growth record is also not as good; growth has been relatively low. The Government, with the help of the Monetary Policy Committee, have avoided recession, but as much by good fortune as good management, with some helpful developments in the international economy.
  Much of the success has been built on the independence of the Bank of England, an idea borrowed from the Liberal Democrat manifesto. However, how can the Bank's independence and accountability be improved? Our view—established for a long time, and without the need for any review in the middle of a Parliament—is that greater independence is needed, along with longer, possibly non-renewable, terms for MPC members. Allowing the Bank to set the inflation target itself would be a strong move towards independence, and it would reassure markets of the Bank's credibility.
  As the Government promote convergence and prepare, through the changeover plan, to move towards the single currency, they will be required to change the statutory framework for the independence of the Bank of England, as the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said in an intervention that was neatly sidestepped by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps we could set up a cross-party committee to consider how to meet our Maastricht obligations—including Conservative Members, now we know of their greater interest in these matters.

  179
  I shall turn to the Conservative position, as the new review is extremely interesting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] The one mentioned in The Independent yesterday and promoted by the shadow Chancellor. We are halfway through a Parliament, but the official Opposition—astonishingly—do not know what their policy on the key macroeconomic issue is. The players in the game are the former deputy leader of the Conservative party, who toured Britain to hear about Tory policy, and the shadow Chancellor, who signed the Maastricht treaty. They know all the issues. After a long time in the House debating the issues, they should know their minds—but apparently not. They cannot set out a clear position, and that beggars belief.
  Perhaps it is all because the Tories have to do such a massive U-turn. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury stole some of my quotes from Conservative Members about their previous position, but fortunately I still have one from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), whom I am pleased to see in his place. In the Bank of England Bill Committee, he said:
  "The Treasury should have the power to give direction to monetary policy."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 November 1997; c. 90.]
  He was clearly against the Bank's independence then. I wonder whether he and his colleagues still hold that position.
  As I said to the Chief Secretary, this is a crucial issue. As we approach the next general election, the markets, the people and business will need to know the position. If the official Opposition really believe that they have a chance of returning to power, they need to assure the markets that there will be economic stability under Conservative economic management. If they cannot answer such a basic question, the markets will be concerned about the prospect, even though it seems rather dim today.
  The Government's record on economic stability is not completely positive and rosy. One indicator gives many people inside and outside the House concern: the exchange rate and its impact on manufacturing industry. The Treasury Committee mentioned in its report the problems that the strength of sterling is causing our exporters. That aspect of stability and economic management was not mentioned in the annual report published yesterday. There was no mention of the Government's support for a stable and competitive pound, which we have heard in many other contexts. There was no indication of progress towards that. It is worrying, because the strength of sterling is creating such imbalances in the economy, with the manufacturing sectors and some regions being severely squeezed by its strength while others are not.
  The Governor of the Bank of England's evidence to the Treasury Committee made it clear that the strength of sterling causes him and his colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee great difficulty in setting monetary policy. The two-speed economy that its strength has created is a problem, but so far we have heard little from the Government about how they intend to tackle it.
  This is a major failing in the Government's macro-economic record. They could act by changing the fiscal policy mix and promoting a debate on what they
  180
  believe to be the sustainable level of sterling. That will be important in the run-up to sterling joining the single currency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has said in other debates, unless we ensure that sterling enters monetary union at a competitive rate, we could lock in uncompetitiveness for years. That would be a strategic error. Unless the Government start tackling the issue and at least promote a debate, there is no way that that instability can be addressed.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about manufacturing industry. Obviously, the pound is a problem for exports, but is sufficient emphasis put on imports? The value of the pound means that raw material and component prices are relatively low. Industry gains with one hand but is at a disadvantage on the other.
  Mr. Davey: I take that point, but manufacturers and exporters are unambiguous about their concern over the high pound. Often business is not at one, as we know too well from the euro debate, but it is at one on its problems with the pound.
  I hope that the Minister will give some sign of what the Government are planning and how they will tackle this cause of instability. Will they turn over to the committee dealing with the national changeover plan the task of debating the sustainable rate of sterling? That way forward could have a real impact on the level of pound in the market.
  It may be that the Government have not been clear on exchange rate policy because of their difficulty with euro policy. If so, there is a danger that exchange rates will be a source of future instability. The Government need to tackle that. The prospects for sterling are worrying. It is uncompetitive with respect to the euro. It is odd that some hon. Members think that a weak euro shows what a disaster the single currency is. German, French and Italian exporters are delighted that it is weak. It is not that weak historically: it has returned to the level of member currencies on a trade-weighted basis two or three years ago. The level of the euro is helping Euroland and disadvantaging our exporters. Many businesses in this country would give their hind legs to have such a competitive exchange rate and interests rates as low as they are in Euroland.
  The prospects for the pound faced with a weak euro are worrying, but in the next few months there may be problems with a weakening dollar. It is not inconceivable that the bubble on Wall street will burst in the summer. Such crashes have often occurred in summer or early autumn. That would probably be accompanied by a fall in the dollar. A depreciating dollar would be super-competitive, and with a super-competitive euro, how much greater would the squeeze on our exporters be?
  Mr. Radice: If the dollar weakens, the euro is likely to strengthen. We would benefit from that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly noted. The nightmare scenario is unlikely.
  Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman may be right, but as cross-currency variations are difficult to predict, my scenario is all too likely. The current level of sterling means that this country is not in a good position to face that possibility.

  181
  There is a paradox in the Government's position on the euro. They say that their economic policy is successful in promoting convergence, but press briefings and the lack of clarity in their position on the timing of referendum on the euro show that they are not prepared to say when it will be. That is odd. If they are saying that they have a successful policy on convergence, they should be able to be clear about the timing of the referendum. When do they expect their policy on conversion to succeed? Will it be in two, three or four years? I hope that they will come clean. Instead of allowing it to gain currency that they may be ready to rule out a referendum in the next Parliament, they should be more forceful and set out a timetable for it.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is making an intelligent, serious speech. Can he explain what he understands by the term "convergence"?
  Mr. Davey: There are the Maastricht convergence criteria, but unfortunately the House is not judging the Government's performance on convergence by them; we have the five tests. And the problem with them is that they are very elastic.
  Mr. Letwin: They are meaningless.
  Mr. Davey: They are potentially meaningless, as the hon. Gentleman says. That does not get the Government off the hook on which I am trying to impale them: the need to be clear on the timing of the referendum. Some Labour Members would like their Front-Bench colleagues to be clearer.
  Mr. Bercow: Further to the hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), on what basis would he be satisfied that the five economic tests had been met not temporarily but permanently? What would satisfy him that convergence was anything more than a meeting of ships that pass in the night?
  Mr. Davey: The Liberal Democrats do not share the Government's adherence to those five tests. We do not believe that they are the correct five tests, so we reject them as the measures of true convergence. We believe that the Maastricht criteria, which other countries view as the correct measures of convergence, are still correct. I expected that when I started to bring the euro into the debate I would get a few interventions from Conservative Members.
  I turn now to public services. If the Government are trying to remove boom and bust from macro-economic management, they are enhancing it in the management of public services. Their adoption, for the first two years of this Parliament, of the Conservatives' spending plans, followed by the introduction of the comprehensive spending review to try to increase expenditure, is not a sensible way to plan investment in public services. We are witnessing the legacy of that error of judgment early in this Parliament.
  One of the Government's three key objectives is
  "to deliver efficient and modem public services"
  and to raise standards and quality. However, if they cannot achieve greater coherence and long-termism in their public expenditure planning, they will fail to meet that objective.
  182
  The Government say that they are using two tools to improve public services: public spending itself, and the management and focus of that spending. There have been a few small improvements. In certain areas, there has been a slight increase in spending compared to what we might have expected if the Conservatives had been returned in 1997. However, in general, the Government's record on public services is not very good. There is a lack of sustained high spending on key services such as the police, education and the health service, but the Government are also failing to ensure that the money is spent properly.
  On overall levels of spending, the comprehensive spending review's only real achievement is to stop Labour Members whingeing on about levels of public expenditure. They can parrot, like a mantra, the figures of £19 billion and £21 billion. However, they are not focusing sufficiently on how those resources are being spent, and to what effect. In so doing, they are making a serious political mistake.
  Education has, according to many criteria, received more money than any other service. There has been a real-terms increase in education spending of 3 per cent. per annum. Historically, that is not bad. However, if one is ambitious for our children and our schools and one wants to highlight the importance of education, one finds that figure tame, rather than impressive. It is only slightly higher than the 2.6 per cent. real-terms increase achieved in the first five years of the Government led by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
  The annual report published yesterday reveals that in the fourth year of this Parliament, there will be an increase of 0.1 per cent. in the share of national income devoted to education. That follows a fall of 0.1 per cent. in the first two years of this Parliament. It is not a good record.
  Mr. David Ruffley: By how much would the hon. Gentleman increase education expenditure in real terms, and how would he pay for it?
  Mr. Davey: No one can criticise the Liberal Democrats for not being clear about our spending proposals and how we intend to pay for them. We have published alternative Budgets and costed manifestos. If the hon. Gentleman's party would explain its public spending proposals, he would have a leg to stand on.
  We need far more money to ensure that the size of primary school classes for all ages falls to 30 or below. We need to ensure that teachers are properly paid so that we can attract more highly qualified graduates into teaching. I visit primary and secondary schools in my constituency, and it is clear that we still have major cash problems. There is a desperate need for urgent investment in modern information technology equipment. Schools where class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are falling are losing money from their revenue budget, so the Government are not making good the effect of their reduction in class sizes on schools' annual budgets. That is creating problems and schools are having to lay off staff.
  My constituency experience leads me to believe that the Government are not treating different areas fairly. They continue to view areas such as Kingston as uniformly leafy, as if there are no problem areas or pockets of deprivation within the constituency. I can assure the

  183
  House that there are such areas in Kingston, and unfortunately when so little cash is going around, places such as Kingston are the last to receive any.
  Other public services are experiencing significant cuts. The police are the most obvious example in my constituency. The Government said that they would improve policing. In many of their pre-election statements, they said that there would be more bobbies on the beat. However, the number of officers in England and Wales has been slashed by more than 1,000 since the general election.
  If Labour Members are in any doubt about whether that cut has had an effect, they should come to my constituency, where there is a rash of vandalism and graffiti because there are not enough beat officers. We have lost more than 50 such officers in the past four years, so that was partly under a Conservative Government, but also under this Government. The police are unable to respond as quickly to 999 calls, to walk the beat, to get to know young people and to try to deter crime. In Chessington, Malden Rushett and Hook in the south of my constituency, there is now one beat officer for a population of more than 10,000. Clearly that is wrong.
  It is not only the amount of spending that is important, but how that money is managed. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made much of the public service agreements that the Government published last December, but it is odd that even though those agreements are an important part of the way in which the Government want to manage public services, we have had no statement about them. There has been no debate about that so-called revolution in the management of public services. Are we expected to take those agreements seriously? Were they just an afterthought in the comprehensive spending review—they were introduced six months later—or a fundamental part of it? If the Government and Parliament are not taking those agreements seriously, we cannot expect civil servants to take them seriously.
  We were promised an annual report on public service agreements. When will that happen? We want to know whether those agreements were negotiated between spending Ministers and Treasury Ministers or whether they were a diktat from the Treasury. Were they signed? What status do they have? If they are to be the crux of future public expenditure decisions, we need to know what role they will play in budget setting. Will budgets be determined by those targets for outputs and outcomes, or will they be determined after the budget-setting process? If the agreements are not completely integrated with that process, they will have no effect on the way in which money is spent.
  The only analysis of public service agreements that the House has seen has come from the Select Committee on the Treasury, which published a useful report last month. The Chief Secretary gave evidence to the Committee, and when we read what he said about public service agreements, we begin to realise how crucial Ministers perceive them to be:
  "Public Service Agreements have different definitions. If you like, they set out agreements within Government, first of all, about the level of improvements that we want to see in our public services, in exchange for the extra investment we are making in those services".
  184
  Those agreements are therefore central to the Government's policy of improving public services. However, it is evident from the Treasury Committee's report that those agreements were almost written on the back of an envelope, as an afterthought.
  The Committee said that
  "insufficient attention was paid to building quality of service into targets".
  It recommended that
  "targets should be published in draft",
  so that there can be a proper debate. It said also:
  "We disagree with the Chief Secretary's view that the setting of targets is solely the responsibility of central Government";
  in other words, local government and other agencies need to be involved. The Committee also recommended external auditing of those targets and the progress in achieving them. It said that there should have been
  "publication of a set of principles establishing the ground rules"
  for those targets. The Committee is absolutely right. If public service agreements represent a fundamental change in public expenditure, far more thought needs to be given to them.
  Liberal Democrat Members do not disagree with the notion of public service agreements. The movement to output and outcome budgeting would be extremely sensible. We would be much clearer in our minds about what we were trying to get from the money that we take in taxes. There could even be a beneficial effect on spending; Conservative Members might well be interested in that. If we can have greater clarity about the targets that we are trying to achieve with public money, public money may be focused more effectively, and we may need less of it.
  Public service agreements are a great tool for increasing the accountability of the civil service to Ministers, and of Ministers to Parliament, because they create far greater openness about what public expenditure is intended to achieve.
  However, if the Government are not prepared to debate public service agreements in the House, we must question what role they envisage for those agreements. There are many problems with public service agreements, and it is important that they are got right. I mentioned the domination of the Treasury in the setting of the agreements. We need to know whether the correct targets have been set.
  The Government said in their annual report, published yesterday, that they had published 600 targets. Where was the debate in Parliament on those 600 targets? Are they the right ones? Have MPs had an input into the setting of those targets? Can we be sure that there will be continuity and consistency in the targets? How do they relate to previous targets that the civil service has been given in setting public expenditure? Those crucial questions need to be answered if we are to improve public services.
  We need to know what penalties will result from failure to meet performance indicators. Will cuts in the funding of public services result? I believe that, if so, hon. Members will be very worried, because if something is failing and the automatic penalty of a cut is imposed, we may get a vicious circle, resulting in a continuing degradation of public services. Those are key questions, on which the House has not deliberated before today.

  185
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and I were privileged enough to travel to New Zealand to find out how output and outcome budgeting worked in practice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hear some remarks from Labour Members. I declared that trip in my annual report, which I published to my constituents last year, so I have no concern about that.
  On that trip we learned, as a result of talking to politicians and chief executives of the various departments in New Zealand, that although the system focused attention on the efficiency of spending, there were many dangers, such as the mis-specification of contracts and of targets. In addition, we learned that if one tried to include absolutely everything in specified measures, one could miss out on things such as the public service ethos—on the way the public service serves the whole population. Those problems have not been debated.
  We hope that public service agreements will deliver what the Government say that they are intended to—the modernisation of public services and reform. However, the Government made a serious mistake by depriving Parliament of its ability to contribute to ensuring that the PSAs are right.
  Mr. David Kidney: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm, to complete his very fair summary of the Treasury Select Committee report on public service agreements, that the Committee also recommends that Select Committees review the public service agreements of the Departments that they supervise?
  Mr. Davey: I can confirm that, and I hope that Select Committees will act on that recommendation. I also hope that they will act on a recommendation made by the Select Committee on Procedure, on which I serve. Just this week we published a report entitled "Procedure for Debate on the Government's Expenditure Plans". It is a very radical report, and it would also place on Select Committees more obligations to examine expenditure.
  On entering the House, I was amazed by how poorly we analyse public expenditure; it is a real sham. The Conservative Euro-sceptics talk about the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. I am afraid that, under their stewardship, Parliament has not performed its key role in terms of parliamentary sovereignty—that of scrutinising Government expenditure.
  The information that we are given is poor. It will improve with resource accounting and budgeting, but it is still fairly abysmal. The resources of Members in their offices, and of the Select Committees, are tiny. In its report, the Procedure Committee recommends that each Select Committee have more financial advisers attached to it, to give it support in analysing spending plans.
  However, the key point of our report is that the procedures of the House do not allow hon. Members really to hold the Government to account on motions. We say:
  "we consider that when motions are directed to future plans, motions recommending that 'in the opinion of the House' increases in expenditure or transfers between certain budgets are desirable, should be permissible."
  If we could pass such motions, we could significantly improve the quality of debate on public expenditure.
  The House can play a major role in improving public services. I ask the Government—I hope that the Minister will give some hint of this when she winds up—to allow
  186
  hon. Members on both sides of the House to play a role in improving public services, and to help us to contribute our experiences from our constituencies to the debates and enable—
  Mr. Letwin: What the hon. Gentleman is saying now is of great interest. Is he saying that the Liberal party is at least beginning to move towards being in favour of line by line appropriations?
  Mr. Davey: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman read that into my remarks. What I am in favour of is a radical revolution in public expenditure management, in terms of resource accounting and budgeting, in terms of three-year planning and in terms of the ability of the House to pass motions to change the Government's Budget. That would be a radical change. I hope that Ministers will accept the Select Committee's report.
  7.27 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome the debate, which deals with two of the biggest challenges facing any Government—the management of the economy and the financial management of public services. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) shares many of the aspirations that Labour Members share about public services. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats have not yet produced financial plans that match their aspirations, or plans for service delivery that would deliver what they say that they want to achieve for the country.
  The management of the economy and the financial management of public services are two of the challenges that this new Labour Government have met. We have provided economic stability, we have managed public finances, we have ensured that public funds are not wasted on the consequences of economic failure and we have put public money into the public priorities—health, education, the eradication of child poverty and the ending of youth unemployment. Those were the challenges that the last Tory Government so disastrously failed to meet. I want to consider some of the consequences of their failure, and of the leaden—not golden—legacy that they left to the present Government to sort out.
  First, I want to consider the Tories' record on the economy, especially the number of unemployed and the unemployment rate. I was astonished by the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory); I can only assume that he has not studied the unemployment figures for a while. I have in my hand a list—produced not by the Labour party but by the Library—of the unemployment rate for each of the years since 1978. It shows that, in the last full year of the Labour Government—1978—the unemployment rate was 4.3 per cent. In the first full year of the Tory Government, it was 5.1 per cent. In the last full year of the Tory Government, it was 7.3 per cent., and in the first full year of the present Labour Government, it was 4.7 per cent. That shows fairly clearly that it was the Tories who produced record levels of unemployment and who failed to deal with unemployment, and that Labour has consistently supported policies to deal with unemployment.
  I also want to consider the costs of unemployment. The global figure for the Tories' 18 years was £158.8 billion. Under the last Tory Government alone, the cost was

  187
  £48.9 billion. It astounds me that the Tories seem to gloss over the fact that they spent that sum on unemployment, yet they begrudge the £40 billion that we propose to spend on education and health.
  Mr. Gibb: Is the hon. Lady aware that, in one year alone, 2003–04, her Government will spend £118 billion on social security?
  Ms Keeble: I have been careful to speak about particular areas of spend. Certain areas are worth spending on as an investment, but to spend on unemployment, as the Conservative Government did, was a disgrace. It cost the country a huge amount in lost skills, and cost many members of the public a huge amount in lost life potential.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Keeble: I shall deal first with incapacity benefit. That cost was also an outrage. Between 1979–80 and 1994–95, the number of people on incapacity benefit almost trebled, at a cost of £8.4 billion. In an era when health standards were generally going up, and when there was a drop in the number of people employed in manual labour which produces the industrial injuries that would be expected to lead to incapacity benefit, it beggars belief that the number of people incapacitated should increase so dramatically. All of us who studied the figures knew that incapacity benefit was simply being used as a way to get people off the unemployment register or as a form of early retirement.
  Behind the statistics, the human misery was immense. I shall give one example of that, and of the Tories' failure to deal with it. In Birmingham during the early 1980s, when thousands of people were being made redundant, the Tory Government so spectacularly failed to think about the consequences of that, that the Department of Health and Social Security offices in the city all closed down for six to nine months.
  Not only were highly skilled people who had engineered much of the country's wealth thrown into the dole queue with no hope of retraining, but for a long time they could not even get the social security benefits that would have kept them out of abject poverty. That is an example of the way in which the Tories failed to think in the short or the long term about the management of public services to deal with the economic mess that they had made.
  Various Opposition speakers said that they supported spending on the NHS. Some areas of public spending are entirely justifiable and are investments, but the Tories' crocodile tears over the NHS are not to be believed. At the end of their period of office, in 1996–97, 137 trusts and 72 health authorities were in deficit. The trust deficit totalled £50.5 million, and the total health authority deficit was £238.2 million.
  Within months of a general election, my health authority in Northamptonshire was passing a deficit budget of £2 million, with an underlying deficit of £4 million. That was financial management of the public services on the never-never. It was done purely for electoral purposes and not with a view to the sound
  188
  management of services on which many people rely for their well-being and, in the case of the NHS, for their lives.
  When Labour came to power, we faced the consequences of Tory mismanagement not only of the economy, but of the finances for our public services. Sound financial management is the first pillar of good public services. I am delighted that the Government are sorting out many of the deficits that built up in the health authorities and trusts.
  A further problem was the disrepair of schools, as local education authorities struggled to deal with the consequences of the erosion of education budgets. There was also the chaos of London Underground, which had been starved of investment for many years. The same applies to the national rail network, which was privatised without regard for good regulation or service development. That is why the introduction of the Strategic Rail Authority is so important for the sound management of that service.
  Our record has been to ensure economic stability and the sound financial management of our public services, to provide the economic framework for financial security for our constituents and to provide the organisational and financial framework for the development of public services. Earlier today, we heard the proposals for the air traffic control service, and on other occasions we have heard the plans for London Underground. At every step, we have been opposed by the Conservatives.
  I shall set out briefly what we have done. We provided independence for the Bank of England and established the Monetary Policy Committee, which has delivered the lowest interest rates for a generation. The Tories opposed that. I know that many of my hon. Friends give the Opposition the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they take a variety of views, but almost all the speeches that I have heard from the Opposition have consistently opposed the steps that we have taken.
  The Tories opposed many of our measures to boost wealth creation and investment, including the dividend tax credit, which was clearly designed to ensure that money was reinvested in businesses and not just paid out in dividends.
  We embarked on the new deal, an ambitious programme to combat unemployment, which would have dealt with the problems of Birmingham in the 1980s, for example. The Tories opposed that. The programme deals with unemployment not just among young people, but among single parents, people with disabilities and the older long-term unemployed.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Given her admirable concern for fiscal probity, what assessment has she made of the effect of the changed rules for the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the level of interest repayments on local authority debt?
  Ms Keeble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I shall answer briefly, as I want to deal with other matters.
  There must be careful management of public finances. Although I welcome extra money for housing, I believe that it is right for that to be phased. If a disproportionate amount of a council's budget is tied up in servicing debt

  189
  rather than running services, that does no service to the public who provide the finance. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but having dealt with such matters in real life, I understand a wee bit about it.
  Single parents, people with disabilities and the older long-term unemployed were the three particular categories that the Conservative Government kept in a state of welfare dependency. I am particularly pleased that those people are being given the targeted attention that is needed to get them back into work. We are also breaking the welfare dependency culture by making work pay, specifically through the working families tax credit, which will benefit 1.3 million people. The Tories opposed that, too. I sometimes think that they used the welfare state to replace religion as the opium of the masses. They certainly failed to stimulate people to rebuild their lives and be financially independent.
  Our economic measures will ensure that there is more money—£40 billion—in education and health over the next three years, but of course the Tories oppose that. In their last five years, they were happy to spend £48 billion on unemployment, but not on health, education or the measures needed to combat unemployment.
  Labour has been the party of sound management of the economy and of the public sector finances. I am sure that my constituents and many other people throughout the country for generations to come will reap the benefit of the Government's prudent financial management.
  7.39 pm
  Sir Richard Body: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury opened the debate with appalling complacency. He trotted out a list of favourable statistics, but surely he has been at the Treasury long enough to know that there is a considerable time lag—never less than 18 months, seldom less than two years, but often as long as three years—before a decision made in Whitehall permeates all the way down to the economy. At least three quarters of the favourable facts that he gave us are therefore attributable to what the previous Government did. None the less, he spent the rest of his time attacking Conservative Members. Attack may be the best form of defence, but he will be blown off course before long. We are just beginning to realise that some rather ugly facts are just round the corner.
  Most of us have tried to put out of our minds in the past few weeks what has gone on in Yugoslavia, but we now know that the cost of reconstructing that sorry country will not be just a billion or two, but an incalculable number of billions. Mr. Ian Milne recently tried to make an approximate calculation, but all that he could say was that it would cost billion upon billion upon billion. Who will pay for that? In that country, 30 per cent. of people are out of work and vast areas of infrastructure have gone.
  We all know why the situation came about, but it is now leaking out that, on 23 March, soon after the bombardment began, the Parliament in Belgrade announced counter-proposals to Rambouillet, which have now proved to be substantially the same as those which were agreed on 3 June. If that is true—it undoubtedly seems to be true—that bombardment of some 10 weeks was obviously unnecessary.
  Who, then, will pay? There is a heavy moral duty upon those Governments who were responsible for that decision. The United States Government have given a
  190
  broad hint that they will now wash their hands of Yugoslavia; that they have done all that they need. The major countries of the European Union, France and Germany in particular, are in the eurozone. They cannot increase expenditure without increasing taxation. No one could possibly believe that either of those countries will be willing to increase taxation to pay for what has happened, so that leaves Britain. We shall be called upon to make a major contribution to the cost of reconstruction.
  How will that be paid for? It is unrealistic to add to our tax burden. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) some appalling figures—a £40 billion increase in taxation. My hon. Friends will repeat that over and over again as a measure of how dishonest the Government have been in pretending that there would be no increase in taxation. It is only thanks to the Library that we have been able to discover that figure. Labour Members will have to defend that £40,000 million and, in particular, the added burden that will now be placed upon virtually every business in Britain. Such businesses will not be able to pay the extra taxes and at the same time invest or pay a larger wage bill. In that respect, unless we are careful, we shall see a contraction of the economy.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) spoke about our public services. I wonder whether she realises how serious are the prospects for the long-term future of some of our public services. If we are to increase expenditure without increasing taxation, we shall have to borrow money, and that means increasing the national debt.
  Ms Margaret Moran: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, under the previous Government, between 1990 and 1996, the public sector borrowing requirement—the national debt—doubled at a cost to the average family of about £5,500, while, at the same time, investment in education was going down and the cost to the Government of unemployment was increasing? That is hardly the golden economic legacy that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues describe.
  Sir Richard Body: Had the hon. Lady been a Member of the House at that time, she would have known that the Government had one or two critics. I repeatedly complained about the rise in the national debt under the previous Government. Rightly or wrongly, I was independent during some of that time. I am well aware of those figures. The situation was far worse when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was Prime Minister when the figures rocketed. I was a strong critic at that time. I was co-author of the monetarist papers which set out the pitfalls if the Government carried on on those lines. I can assure the hon. Lady that I am well aware of that history.
  Over the years, a large number of economists have urged another way of making up the budget deficit. When we issue short-term gilts and Treasury bills, they are effectively IOUs, and they bear interest. When they mature, there is almost invariably a further issue for the same amount plus the interest. That is essentially why the national debt tends to rise year after year. The appalling fact is that, if we continue on that course, within about 20 years from now, the national debt will, according to the estimate of those who study the matter, have risen to £1,000 billion.

  191
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North talked about public services, as she did so eloquently earlier, I beg of her to bear in mind what the interest on that national debt will be in 20 years' time if we carry on as we are doing now. We will not then be able to talk about increasing expenditure on this, that or the other; on all the good things about which she spoke and on all the goods things that Conservative Members would like to see spending on increase. That will not happen because we will have to pay the interest on the national debt.
  One does not have to be a mathematical genius to work out what the interest is likely to be in 20 years' time if that forecast is right. One has only to look at the latest Budget statement to see that we are on the upward path again. If one looks at some of the other figures, one sees that the proportion of debt-free money in circulation is in steady decline. Some 30 years ago, it was 17 per cent. and it has been dropping ever since. We now have what I might call a 3 per cent. Chancellor, because only 3 per cent. of our money stock now is directly in his hands. Next year, it will almost certainly be 2 per cent. One cannot go below 1 per cent. I beg the hon. Lady to bear in mind what will happen, almost in the lifetime of this Parliament, if we do not put on our thinking caps and consider how we will cope with the decline in debt-free money.
  For some half a century on and off, a number of distinguished economists have argued that the Government have exclusive control of debt-free money. Only the Government are in charge of the Royal Mint. Only the Government can authorise the manufacture of notes or coinage. Therefore, they should be using that mechanism—MO—to pay off an increasing amount of the debt. However, if they go on, as they have done for far too long, merely reissuing those IOUs on which interest has to be paid—that may benefit the banks, some of the pension funds and some of the other institutions, but it certainly does not benefit those who are arguing for improved public services—there are bound to be severe and unjust cuts in public services. I cannot believe that any hon. Member on either side of the House would want that to happen. We should all be agreed on that, but I fear that we must change direction in this respect.
  We must also recognise what so many distinguished economists have said. I do not know whether I ought to mention Milton Friedman. That name does not always appeal to Labour Members, although the Treasury has imbibed every syllable that he uttered about monetary policy, which is very good. He is one of the many distinguished economists who have argued that the Government should increase the amount of debt-free money to pay for that deficit, particularly when it is caused by an increase in capital expenditure. That is not inflationary. The issuing of gilts and bills is inflationary because they are used as a deposit by the banks to enable them to re-lend, often by a multiple of 10.
  My plea to Treasury Ministers is that they should look again at those forecasts for a steady rise in the borrowing requirement. It was clear in the Budget statement that it will increase again next year and the year after, but, in the meanwhile, we may have to accept our moral duty to play a part in the reconstruction of Yugoslavia, if what I said about the Yugoslav Government proposal of 23 March is correct. In all events, I believe that the
  192
  Government will be blown off course, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to speak on this subject again—next year or perhaps in years hence—he will have no cause to be complacent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I call Mr. Blizzard. I am sorry; I call Mr. Rammell.
  7.52 pm
  Mr: Bill Rammell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not the first time that that mistake has been made.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) wishful thinking similar to that which we heard in last year's debate. Labour Members will remember that Conservative Members told us that we were heading towards a deep and damaging recession. Those fears have not been fulfilled and I am certain that the fears to which he has referred today will not be fulfilled either.
  I am happy to participate in the debate and it is no exaggeration to say that the macro-economic framework that the Government have set in place and the strong public finances that they have established are the best for many years. That does not mean that we will not continue to face dilemmas, that there will not be objectives that we wish we could achieve more quickly and that there will not always be greater demands on public expenditure than we can meet at any particular time. Such stresses and strains are inherent in any developing or changing society. However, their singular achievement, in contrast to what occurred previously, is that the strong state of public finances means that our electors will have a right to expect steadily improving public services and steadily increasing expenditure on them year on year.
  We have been able to achieve that because of the way in which the Government have managed the economy during their two years in power, and I make no apology for saying that. The whole of my adult life before 1 May 1997 was spent under Conservative Governments and they and supposedly well-informed media commentators constantly told us that the Tory party was the party of sound financial management and that the Labour party was emotionally, psychologically and ideologically incapable of running the economy sensibly.
  Given the previous Government's record, it is puzzling that that caricature was allowed to be established: in their 18 years in power they presided over the two worst recessions since the second world war, the heart of manufacturing industries was ripped out and a huge productivity deficit was established between this country and the European Union and our American competitors. Their management of the public finances meant that, steadily and proportionately over their period in office, more and more money was spent on the cost of social failure—paying unemployment and social security bills—and less was left for education.
  The way that the Government have managed the public finances in their first two years in office has put that shocking Tory record into its proper economic and political context and they have received a lot of independent support for it. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) mocks what I say. He should look at what the independent commentators have said about the

  193
  Government's management of the economy. They have a very impressive record, setting in place the framework for economic stability and granting operational independence to the Bank of England, which established greater confidence for investors and the belief that decisions would be taken for sound economic reasons, not for short-term party political gain. The immediate benefit of that—longer-term interest rates—is there for all to see.
  The long-term monetary framework is based on clear rules and open procedure. We took tough action at the beginning of this Parliament to deal with the fiscal deficit that we inherited and we established clear rules to borrow only to invest over the course of the economic cycle. All those changes were designed to create a climate of confidence and to generate stability and a base from which we could make progress on public services and public expenditure. It is fair to say that the results of that strategy are remarkable in terms of any historical comparison. Interest rates and mortgage rates are at a 20-year low and, although inflation is at its lowest since 1993, unemployment is still falling. Hon. Members should think back to the 1980s: the Conservative party achieved low inflation, but always at the price of extraordinarily high unemployment. Almost uniquely, the Government have brought inflation down while steadily reducing unemployment and for the first time in a generation, in what is still termed a downturn in the economic cycle, we will not have gone into a formal recession. That is no mean achievement.
  In the early 1990s, a different economic strategy had an impact on the lives of ordinary people in my constituency: interest rates were 15 per cent., people had negative equity, houses were repossessed and businesses went bust every day. In contrast, our achievements have benefited the lives of real people. Crucially, they have also created the conditions for steady improvement in our public services. We have made £40 billion extra available for investment in schools and hospitals. Although that figure has been mocked, that £40 billion constitutes substantial rises above and beyond the rate of inflation for the coming three years and there will be a significant boost to public transport and other areas.
  In terms of overall economic policy and attitude to the public finances, people want a Government to achieve steady, year-on-year improvements that give confidence to the consumer and to the providers of public services so that they can plan for the long term, not dramatic, unsustainable changes that cannot be sustained in the longer term.
  Mr. Letwin: As a matter of genuine curiosity, how does the hon. Gentleman respond to the facts brought out by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who said that, at the end of the Government's term in office, the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health and education will be broadly identical to that which they inherited?
  Mr. Rammell: I do not accept those figures. If hon. Members consider the full five-year term, they will see an improvement. However, on all the available evidence the Government will not be in power for only five years; we will go beyond that. I am confident that we will roll forward the three-year spending review to achieve further significant increases in the key areas of public expenditure.
  194
  Against the background of macro-economic stability and sustainable increases in public spending that Labour has created, we have to judge the Conservative's party critique. I think that it wholly lacking in credibility. Conservative Members exhibit the salient features of an Opposition who have yet to come to terms with the fact that they are in opposition. Conservative Members always know which tax rises they are against. They are against the fuel escalator, despite the fact that they introduced it in the first place, and against increases in stamp duty. As they pointed out in a debate on the Finance Bill, they are even against capital gains tax. They also always know what extra spending they are in favour of. As we discovered from the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), a Conservative Government would spend more on roads. What they never do, however, is square the circle and say how they would balance the public finances.
  During the passage of the Finance Bill, Conservative Members proposed amendments that would have created multi-billion pound holes in the public finances, yet they never said that they would make good those holes, apart from general unspecified cuts in social security expenditure. That is an abdication of serious politics in government.
  Mr. Gibb: Was not the Labour party elected on the pledge that it could fill the hole—the extra spending on health and education—by cuts in social security spending? What we were doing on the Finance Bill Committee was opposing the tax rises, which the Labour party said, during the election campaign, they had no intention of introducing.
  Mr. Rammell: The Labour party has fulfilled its election manifesto pledge to balance the Budget in a way that has sustained public confidence. That is borne out by any election that takes place—it was certainly borne out by the by-election in Eddisbury last week—and by public opinion polls. People trust the Government to manage the economy and the public finances.
  Sir Richard Body: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read carefully the Budget statement and has seen the figures. There was a balanced budget for two years, but as I sought to explain earlier, that was the result of a time lag and of policies pursued by the previous Government. We are now embarking on a borrowing requirement, because we have a major deficit, which must be made good by issuing gilts and Treasury bills. Next year that will not be the case. That is in the Chancellor's statement.
  Mr. Rammell: This Government have removed the structural fiscal deficit that we inherited from the Conservative party and created conditions that give the City and the financial markets confidence that our increased expenditure plans are sustainable. That view is held in the City and elsewhere, even if it is not held within the Conservative party. Thus far, we have substantially won that argument.
  The other element of the Conservative party critique that needs to be brought into the open is the clear difference between what Conservative Members say they would do if they were re-elected to government and what the Labour Government are doing. The Conservatives say that they would abolish the national minimum wage.

  195
  Does the House remember the national minimum wage—the measure which, when it was debated during the election campaign, was to cost a million jobs? The Conservatives also say that they would abolish the working families tax credit and the new deal. Those are all measures designed to help people back to work and to make work pay.
  We should not be surprised that that is the Conservative party's attitude. When it was in power in the 1980s and 1990s, it showed scant regard for the interests of people on low and middle incomes. It must be remembered that the only people who were paying less tax in 1997 than they were when the Tories came to office in 1979 were those earning more than £64,000 a year. The only reason that they were paying less tax was that everybody else was paying more. That was the reality for people at the bottom of the income scale under the previous Government: a higher tax burden; higher marginal tax rates for those coming off benefits and going into work; and other barriers that prevented people from taking up work.
  With such a record, it is hardly surprising that the Conservative party opposes this Government's proposals to make work pay and to tackle poverty. The Conservative party's critique lacks credibility. It is holed below the waterline, so it is hardly surprising that it is receiving so little support. We have made an enormously positive start.
  I wish to comment on two other areas. The first is an area of public expenditure where the Government have made significant progress but where we need to go further—public housing. With the release of capital receipts at the start of the Government's term in office, we produced an enormous boost for housing investment—a 33 per cent. increase over the first two years of this Parliament, and a further 50 per cent. in the three years of the comprehensive spending review. However, we must remember that we started from a low base. During the 18 years of Conservative Government, no area of public expenditure was hammered as hard as public sector housing.
  Based on 1997–98 prices, in 1979 expenditure on public housing was £8.8 billion; by 1997, when the Tories left office, it was £2.1 billion. That is a 75 per cent. cut, and the cost of that cut in public expenditure can be seen by every Member of the House when we undertake our weekly constituency surgeries and hear of the ever-lengthening housing waiting list, the chronic disrepair and the human cost of such a policy. We have made a good start. I hope that, as we go beyond the comprehensive spending review, we can invest even more money in public sector housing.
  The second area that I want to comment on was picked up in the Treasury Committee report on the Monetary Policy Committee. It is described as the "EMU dilemma"—the dilemma between aiming for a 2.5 per cent. inflation target and reaching an exchange rate parity with the euro to enable Britain to join the single currency. I share the Government's analysis that, if we pursue the correct economic policies in the medium term, we shall tackle that problem. However, the price for non-participation, in EMU terms, is of a higher exchange rate vis-a-vis the 11 Euroland countries. Moreover, those 11 countries are already beginning to see price reductions as a result of price transparency, a huge growth in the
  196
  eurobond market and the removal of exchange rate fluctuations, which facilitate trading between those countries. Given those advantages, which I believe will increase over time, I am pleased that, in the past few days, the Government have reiterated their policy that, if and when the criteria that we have set for entry are met, we shall recommend to the British people that they should join the single currency. That is the right policy.
  The wrong policy would be that recommended by the Conservative party: whatever the circumstances and whatever the national economic interest, the people will not be allowed to decide this issue for an arbitrary period of 10 years.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that there must be a referendum on this issue in the next Parliament?
  Mr. Rammell: I shall not give an arbitrary commitment on when the referendum should take place. The tests that the Government have set are meaningful, and if we do not meet those criteria it would be wrong to hold a referendum. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, given that, on any available polling evidence, those who are most hostile to the single currency are those who say that they would vote Liberal Democrat at a general election, his time might be better spent convincing his supporters of the merits of the single currency instead of constantly lecturing the Government that they are wrong on this issue.
  We have put the right conditions in place, in terms of both macro-economics and public services. It used to be said that the prospect of a Labour Government would put the wind up the City and the financial markets. In the current circumstances, the only prospect that would create such a fright in the City and among investors is an opinion poll showing a narrowing of the Labour party's lead and the possibility of the Conservative party being elected at the next general election.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am disappointed to follow the speeches of the hon. Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Theirs were the sort of speeches that give Labour Members who entered the House in 1997 a bad name. They did not stand back and analyse the wider position, which was eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body). That is what I hope to do in the few minutes available to me.
  If we look at the economic position in which our country is in today, we see that we are in a historically benign economic position. We do not have to deal with an inherited debt to pay for a world war. We no longer have to support the armed forces and the military posture that was required to sustain freedom and peace in Europe during the period of the cold war. We do have to deal with the historic retreat from empire that cost this country so much during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and with the debt overhang that was faced by the Governments that followed.
  In the 18 years of the Conservative Government, there was an enormous change in the conduct of economic policy in the United Kingdom. It was a victory of the ideas of liberal markets. That was mirrored in the victory

  197
  of the west in the cold war, and in the changes in the Labour party. It was not until 1997 that the electorate was prepared to entrust Labour with the government of the country. Its reputation for economic competence had been undermined by its previous performance in office. The Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, had to undertake a three-year exercise to reassure the electorate that his party was fit for government and would not ruin the state of the economy that it would inherit.
  Mr. John Cryer: The hon. Gentleman talked about economic competence. Does he recall that on Black Wednesday in 1992 a huge gap of about 20 per cent. was opened up between the Labour party and the Conservative Government, which to this day has never closed? What does that tell him about economic competence?
  Mr. Blunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. That was a seminal event, and it destroyed public confidence in the Conservative Government. However, the picture was not as straightforward as some would like to believe. Everyone advocated going into the exchange rate mechanism when we did so in 1990—the Labour Opposition, the trade union movement, industry and the City. There was an enormous and overwhelming sea of support. Everyone thought that the right thing to do was to join the ERM, and it had some beneficial effects. It bore down heavily on inflation. The danger of inflation in our economy was eliminated in the two years that we were members of the ERM.
  The then Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer staked their credibility on the United Kingdom staying in the ERM, but the markets and speculators took us out because our position was unsustainable, given the level of our economy as against those of our European partners. That destroyed public confidence in the Conservative Government. However, that does not alter the fact that the macro and micro changes to the economy in those 18 years—which have been adopted and taken forward by the present Government, who have gone even further on privatisation in some areas than I would support—show the victory of the ideas of liberal economies in an era that is economically benign.
  In the time since coming out of the ERM, we have seen how much more similar our economy is to the economic cycle of the United States than it is to that of our European partners. On all the indicators, the trend of our economy since 1992 when we left the ERM is towards the United States, particularly on unemployment rates.
  Another reason why the economic situation is so benign is the extraordinary motor, which the world has relied on, of this unprecedented period of growth in the United States. That is probably explained by the internet and the new technology of e-commerce, in which the United Kingdom has more involvement than any of our European partners, thus accentuating the link between us and the United States. In that context, we must examine the conduct of Government policy and how we are to deal with our public services.
  If we consider the wider economic position and tie that to Government expenditure on public services, we realise that things have not really changed. When we consider how much expenditure on the health service has risen under the Government, we have to admire the
  198
  presentational coup of giving the whole figure for the Parliament in a oner, and continually repeating it so that it is lodged in the public mind as an increase in investment in health. The increase in expenditure on health in real terms is less than it was in the Parliament of 1992–97, and is almost exactly the same as the real increase in health expenditure over the 18 years of Conservative government.
  The challenges that the Government must face in dealing with the health service are precisely the same as those faced by previous Governments. The Government have handicapped themselves by abolishing the internal market. They will handicap themselves further by the creation of primary care groups, and by getting rid of the advantages of fundholders and the ability of individual doctors to find the right treatment for their patients. They will have to deal with the ageing population, as we had to, and with an increasing drugs budget. Those issues make the delivery of increased health outputs, as the Chief Secretary told us—it is now all about outputs—as difficult for this Government as it was for previous Governments, with no significant change in the real increase of expenditure on health.
  The position is the same for education. My colleagues from Surrey and I went to see the Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), about what has happened to the schools' budgets in Surrey. My constituents are enormously confused. They hear the Government talk about education, education, education, and they ask the head teachers and governors of their schools why cuts are being made if the Government are giving all that money. When we analyse what has happened, we realise that the Government have given a 5.9 per cent. real increase in spending on education, but 4.8 per cent. of it has gone into teachers' pay and 1 per cent. has to be added to the pay bill because of incremental drift.
  Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just the total amount of money that matters, but where it is spent? We took the money spent on the assisted places scheme and put it into getting down class sizes in primary schools, which is a much more cost effective way of driving up standards and providing better education for more children. It is about where we spend the money, not just about how much we spend.
  Mr. Blunt: Unlike the hon. Lady, I do not claim a monopoly of wisdom. I would far rather leave the expenditure of money in schools to the governors, parents and teachers, and let them decide the priorities for their school. That was one of the complaints made to me and other Surrey Members, and I am sure that it is echoed in discussions that other Members have with teachers' representatives. They have to make ridiculous, time-consuming, bureaucratic bids to get hold of the money that is controlled by Ministers in their pet schemes, such as the political target of reducing class sizes for five to seven-year-olds. That is the headline target that the Government set themselves, never mind the fact that class sizes for every other age group are increasing.
  That situation is mirrored in the Government's handling of the health service. Clinical priorities are overturned to meet the targets for cutting waiting lists. Health and education professions are beginning to lose faith, because

  199
  the Government's rhetoric departs significantly from reality. They have built up expectations that will be impossible for them to meet, because they have to deal with the same realities in the public services that every other Government have faced.
  I want to offer a way forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) talked about churning taxes into social security expenditure: people pay their taxes and receive them back in benefit. That same churning of taxes is happening in health and education. People working in the health service and in education will wake up to the fact that it is the teachers, doctors and nurses who bear the burden of providing services in the public sector.
  In fact, a nationally provided health service probably provides quite a good deal. Spending on health as a proportion of our gross domestic product is artificially depressed, because the Government must deal with a number of competing priorities, and do not want to increase taxation more than is necessary. In a sense, they are denying individuals a choice in regard to how much they will spend on health. Certainly we spend far less on health services than other developed countries, because our health services are in the public sector. The Government demand output from doctors and nurses, and they are the people who bear the pressure.
  Mr. Leslie: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we would be better off if everyone paid for their own health care?
  Mr. Blunt: My point is that the duty of any Government is to underwrite access to good health and good education services. Until either my party or the party that is in government is prepared to face up to the situation and deal with the whole issue of "churning", and the public sector provision of those major services, we shall continue to engage in what is, in my view, a fairly sterile debate about whether real growth in health and education expenditure has amounted to 3 or 3.1 per cent. Once such matters are in the public sector, and are subject to all the demands of public-sector financial management—as long as the Government do not become reckless in regard to the use of public finances—we shall all be pursuing the same series of efficiency savings.
  Mr. Love: It is now 8.21 pm. We have been debating economic stability and public services for nearly three hours, but I have yet to hear an Opposition Member make a single comment about economic stability. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) refused to comment on the independence of the Bank of England two years on; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us his view.
  Mr. Blunt: I should be delighted to do so. Let me add that I was saying that we are enjoying relatively benign economic circumstances, which is probably why there is relative economic stability. Personally, I consider it right for the Bank of England to be independent—not least under a Labour Government, because Labour does not believe that the markets can be trusted with the handling of monetary policy. It is probably as well, from the point of view of the United Kingdom and for prosperity generally, that Labour made the Bank independent.
  200
  There is a question mark over the make-up of the Monetary Policy Committee, and the rules that underlie it. Those who look at the rules relating to such matters as the three-year term will see just how independent the Bank of England really is, and will see what powers will be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in extremis. In general, however, I support the Bank's independence.
  I believe that tackling the questions of public service in relation to health and education, and dealing with the whole business of "churning" in social security, is the only way of making a serious difference to our economic performance, if we are prepared to face up to the issues.
  Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunt: No. I want to make a final set of points.
  Only by making a new contract with the people in regard to the provision of services that must be underwritten by the Government will we make a significant change in the rather sterile debate about the increase in expenditure, in terms of percentage points, while those services remain in the public sector.
  Given the presence of the Chief Secretary, I want to say something about one more public sector service. The armed forces are now in crisis, particularly the Army. The strategic defence review, which took place last year, was underwritten by operational assumptions supposing the existence of an operational deployment pattern through which a coach and horses has now been driven. An unending deployment to Kosovo and Bosnia has shot down those assumptions. The Government must have another look at funding for the armed forces.
  The Chief Secretary will recall that the budget was determined on the basis of a 3 per cent. efficiency savings target, and that the last 1 per cent. was added about a week before the announcement of the strategic defence review. Most of us regard those savings as impossible to achieve. The evidence is that the Army is now recruiting as many people as it can train at one time, and that people are still leaving. I hope that the Chief Secretary will deal kindly with the Secretary of State for Defence when he next approaches him asking for funds.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I want to speak briefly about three issues: the Government's achievements so far, some likely future developments, and the contribution of local government to economic stability and public services.
  First, I shall deal with the Government's achievements so far. It may be a short circuit to say that I entirely agree with much of what has been said today about their achievements in regard to economic stability. I am thinking particularly of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice)—an excellent Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury, on which I serve—about the independence of the Bank of England and the contribution of the Monetary Policy Committee to our current climate of economic stability.
  It could be said that the time for political argument about whether the Bank's independence is a good idea is coming to an end as reality takes over. We are seeing the results of the MPC's work. Even allowing for the time lag

  201
  to which the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred, it will soon be plain for all to see that the decision was right, and that the Bank's independence has been an unqualified success.
  It is on the back of that success that the Government have been able to conduct the wide-ranging and comprehensive spending review that has taken place during the current Parliament. I am impressed by the way in which they have engaged in that zero-based budget building, with three-year—not one-year—programmes for Departments. The real gainers from the process have been health and education, which have received an extra £40 billion, but we should not forget the other gainers. I am thinking of crime reduction, transport and regeneration. Health and education between them, however, won more of the spoils than the other 19 Departments put together.
  It should be borne in mind that the application of the comprehensive spending review only started in April this year. We are still in the first of the financial years that resulted from those decisions. I believe that the public will see a real difference as the years go by, and as consistent and cumulative extra spending takes effect.
  Moreover, on top of the revenue spending unlocked by the review, the Government have made possible additional capital investment, even within the golden rule that permits borrowing only for investment rather than consumption. I also welcome—this is a rather different point—the separation of accounting for capital spending from accounting for revenue spending, which adds to the discipline involved in ensuring that capital investment goes ahead even when times are hard.
  As a result of the comprehensive spending review, there are more modern hospitals, clinics and general practices. I invite hon. Members to come to my constituency, and see the new building that is taking place at Staffordshire general hospital. The review means more beds for the accident and emergency unit, more doctors and nurses—better paid—the treatment of more patients, shorter waiting lists, and more emphasis on primary care, public health and the reduction of health inequalities.
  Mr. Blunt: On that point, a new hospital in my constituency, East Surrey hospital, was opened about 10 years ago by the then Prime Minister, but efforts to secure efficiencies and new buildings go on throughout the health service. In the next door constituency to mine, that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), a Labour nurse—she was advertised as such in Labour party political broadcasts—the accident and emergency department is being closed and moved to East Surrey hospital in an effort to make the efficiency savings that have to be found in the health service. The search for those savings will go on and result in new buildings opening and old buildings closing. It happened under previous Governments and it will happen under the present Government—nothing is new.
  Mr. Kidney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he approves of the efficient use of public resources, including money that is spent on our health service. I applaud the fact that we get best value for the money that we invest in health, as in any other sector of spending.
  That can be said of education, where extra money from the comprehensive spending review means more new schools. Again, the hon. Member for Reigate can come to
  202
  Stafford to see the new Sir Graham Balfour high school that is about to be built under a PFI scheme, or the almost completely new buildings of the Cooper Perry primary school—part of the same PH scheme. There are more repairs, renovations and extensions.
  As I visit the schools of my Stafford constituency, I am pleased to see the new windows, new energy-efficiency measures, new security measures and the indoor toilets that have appeared in some schools. School staff talk about new extensions to their schools. I am impressed by the number who have seen schemes to improve the building that they occupy. There is more money for books and equipment. I accept that Stafford local education authority is a pilot for the national grid for learning, but it has made a reality of the grid, with all schools either connected, or about to be connected, to the internet, and it means more money for teachers pay.
  On future development, the first thing that I hope to see—it is not in the Government's gift—is the Tories complete their U-turn on Bank of England independence. All-party agreement on that would add to the credibility of monetary policy. I would next look forward to the locking-in of the benefits of the Chancellor's fiscal action to date, the elimination of the current account deficit, and the reduction in Government debt to about 40 per cent. of gross domestic product or lower, leaving the country well placed to take advantage of changes and opportunities in future.
  Those include the ever increasing opportunities from the continuing information technology revolution. We will be well placed to withstand external shocks—such as the one last autumn when Russia defaulted on its debt, and a number of south-east Asian economies collapsed—and the continuing doldrums of the Japanese economy. Those were serious shocks. Thanks to the economic stability that we have achieved in this country, we have survived all those shocks without a recession.
  I would like the new public service agreements to be used as a tool to ensure that we get value for money from public spending. The public service agreements, the new accounting standards that have been set following the 1995 European standards, which we adopted last September, and the new rules for resource accounting and budgeting that will be introduced in the next few years, will mean considerable opportunity not only for the country to manage its finances more carefully, but for Parliament to have greater scrutiny over the Executive's spending plans. I echo the point that was made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
  I move to the future of PFI. The Chief Secretary mentioned that £4 billion of spending had already been achieved through PH schemes. That will, no doubt, continue. This week, the result of the second Bates review of the PH has been announced, with a recommendation that a new partnership UK ensures that we get value for money and monitor the future development of PH. Next year, the next round of the comprehensive spending review will take place. I hope that that sees a continuation of three-year budgeting and three more years, as promised, of real increases in public service spending—real increases year after year.
  I ask the House to have regard to two offshoots over coming years. The last Budget promised a review of the inter-generational effects of decisions that we make in our lifetimes and in our time in Parliament on public spending

  203
  and public borrowing. What debt are we leaving to the generations to come and what assets are they getting for their money? The other offshoot is the distributional effect of our decisions. Who are the winners and losers when interest rates fall, or rise? Who are the winners and losers of a decision to increase, or to reduce direct taxes? Who are the winners and losers if we increase or reduce indirect taxation?
  Thirdly, I look at the contribution of local government. Never let it be forgotten that it is a major contributor to public expenditure—more than £50 billion this year, three quarters of which comes from central Government, either in grant or in the distribution of business rates. Local government is a main deliverer of public services.
  Some national issues have very important repercussions on local government. Establishment of the national assets register, requirements for asset sales and rules on private finance initiative schemes, for example, impinge on the role of local government. I call on the House to ensure that, in all those schemes, there is sufficient accountability in the decisions made by local government. Nationally, there should be sufficient access to figures on the schemes, and to information on the figures consequences on the national accounts—and, therefore, on national economic stability.
  As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, when departmental decisions on public service agreements have an impact on the performance expected of local government, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow local government to have some say in how the agreements content is decided.
  Some aspects of national accounting—such as the definition of public spending—have particular importance for local government. Local government is sometimes—in borrowing, for example—very much bound by central Government's control over its spending decisions. At other times, however, those rules can be relaxed, bent or changed. At one time, for example, some local councils had a stake in regional airports and were allowed to borrow extra money that did not count as public borrowing. Another specific example is that of local authorities that still have council housing stock and want more freedom to borrow money, perhaps through local housing companies. The definition of public spending is, therefore, a very important issue for local government.
  A growing issue is the earmarking of specific tax income. Hypothecation is currently a very live issue for local government, which is having lively debates on matters such as congestion charging and whether revenue from such charging might be used in implementing local transport policies. Another related issue is how fine income gained by using speed cameras might be used—an issue that I have previously championed in the House.
  I should like to make one final point on local government spending. As I said, much of the money spent by local government is provided as grant from central Government, and central Government distribute that money according to standard spending assessments. For some local authorities in the south-east of Britain, SSAs include an area cost adjustment element, which is meant to deal with the assumption that, in the south-east, the costs of employing people are higher. I believe that that
  204
  assumption could easily be refuted by various figures, such as those produced every month by the Reward Group.
  All things being equal, a higher SSA leads to a higher level of central Government grant, thereby clearly affecting most services that local government provides to the public. A majority of local authorities, such as Staffordshire county council, lose out because of the area cost adjustment. Figures from the Library—an august and independent body—show that, for the current financial year, Staffordshire county council could have received another £28.6 million in Government grant if it had received the arithmetical mean of the area cost adjustment received by some local authorities.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some borough councils in the south-east of England—indeed, in London—lose out from the current area cost adjustment system? One of the most authoritative analyses of reforming the ACA explains that reform would make it possible to provide some councils, such as my own council of Kingston, with significant grant increases. The analysis specifically stated that ACA reform would enable £2 million extra to be provided to Kingston council. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that changes to the ACA would not only create both gainers and losers, but that the gainers and losers would be in various parts of the country?
  Mr. Kidney: I currently have in my sights those who benefit from the area cost adjustment. I shall, in a moment, make some suggestions on how the ACA might be improved—although some of those suggestions might not be attractive to the hon. Member for Reigate, who did not seem to favour bidding, which I shall deal with later in my speech.
  Most people realise that, in one way or another, the system of distributing central grant to local government is flawed. I think that there would have been a change in the system were it not for the fact—which was just emphasised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—that there are so many possible ways of changing the system that the Government have found it difficult to separate a clear leader from the pack of possibilities. That is why a lengthy and detailed review is currently taking place. In answer to a written question recently, the Government said that they expected to consult publicly about possible choices early next year.
  One improvement would be to build on the success of systems that recognise extra need or innovation, such as the modernisation fund for capital spending and the standards fund for education spending, and reduce the variations in the basic distribution of grant between local authorities. A more radical suggestion that could be considered on another occasion would be to allow local government to raise more of its income and become less dependent on central Government grants.
  In summary, I should like to see fair funding and fair treatment for local government. That would lead to a renaissance of local enterprise. If local government was not exactly at the centre of it, it would at least be a major player. I believe that central Government deserve a bouquet for the work that they have done so far in managing the country's economy, putting the national finances in order and increasing transparency and public

  205
  accountability. Over the years, the public will benefit increasingly from the Government's stewardship of the economy. It is no wonder that even the Opposition are resigned to seeing Labour in government for years to come.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I certainly do not agree that the Government deserve a bouquet. However, there is a pattern to their approach to public spending and taxation involving deception, breach of promise and obfuscation.
  Before the election, Labour had a problem: people did not trust Labour on tax or believe in its ability to keep public spending under control and maintain stable public finances. At the same time, Labour was making huge political capital from claiming that there was insufficient spending on the health service and education. So Labour, and the leader of the Labour party in particular, made a commitment not to raise taxes at all. There are numerous quotes from the Prime Minister and other Labour Members, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that Labour's spending plans involved no increases in taxation. They said that all their plans for extra spending could be funded from savings in the £100 billion a year social security budget. There are a number of quotes from the Prime Minister who said in July 1994:
  "A large social security budget is not a sign of socialist success but a necessary consequence of economic failure."
  In October 1996 he said:
  "Our priorities should be to re-order public spending so that we are spending less on welfare and more on areas like education."
  He made the pledge, commitment or vow to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred.
  Far from cutting social security spending, it has risen by some £38.2 billion over the three years of the spending review—about as much as the increases in health and education put together. Because of that failure, the Government have been raising huge amounts of extra taxation. They have imposed tax increases by stealth.
  One of the many great legacies of Margaret Thatcher's period in government is that no Government since 1979 have been able to increase the basic rate—or any rate—of income tax; so all tax increases have been through back-door methods, by stealth. The present Government are the masters of that.
  The Conservative party has pledged low and honest taxation, so we will help people by revealing how much tax is being raised by other methods—from taxes on petrol, whisky and food—so that people in a mature democracy can make a conscious and informed decision about the level of taxation that they want to pay and the level of spending that goes with it.
  Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman talks about low and honest taxation. Perhaps he can tell us about low and honest public expenditure and say where the Conservatives would make savings to create that low taxation.
  Mr. Gibb: I shall come to that point in a moment. The Conservative Government got social security spending
  206
  under control. The Labour Government were elected on the platform that they would cut social security spending and use the savings to fund their health and education plans. In the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill we opposed the tax rises because the Labour party made a pledge—a commitment to the British public—that it had no plans to raise taxes at all. Yet we have had a plethora of stealth taxes raised by the Government since they came to power.
  There has been the £5 billion-a-year pensions fund tax from the ending of the repayment of dividend tax credits. The quarterly corporation tax payments will raise between £2 billion and £3 billion a year from business over the next four years. The fuel escalator has been increased to 6 per cent., and there have been two increases in one year. Now, £8.50 of every £10 spent on petrol goes in tax. There have been huge stamp duty increases, the abolition of MIRAS, the abolition of relief for home income plans and the abolition of the married couples allowance, even for those who turn 65 after next April. There have been increases in the landfill tax and in insurance premium tax. All of this amounts to some £40.7 billion of extra taxation over this Parliament—this from a Government who said that they had no plans to raise taxes at all.
  When Labour Members are challenged, they respond by claiming that, during the election, they did not say that they would not raise taxes at all, but that they had no plans to raise income tax. However, Labour gave the impression that the promise extended to taxation as a whole, since all their attacks on the Conservatives were about "22 Tory tax rises". None of those 22 tax rises was an income tax rise—they were all non-income tax rises.
  The reality was that the Government's promise extended only to income tax—but they have not even fulfilled that promise. The abolition of MIRAS and the married couples allowance means that people will pay more income tax. A married couple will pay £200 more income tax a year as a result of the Government. A newly retired couple will pay £500 more income tax than they had expected. Now, the Government's promise is diluted further—they promise only not to raise income tax rates. It all sounds like an unscrupulous salesman selling a defective product and referring to the small print of the contract.
  The spinning that Labour is so good at has been applied to the public accounts. The Government claim that, despite raising an extra £40.7 billion in taxation, the burden of tax is falling. That is a huge sum of money, and it is simply not credible to say that the Government can raise that sum and not raise the burden of tax. The way in which this is presented in the Red Book is disgraceful. A series of deceptive presentations and absurd assumptions have been allowed to be put into the Red Book, such that it is almost becoming a meaningless document unless it is translated by the Library or by specialists.
  The working families tax credit—the replacement for family credit—is now, to a large extent, accounted for as a reduction in tax, rather than as public expenditure. That has the effect of reducing the key figure in the Red Book—on net taxes and social security spending; the figure that people always turn to to assess whether the tax burden has risen. The remaining element of the working families tax credit—which is accounted for as spending—is not included in the social security line, but is further down the table in "Accounting and other adjustments."

  207
  When commentators come to judge the Government's record on social security spending, they will see an artificially reduced figure.
  The Government now accept that there have been increases in social security spending, which means that they have abandoned their claim to be decreasing it. They say that it is increasing by 2 per cent. a year in real terms. However, if one adds back the £5 billion a year of working families tax credit, the increase amounts to 3.2 per cent. from 1998–99 onwards. That figure comes from the House of Commons Library.
  By contrast, the same Library produces figures for the Conservative years—including the two years of Conservative spending plans adopted by the Labour Government—up to the time of the working families tax credit, which show that social security spending fell by 0.2 per cent. a year from 1995–96 to 1998–99. As a consequence of the Government's plans, social security spending will rise to £118.5 billion by 2001–02.
  Another hugely deceptive device used by the Government in the Red Book is the table on pages 112 and 113, headed "Budget Measures". This used to be used to provide a summary of the effect of the tax changes in the Budget. One could then look at the total at the bottom to see the overall effect. The Government have included in the list several items of public expenditure and classified those items of expenditure as a tax cut. Nowhere else in the public accounts are those items listed as tax cuts. For example, item 22, entitled "Sure Start Maternity Grant", a £20 million expenditure plan, is included as a £20 million tax cut. The £100 winter allowance is a £640 million public expenditure plan but it is listed as a £640 million tax cut. That makes the whole Red Book completely meaningless.
  The Government have used many sleights of hand in presenting the public finances. We have already heard about current versus capital expenditure. One wonders whether such a distinction can be of any use, because little of Government capital spending generates any income and because of the difficulty of assessing what is investment: is teachers' pay an investment for the future or revenue expenditure?
  The Government have ruthlessly talked of the surplus on the current budget, giving the impression that they are running a budget surplus, when in fact they are running a deficit. For example, the Red Book lists a so-called surplus on the current budget of £2 billion, £4 billion, £8 billion, £9 billion and £11 billion in the years from 1999 to 2004, but the same table—B5 on page 151—shows an overall deficit of £3 billion, £3 billion, £1 billion, £3 billion and £4 billion in those years.
  In any interview or article, the Government trot out the current budget figures—total revenue less current spending—in a deliberate effort to mislead and obfuscate. The classic example is how the Government spun the lower growth forecast in the March 1999 Budget. The June 1998 comprehensive spending review report mentioned a current surplus of £7 billion, £10 billion and £13 billion, adding up to £30 billion over three years, despite the fact that there was a deficit in those three years.
  The Chancellor spoke of a £30 billion current surplus, but the growth forecast was revised downwards in December 1998, and in the March 1999 Budget we saw
  208
  the effect of the lower growth figures on the public finances. Lo and behold, instead of the £30 billion current surplus being reduced, as one would expect, it is now talked of as a £34 billion current surplus. How can that be? The Red Book shows a current surplus of £2 billion, £4 billion and £8 billion, which adds up to only £14 billion, but if one adds in the next two years, with a surplus of £9 billion and £11 billion, the total comes to £34 billion. The Government are now including five years instead of three, which is totally deceptive—why not six or 10 years?—and undermines the Chancellor's credibility.
  I have been trying to get to grips with what is going on. I tried to clarify the effect of all the Government's tax measures by tabling a written question using almost the same words as the now Home Secretary did in 1981 when he was a humble Back Bencher. I asked how much tax, including income tax, national insurance, VAT and council tax, was paid by different types of typical households such as single people or married couples in different income groups.
  That question was answered fully and honestly every year under the previous Government, but the current Government said:
  "Estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income."—[Official Report, 16 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 388.]
  The problem was ever thus, but the Conservative Government made reasonable and sensible assumptions and gave the figures.
  When I asked for the figures on the basis of such assumptions, I received the same brush-off. When I asked for a list of the assumptions used to answer the question since 1981, I was told that they were part of advice given by civil servants to the previous Government that was not available to the public. That is absolute nonsense. I asked for a list of facts, and it is disgraceful that those facts have not been forthcoming.
  Clearly, the Government are frightened to reveal the figures. For all their protestations about freedom of information, the Government know that including their stealth taxes—most of which are indirect—in figures for the tax burden will show that that burden has increased hugely.
  The Government have raised taxes by £40 billion despite promising not to raise them at all. They are trying to hide those increases and how they are reported in the Red Book. The Government have lost control of social security spending, and are trying to hide that fact, too, in the Red Book.
  The Government are famous for spin, and they are spinning the presentation of the public finances. I do not believe that that is acceptable behaviour for the Government of this country.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. John Cryer: I wish to return to matters concerning central banks, first raised in this debate by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who dealt with them at length.
  The European central bank represents, in its most refined and powerful form, a feature central to the neo-liberal economic catechism—the independence of central banks. Two reasons are usually adduced to support

  209
  that independence. The first is that, given that the matters involved are technical and concern the long term, it is much better to take them out of the hands of politicians—who think only in the short term—and hand them over to clever technocrats who understand them. The second is that the long-term economic benefits that can be achieved by economists are a fair price to pay for the loss of democratic control.
  The arguments put forward in support of the first-political—reason for central bank independence can be advanced for other areas of Government policy. For example, health and social policies are notoriously complicated. Long-term decisions and considerations are involved, so why should they not be handed over to technocrats?
  The same could have been said in 1939. When Chamberlain declared war on Nazi Germany, it could have been argued—in fact, it was argued—that the conflict had arisen through public pressure stemming in part from what happened in the Spanish civil war. According to that argument, foreign policy decisions should have been handed over to technocrats who had the country's long-term interests at heart, and taken away from politicians and their short-term considerations.
  The evidence for the second argument—that independent central banks deliver long-term economic benefits to their economies—is patchy, at best. Even in connection with fighting inflation, the evidence is extremely thin, and the evidence for independent central banks meeting with success in fighting inflation in developing countries is non-existent. Their record is, if anything, worse than that of developing country central banks under Government control.
  However, the first argument that I described—that power should be handed over to bankers and taken away from politicians—is the more important. More and more people around the planet are increasingly suspicious of globalisation and regard that process as a menace. Yet globalisation has been a key factor in persuading many Governments to give up control over monetary policy and hand it over to central banks.
  Obviously, powerful financial and business elites have a much greater interest in conservative monetary policy and in price stability than workers and trade unions. Many trade unions in this country have secured conference decisions against the single currency and against the creation of the European central bank.
  That is the background that enables us to see the European central bank for what it is. It is an attempt by the western European business and economic elite—and to some extent by the political elite as well—to take decisions away from ordinary voters, and hand over increasingly concentrated power to the business and financial elite.
  The ability of people in the street to get hold of those who make economic decisions that affect everyone's future, to hold them to account and, if necessary, to turf them out at the next election is being removed. Democratic rights and controls are being handed over to people such as Mr. Duisenberg in his office in Frankfurt. That is extremely dangerous.
  In fact, the transfer of power to the ECB is even less democratically accountable than that to the MPC and the Bank of England, where proceedings are reported and where decisions and the reasons for them are clear. In a
  210
  recent interview, Mr. Duisenberg said that he would not explain which ECB members voted for what because it might subject them to political pressure at home. Such pressure is part of the process of democratic accountability. People should be able to argue their corners and explain why they have come to decisions, but, crucially, members of the ECB do not face election.
  By the same token, public services should remain publicly accountable and publicly owned. I have lived in London for 17 years and I have seen a sometimes gradual, often rapid, disintegration in the quality of London Underground. Under the previous Government, there was a concerted attempt to destroy the tube. In his final Budget, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) announced cuts of £300 million that would have happened over two years if the Conservatives had won the 1997 election.
  In November 1993, I lived in Ladbroke Grove and worked in King's Cross for Tribune, a weekly newspaper known and loved by many of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. One day, the tube system virtually collapsed, and I walked from west London to north London. That collapse was not a result of industrial action, or of bombs planted by the IRA. A piece of cabling on the eastern section of the network, which had been due for renewal for years, had broken, bringing the system to a halt. That happened two days after the then Environment Secretary published, with no hint of irony, a consultation document titled "London: Making the best better".
  At least the present Government are trying, through the public-private partnership, to get investment into the tube. However, the process is fraught with difficulties. I have increasing reservations about the possibility of success under the PPP. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has told us that the Government are in exclusive talks with Railtrack on the sub-surface, shallower lines. Why are we talking to a company that has such an appalling investment record? Hon. Members who have read the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs will have seen Railtrack's vaunted claim to be investing £27 billion over 10 years. However, when the figures are broken down, new investment is actually £1.5 billion over 10 years. That is pathetic, but Railtrack is trying to get its clutches on the sub-surface lines.
  There are also difficulties over the return that the private sector will want on investment. The Select Committee considered that 20 to 25 per cent. over 15 years would be reasonable, and would mean about £1.5 billion on the investment made, but why not directly invest public money in the tube—borrowed, if need be, at a cheaper rate than a private sector company would receive—to build the system that people want?
  The fire service is also under pretty concerted attack. The London fire and civil defence authority is getting rid of one of the two fire engines in my local fire station, for example. There is no financial argument for doing so, and the LFCDA seems to have no decent reason for its action, but the authority is ploughing ahead in the teeth of local opposition amounting to thousands of people.
  Nationally, meanwhile, the agreement that firefighters struggled for in the national strike of 1977 is under threat. The employers are determined to get rid of the national agreement, which safeguards firefighters' pay and conditions. Having heard the employers' side, I have no

  211
  doubt that they are looking for a fight with the Fire Brigades Union. That is outrageous and disgraceful. The employers are threatening the terms and conditions of men and women who risk their lives day in and day out, week in and week out, on our behalf. I should like Labour Members to make it clear to the employers' side that we are not going to put up with this; I am sure that we all will. The employers should treat the union decently, get back round the table and stop trying to break the national agreement.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: A precondition of economic stability is sound monetary policy, which was the subject of a report published yesterday by the Treasury Select Committee, on which I sit. I do not share the optimistic gloss put on its recommendations by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). I shall therefore direct my remarks to three points relating to the operation of the monetary policy framework.
  First, it is too early to say whether the existing arrangements are successful. Secondly, I want to draw attention to the structural defects in the framework set out in the Bank of England Act 1998, particularly the shortcomings in making the Monetary Policy Committee accountable. Thirdly, I want to discuss the role that the level of sterling is playing in the deliberations of the MPC.
  In considering why it is too early to make a definitive or sensible judgment on the performance of the MPC, it is important to remember the muted inflationary environment over the past two years. That relates partly to the weakness in world commodity prices, partly to the strength of sterling, and partly to the Asian crisis. But we should not kid ourselves that the MPC has been tested seriously. Lord Burns, the former permanent secretary to the Treasury, has rightly noted that only when there is a serious inflationary shock—a serious upsurge in the world prices—will the House and the country be able to determine whether the MPC is up to the job. It is worth emphasising that the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has said:
  "the environment in which we have been working is one that has made it easier to bring inflation down and keep it close to target."
  The primary test of how well the MPC is doing—how far it is able to hit the 2.5 per cent. target—is thus not something that we can judge. I am not impressed by the boastfulness with which the Chancellor talks about the target being hit within 0.7 percentage points over the two-year period, because in their paper on the mechanism of transmission, the MPC and the Bank have said that there is a lag of at least two years. That is why we cannot make sensible judgments about inflation outturns. We can only consider forward inflationary expectations.
  Hon. Members have already observed that there has been a dip since the introduction of the MPC in real and nominal gilt yields, and that long-term interest rates are very low, the lowest for decades. However, that is not to say that we have entrenched a permanently low inflationary culture in this country. All we can say is that a certain initial credibility has attached to the MPC. Definitive judgments cannot yet be made.
  212
  It is too early not only to say whether the MPC has succeeded in achieving its primary objective, as set out in the Bank of England Act 1998, but to make any sensible judgment about whether it has achieved its secondary objective, which is defined in the Act as supporting economic policy, including objectives for growth and employment. The Treasury gloss on that, put forward by the Chancellor, is that the MPC should aim to achieve high, stable levels of growth and employment.
  I suggest that we cannot take seriously Labour Members' views that not only have we achieved low inflation in the new monetary policy framework, but we have done so with unemployment in this country lower than in other low-inflation countries on the continent. Surely, and regrettably, we must expect unemployment to rise. We have yet to see the full effects of the social chapter on the British labour market. We have yet to see the full effects of the fairness at work proposals in the Employment Relations Bill, which has been through its final stages in the House this week. Unemployment will go up. What will the Monetary Policy Committee do then; and how will it interpret its secondary objective, as defined in the 1998 Act?
  The best way to illustrate my first point about whether it is too early to tell if the MPC has been successful is to consider the reaction to the increase in base rates of 25 basis points in June 1998. At the time, commentators observed, as they still do, that it was a mistake. The distinguished economist Roger Bootle observed that the decision may in itself have contributed to a lack of confidence the following autumn. The TUC observed that the evidence simply did not support an increase at that time. William Keegan, the distinguished economic commentator, observed at the time that the MPC did not pay proper attention to business surveys; indeed, it ignored them. That is why the Treasury Committee observed:
  "It is too early to be sure that the interest rate increase of June 1998 was not a potentially serious mistake."
  My second main point is that we should ask ourselves whether the new monetary policy framework is accountable to this place and to the country at large. It is not enough for an independent monetary policy merely to hit an inflation target of 2.5 per cent. or anything else. Surely it is important for the process to have democratic legitimacy. The current system lacks such legitimacy. There is a democratic deficit.
  In opposing that view, proponents of the MPC, who think that it cannot be improved at all, point out that minutes are now produced two weeks after meetings—formerly they were produced six weeks afterwards—that voting records are disclosed in those minutes, and that there can be a public debate about the contents of the minutes. That does not amount to much accountability, and it is not enough by a long chalk.
  The Governor and members of the MPC said in their evidence that they are very responsive to demands for information about their activities. The Governor made the curious observation that he makes many speeches and talks to the business community a great deal. Members of the committee said that they would make sure that the Bank's regional agents got out more. Mervyn King suggested that he would conduct public opinion polls through the Bank to find out what the public thought about what was going on. That is pretty thin fare.

  213
  The Treasury Select Committee has at least made a start by agreeing to a recommendation to toughen up the accountability that is so sadly lacking in the current arrangements.
  One suggestion is that the MPC hold its monthly meetings outside Threadneedle street and away from London, in towns and cities the length and breadth of the country. One hopes that it would at least make a splash in the local newspaper and with the local business community. I am making an early bid for one such meeting to be held in the town of Bury St. Edmunds. I do not see why the Monetary Policy Committee should not be exposed to what life is like in the real economy—not only in big regional centres, but in market towns and rural areas. I shall write to the Governor of the Bank of England, extending that invitation to him. It is important to emphasise that point, because the Select Committee, with cross-party agreement, remarked that it was
  "surprising that no presentation of the differential effects of monetary policy on sectors of the economy and on regions has been made by the Bank since the MPC was formed."
  That is a lamentable omission.
  There are other ways in which we can ensure that the MPC is more accountable. In particular, we can ensure that not only the voting record but the views of each member of the MPC are disclosed. It might be argued that if members of the committee think that all their views will be recorded and attributed to them, they will be inhibited from free decision making, but that is not a convincing argument. We look forward to the recording of individual views, so that we may judge over a period the performance of individual members of the committee, and decide whether they are good at, or bad at, their job.
  Most important, we need to ensure that the confirmatory hearings, which all members of the Committee believe are a good idea, are placed on a statutory basis. Few of us were convinced by the Chancellor's view on the subject. He said that the very fact that nominees had to come before the Select Connnittee ensured that they did their homework, and that they were prepared to answer difficult questions. We need more than that. The Select Committee must have teeth—the power to veto nominees with which it is not happy. In that connection, the Select Cornmittee would be standing in the shoes of Parliament as a whole in ensuring that there was some democratic accountability on the part of the MPC and its members.
  Mr. Kidney: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about confirmatory hearings, can he confirm what he said about the veto? That is certainly not part of the practice of the Treasury Select Committee, or of the recommendation that it made, during the passage of the Bill that became the Bank of England Act 1998, about the procedure for confirmatory hearings.
  Mr. Ruffley: I see it as a natural future extension of the request from the Select Committee this week that the confirmatory hearings be placed on a statutory basis.
  My third and final point concerns the high level of sterling. We know that there is an implicit dilemma in achieving convergence on interest rates and inflation rates in preparation for joining the euro, in achieving an inflation objective of 2.5 per cent., and in getting sterling down so that it is at a level ready for entry to the
  214
  eurozone. I did not find the answers that we received from the Chancellor about whether that was a future possibility convincing. He talked about his current intention. He did not rule out the—probably covert—pursuit of an exchange rate policy while aiming to achieve an inflation objective. We shall wait with interest to see how the Government get sterling down—as they will have to if they seek entry to the European single currency.
  Finally, the shadow Chancellor announced this week that he would institute a commission to look at all the issues of which I speak—the absence of accountability, and the fact that we do not know whether the MPC has performed properly or not. Given that the Labour party did not tell us two days before the election about its position on an independent monetary policy, it is entirely right and proper that, two years before the next general election, we have a considered—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me this evening.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) has been very brave this evening. He is one of the few hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who voluntarily raised the issue of Bank of England independence, and the wonderful independent commission that the shadow Chancellor has set up—under his own stewardship. The shadow Chancellor is to chair his own commission that will consider whether the Conservatives should do a U-turn on their policy on Bank of England independence. How ignominious, how humiliating for them!
  In the wide-ranging debate tonight on economic stability and public services, the Conservatives had a great opportunity to oppose the Government and to show the world and the voters what their alternative would be and what their policies are. They have failed abysmally. Why? Because the Government are so successful with their economic policies, with the way in which the economy has been performing, and with the public expenditure plans that we have put in place, which leave so little to be criticised.
  Most of the attacks on the Government have focused on welfare, on various statistical anomalies that the Opposition like to talk about, on whether ISAs have been sufficiently successful, and of course on the perennial subject of Europe. The Conservatives were so desperate for hon. Members to help them out that even those on the Front Bench had to intervene on each other—an unprecedented parliamentary occasion. The Clerks looked extremely perplexed at that interesting innovation. The public outside will have to realise that that was a symptom of a failure to attack a Government who have been performing so well.
  Let us look at the state of the economy. Consumer spending is picking up well—2.5 per cent. in July. The growth in gross domestic product is coming into line with the Treasury prediction, coming in at 0.9 per cent. in July. Unemployment, simultaneously with low inflation, has come down from 1.58 million in January to 1.4 million in July.
  Headline inflation is now very low—1.2 per cent. in July—which helps pensioners and savers in particular by stopping savings being eroded and ensures that people are

  215
  rewarded for thrift and cautious planning for their future. I know that my constituents are extremely grateful to the Government for their policies, which have put in place such low inflation levels.
  That is the true characteristic of a one-nation party, because inflation at its present low level helps everyone. People can plan for the future with the certain knowledge that their savings and money will not be eaten away by other external factors. Our record on inflation is highly commendable. Over the summer months, we should continue to repeat how that contrasts with the Conservative record of prolonged double-digit inflation during the 1980s.
  Interest rates are extremely low, and mortgage rates are at their lowest for a generation. Home owners across the country and especially in Shipley are pleased that they have been able to plan for the future and borrow at an affordable rate.
  Even manufacturing output is edging upwards. Things are looking up for the economy. We have managed to steer ourselves through difficult international times by maintaining a careful course of stability, and by focusing on getting monetary policy and fiscal policy to work together in such a clever relationship.
  The monetary policy framework that we have put in place and the independence of the Bank of England have been a success. I should be interested to hear from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) his party's policy on the Bank of England's independence. I know that there are many different views, but does he agree with, for example, the shadow Chancellor who, only nine months ago, said, "We would not have given up control of interest rates in the first place", or with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), then the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the shadow Minister for Transport, who called it a wrong idea and a big mistake?
  Many Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen castigated the Government's policies, saying how dreadful and horrible it was that we were creating greater objectivity in monetary policy. Now, when they see the success that the policy has engendered, the only criticism that they have is exemplified by the empty Benches opposite. This is a sad and embarrassing day for them. It is degrading for the Front-Bench spokesmen. We shall watch their U-turn with great pleasure and relish during the summer months.
  I shall be interested to know what will happen to the Conservative party's fiscal policy during the summer months. It has made many spending commitments. Just tonight we have heard talk of the Territorial Army, and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pleaded for more money for defence. Earlier in the day, the shadow Home Secretary asked for tax relief for donations to political parties. Apparently, the odd couple of dozen million pounds does not matter too much.
  Earlier in the week, we heard the Conservatives' policy on London Underground. Instead of investing in London Underground, they want to privatise it and use the proceeds to pay for however many dozen new road schemes the right hon. Member for Wokingham recently put in his new transport policy document. London Members in particular will be curious to know whether
  216
  the Conservatives intend that any proceeds from the privatisation of London Underground should be ring-fenced for reinvestment in London, or whether it is now Conservative policy to spend that money in the rest of the country. I suspect that Lord Archer, in his campaign to become London mayor, will find that a difficult circle to square.
  A Conservative Front-Bench spokesman has committed himself to an extra £227 million for the police budget. Even the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph makes it clear that the Conservatives have committed themselves to massive extra expenditure. In March, its headline was "Hague's promise of free travel" for sixth form students. Their spending commitments are being piled on top of each other.
  The problem is that such commitments simultaneously undermine the Exchequer revenue. The Conservatives commit themselves to more and more expenditure, but at the same time undermine what is available for the public sector. As the Chief Secretary said earlier, on the past few Finance Bills the Conservatives opposed any changes to advance corporation tax, and they wanted to stop the changes to gambling duties. They argued in favour of retaining the foreign earnings deduction loophole. It is not clear whether that was for the benefit of Michael Ashcroft or others. A great policy is emerging to halve the rate of bingo duty. That should be at the forefront of their manifesto. They oppose the fuel and tobacco duty escalator and stamp duty. They may be only minor amounts, but they add up to a lot of lost revenue—£11 billion in this financial year. Such amounts are significant shortfalls. That money should and could be spent, and is being spent by the Government, on health and education. The Conservatives could not deliver that, particularly with all the other spending pledges that they have made.
  The Conservatives have a lot to answer for and, during the coming months and years in advance of the general election, the public will be less and less convinced by the Conservatives' abysmal failure to attack the Government. The risk that they pose, and the threat that the British people would face should they ever be returned to office, becomes clearer and clearer when their policies are compared with the stability and prosperity engendered by the Labour Government.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: It is extremely useful for the House to debate public expenditure and the economy, and the fascinating speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) provided evidence of that—it was an education for us all. I hope that the Economic Secretary will either tell us that she will induce the Leader of the House to provide another such occasion or let us into the secret of when there will be one. Clearly, we should have such debates more often.
  The debate occurs against a certain background. It centres on certain facts; the causes, the concealment and the effects of those facts; and certain contrasts. What is that background? My hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) made it quite clear: over 18 years, the economy experienced probably the most radical micro-economic surgery in economic history that has ever been experienced by any sick patient. It created not only

  217
  a golden economic legacy, but a fundamentally sound economy. [Interruption.] Labour Members are regaling themselves with amusements, as I rather imagined that they would, so they will be interested to know that that view is propagated by the organisation that is well known to be a mere proponent of the Conservative party—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  Now we move on to certain facts, which have come out well in the debate. We owe a great deal to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) who, in an interesting speech, spelt out clearly what has happened in respect of the well-known vast increases in spending on health and education. In a number of speeches, my hon. Friends brought out the fact that there is an extraordinary contrast between what everybody believes is the case—spending on health and education is huge—and what we see in our schools and hospitals and what we hear. Why is there such a contrast? Because there has not been any huge increase in health and education spending.
  Health and education spending will be broadly the same as a proportion of gross domestic product at the end of the Government's tenure as it was at the beginning and the rates of increase will be broadly similar to those achieved under the previous Government. That is why the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—when all those matters were first being discussed and contrary to myths that have been propagated from time to time—said:
  "The Chancellor hopes that we will oppose his plans to spend more money on health and education, but I am going to disappoint him."—[Official Report, 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 195.]
  We were able to disappoint him on that score because not much more money is being spent at all, but something else is happening.
  Mr. Rammell: If those expenditure plans do not amount to a great deal more than the expenditure plans of the previous Conservative Government, why were they described as reckless and unsustainable when they were introduced by this Government?
  Mr. Letwin: I shall return to the reckless and unsustainable spending with a vengeance; we will get to that in a moment and the hon. Gentleman will be more than satisfied on that score.
  Something else has happened and we have another fact to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who gave us a classically forensic exposition, brought it out, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) before him. There have been £40 billion of stealth taxes—£1,500 for every taxpayer in this country. People have had £40 billion extra of tax money taken from them; it has been popped into the Chancellor's coffers and there has been no noticeable additional spending on health and education compared with the previous position.
  What has caused that apparent anomaly? The reckless and extravagant spending to which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) referred: £70 a month for each person in this country—or £38 billion a year extra—will be spent on welfare by the end of the period. That has come out clearly in the debate, but the extent to which the future has been mortgaged has not. Post-dated cheques
  218
  are being issued. Growth in welfare spending creates growth in welfare spending, the more so when the incentives that it creates are misconceived—a 69 per cent. withdrawal rate has been imposed on a huge new section of the population—and people are given incentives to behave in ways that are likely to make them more, rather than less, dependent in the future.
  That is the reality of the so-called "welfare reform". It is not welfare reform; it is welfare increase. It is not even welfare increase; it is spending increase on welfare, which will diminish welfare in the true sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness referred to it as a set of IOUs. It is not welfare into work—
  Mr. Milburn: It is torture.
  Mr. Letwin: It is certainly torture. It will be torture for large numbers of taxpayers for many years to come because they will have to continue to foot the bills not just of this Administration but of many Administrations to come.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. If one looks at the percentage of national income that goes into tax, expenditure and borrowing, the percentage that is taken in tax is more or less the same under this Government as it was under the previous one and the percentage on expenditure is more or less the same. The only change is the percentage on borrowing, which has gone down.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point: the figures look like that so long as one relies on concealment, which has bedevilled this whole debate recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton brought this issue out extremely clearly. I challenge any Labour Member who cares to spend a nightmare holiday on the beach to peruse the Chancellor's ghastly document—some will have done so already—and to make sense of it. It is never easy to make sense of the public accounts of any country, but no country in the world has managed to produce quite such an obfuscation and concealment. By redefining spending as not spending, by readjusting adjustments as nothing but adjustments, which turn out to be massive expenditure, and by various other obscure means, the Government have managed to concoct so devilishly cunning a scheme that even the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is, unfortunately, beguiled by it.
  Mr. Blunt: Even?
  Mr. Letwin: I say "even", because I fear that many Labour Members would be much more easily beguiled—and have been, as their speeches all too clearly illustrated.
  The effect of the disastrous logic that we face is partly short term and partly long term. The short-term effect is that, in 1997, the colossal and probably half-conscious fiscal squeeze that the Government applied to the economy in the apparent pursuit of prudence forced a downturn to occur, which the Bank of England heroically tried to diminish through its interest rate policy. Although little unemployment is being generated, that is because of the background of the colossal micro-shifts and the vast structural changes to which I referred.

  219
  What we must worry about much more than that short-term effect is the long-term effect of what the Government are doing. The long-term effect arises not only from £30 billion of extra tax on business, but from a series of extra burdens: the working time directive; the national minimum wage; the unfair dismissal regulations; the parental leave directive; and the working families tax credit. According to the Institute of Directors, all those add up to some £5 billion of additional costs to business, on top of the business tax. That is why people such as Professor Minford forecast a net long-term increase of some 800,000 in the unemployment figures due to the Government's policies. That is even more worrying than the short-term effect.
  Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman read out an impressive list of measures, many of which have been extremely popular with the public. Which of those would he cut?
  Mr. Letwin: Once the hon. Lady sees how some of those measures have been implemented and their effects over time, she will be coming to us offering suggestions of how we can deal with them when we next find ourselves in government.
  There is another item on the agenda. The problem is not just the background and the causes, concealment and effects of these disastrous facts: it is the contrasts. The contrast between reality and presentation applies not only to health and education, but across the board. Many of my hon. Friends have brought that out clearly in the debate.
  There is the Prime Minister's famous statement—not yet famous enough—that
  "we've no plans to increase tax at all."
  Mr. Leslie: Income tax.
  Mr. Letwin: No, he did not say income tax. In the Financial Times on 21 September 1995, he said:
  "we've no plans to increase tax at all."
  The Prime Minister either said that at that time or he did not, or he changed his mind after that time. The fact is that the Prime Minister said it and has not done it. That is the contrast to which I am referring, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), alas, cannot get out of it.
  That is by no means the end of the contrast. The Prime Minister has been at great pains, aided and abetted by his Chancellor, to make it seem that there are not all these dreadful stealth taxes that the Tories keep going on about. It was odd, therefore, that he said that
  "the tax burden will increase over this Parliament".—[Official Report, 3 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 1075-76.]
  There is even a contrast between what the Prime Minister tells people when he is outside the House and what he bothers to tell us when he is inside the House and is on the record, so he knows that he has to try to tell the truth.
  The situation is even worse on welfare. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and several other of my hon. Friends showed the extent of the contrast between what was said about welfare and what is
  220
  happening on welfare. In addition to all the items that they quoted, I quote another: a speech again by no less a figure than the Prime Minister and to no less a body than the parliamentary Labour party in Church house on 7 May 1997. He said:
  "I have asked Ministers at the Department of Social Security"—
  I take it that he included the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the then Minister for so-called Welfare Reform—
  "to look in detail at how we can make far reaching reforms that will tackle insecurity and poverty as well as reducing social security bills."
  He asked the right hon. Member for Birkenhead to do that, but when he had done it, the Prime Minister got rid of him, and made sure that our welfare system would go on growing from now roughly to eternity.
  That is the set of contrasts that we are dealing with. It is say one thing and do another. It is talk about long-term stability, and act to undermine the economic foundations of the restructuring that we so painfully engaged in for 18 years. It is talk about a cost-free health and education expenditure boom, and act to tax by stealth to fund welfare payments. It is talk about economic transparency, and then produce probably the least transparent and most obscure set of non-accounts that have ever been produced by any Government of this country.
  That is the record. It is a record that I would be ashamed of if I were in government. It is a record that the Government still have some time to put right, at least in one respect—they probably cannot undo the rest of the damage. They could at least give us an honest set of accounts next year. They could make it possible for the nation to tell whether what I am saying is right or wrong, because they could make it possible for commentators to understand what is in the Budget statement.
  I beg the Economic Secretary to make us the tiny promise that, next year, the Government will offer us a Budget statement that an ordinary, moderately intelligent person can make his or her way through, so that they can work out what is spending and what is tax, and how much adds up on one side of the sheet and how much on the other. That would be a major benefit to this country, although it would not, I admit, be a major benefit to the electoral prospects of the Labour party.
  9.44 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): This has been an extremely interesting and well-informed debate, largely due to excellent contributions from my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am afraid that I cannot say the same for the contributions of members of the Opposition Front-Bench team. That is perhaps unkind, and I recognise that we must make allowances for the fact that it is the last day of term. It is a well-known tradition that, on the last day of term, children are allowed to bring their favourite toys to school. I think that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) brought along his favourite speech.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) accurately, but perhaps also unkindly, said, the right hon. Member for Wells completely avoided mentioning the Bank of England in his opening contribution. He left that extremely important issue to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley).

  221
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not want to be reminded—but I shall remind him—of what he said in the House on 26 October 1998, in response to an intervention from a Labour Member. He said:
  "The hon. Gentleman has obviously already forgotten that we voted against the Bank of England Bill on Second and Third Reading. We also argued against its provisions in Standing Committee."—[Official Report, 26 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 39.]
  Well, we do not forget, the City has not forgotten and the country has not forgotten. The fact is that, as several hon. Members pointed out this evening, the Conservative party has persistently opposed the independence that we granted to the Bank of England, and the creation of a successful monetary policy framework that is delivering the lowest long-term interest rates and the lowest mortgage rates for more than 30 years. The Conservatives are opposed to that successful policy, and their spokesman has nothing whatever to say on the subject.
  Mr. Letwin: The Economic Secretary has mentioned something that was mentioned several times by her colleagues. Would she expect interest and mortgage rates to be high at a time of significant economic downturn?
  Ms Hewitt: The excellent report published by the Select Committee on the Treasury on this subject rightly reflects the success that is being achieved by the removal of politics from interest-rate decisions. We are seeing that success in the fall in long-term interest rates, and in the narrowing of differentials between our interest rates and those of our European counterparts.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) both referred, in excellent speeches, to the benefits that are already being seen in their constituencies as a result of our additional investment in schools, hospitals and housing. What did the right hon. Member for Wells have to say about that additional investment? He said that the extra money was being spent on all the wrong things. All the wrong things? The money is being spent on hospitals, schools, elderly people and the highest-ever increase in child benefit for families with children. Are those, in the eyes of the present Conservative party, "all the wrong things"?
  We know, and have known for some time, what the Conservative party is now against. It is against independence for the Bank of England, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal. Now we want to know what the Conservatives would cut. Would they cut the extra spending on hospitals and on schools, the additional money being made available to elderly people, or the record increase in child benefit?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) made, as we would all expect, an excellent speech. Like many others who spoke today, I thank him and his colleagues on the Select Committee—members of all parties—for their excellent report on the new monetary police framework. The Committee is playing an extremely valuable role in enhancing the transparency and accountability of the framework.
  Mr. Blunt: The Economic Secretary speaks of transparency and accountability. Will she deal with the point made so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member
  222
  for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) about the questions tabled during the 1980s by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), which her Department was unable to answer when they were tabled in precisely the same form by my hon. Friend?
  Ms Hewitt: I understand that the hon. Gentleman supports the independence of the Bank of England and the new monetary policy framework. I am surprised that he did not intervene to congratulate us on implementing a policy that is supported by him, but opposed by his Front Bench.
  In an extremely constructive speech—it was perhaps a little long, but it was very constructive—the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to the new public service agreements, an important innovation in ensuring that we achieve the modernisation and results that we need from our public services. I remind him that, in December, we published in the White Paper, "Public services for the future—modernisation, reform, accountability" the first tranche of the public service agreements. They are there in the public domain for all to see—the targets that we have set for improvements in public services. They include reductions in hospital in-patient waiting lists, reductions in class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, and reductions in the time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders, who for years under the previous Government were allowed to get away with it.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton raised the Select Committee on Procedure report that was published yesterday on debates on expenditure plans. Of course, we will want to consider carefully that extremely thoughtful report and will respond to it in due course, but the report's recommendations are primarily addressed to how Parliament can use the opportunities that are already available to it, rather than a matter for the Government themselves.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) raised the question of Kosovo and whether the costs of both the war and reconstruction in Kosovo and the western Balkans will threaten public finances. I assure him, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has assured the House on other occasions, that, because of the healthy state of public finances, there is no threat to the public finances from the demands that will be made, rightly, by reconstruction in the region.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the wider issue of the state of the public finances. He rightly criticised the record of the Conservative Administration, who, in 1993–04, raised public sector borrowing to £50 billion, the highest level that it has reached since the war. I hope that he and other Conservative Members will congratulate the Government on the fact that, in the first two years alone, they cut borrowing by £32 billion; that total net borrowing over the next five years will be lower than in any one single year in the previous Parliament; and that we are forecasting, and will deliver, current budget surpluses totalling £34 billion over the next five years, compared with a deficit under the previous Government over the previous cycle of a staggering £149 billion.

  223
  The hon. Gentleman raised in particular his fears about what would happen to the national debt. As I have said, the national debt doubled in the early 1990s under the Conservative party, but, if he looks at the projections in the financial statement and Budget report in table B6, he will find that the national debt is set to fall from a peak of over 44 per cent. of GDP in 1996–97 to under 40 per cent. this year and to under 35 per cent. in 2003–04.
  Sir Richard Body: In the Budget statement, that is not the forecast. Perhaps the Minister will good enough to remind herself. The figure will go up again. It is true that there has been a small surplus in the past two years, but, as I pointed out, that was the result of a time lag following decisions by the previous Government.
  Ms Hewitt: As I have already said, current budget surpluses will total £34 billion over the next five years and the national debt will fall substantially as a proportion of GDP, compared with the peak that was reached.
  Mr. Gibb: The hon. Lady has trotted out the £34 billion figure that I referred to, which is the so-called current surplus over the next five years—1999 to 2003–04. Why has she chosen five years? Why not six years? Why not four years? What is the reason for the five-year period?
  Ms Hewitt: It is the lifetime of this Parliament, and a perfectly reasonable period to choose.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No, I shall not give way again. I am sorry, but this has been a lengthy debate, and I should like to do justice to the many speeches that we have heard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), in a thoughtful speech, stressed again the improvement in public finances, the investment in public services, the achievement of economic stability and—underlining the point made by the Select Committee on the Treasury—the success of our new monetary policy framework in avoiding recession despite the world financial crisis.
  The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) raised the issue of health spending. I should remind the House of the facts on health spending: over the comprehensive spending review period of 1998–99 to 2001–02, there will be real annual average growth of 4.7 per cent. in national health service spending; and, over the entire Parliament, there will be a real annual increase of 3.7 per cent. We should compare those percentages with an annual increase of 2.5 per cent. in the previous Parliament, and with an increase of a mere 3 per cent. in the 18 years of the previous, Conservative Government. On both measures, therefore, the Government are providing a significantly higher annual real increase in funding for our hospitals and the national health service.
  224
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, in a typically well-informed and excellent speech, raised the extremely important issue of separating capital and revenue accounting, and stressed the importance of doing so to ensure that we achieve the levels of long-term investment that the economy needs. He was absolutely right on those points. I simply draw his attention to the Government's plans to introduce resource accounting and budgeting, which will ensure that, in the public sector, we do indeed have proper accounting for both capital and revenue.
  For much of his speech, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton seemed to be suffering from amnesia—he quite clearly forgot the 22 tax rises under the previous, Conservative Government. Like other Opposition Members, he also mentioned social security spending. It is worth remembering that, under this Government, social security spending will rise by a mere 2 per cent. annually—which is half the level that was achieved by the previous Government.
  In contrast to the previous Government—who preached an end to the dependency culture, but locked millions of people into dependence on means-tested benefit—we are reforming the welfare system, so that it springs people out of the trap of unemployment. The success of our policy is demonstrated by the contribution that welfare to work is making to the fact that 400,000 more people are employed in the United Kingdom now than were employed at the time of the previous general election.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No, I shall not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have been generous in giving way, but we are running short of time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) rightly mentioned the years of Conservative neglect of public transport—a neglect that we are now having to make good.
  Finally, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), in a tortured speech, referred not only to health but to education. I remind him that, under the Labour Government, in the three years of the CSR period, there will be a 5.1 per cent. annual real increase in investment in our schools; and that, in the whole period of 1996–97 to 2001–02, there will be a 2.9 per cent. real annual increase. The final percentage should also be compared with the 1.5 per cent. real annual increase under the previous, Conservative Government—demonstrating that we have virtually doubled real annual growth in the United Kingdom's education budget. It is a tribute to our commitment to education, education, education.
  The Government are determined to get rid of the boom and bust of the Conservative years. We are delivering low inflation, the lowest interest rates for 30 years, rising employment and a reform of the welfare system that is delivering opportunity—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Cancer Services (Colchester)
  10 pm
  Mr. Bob Russell: I wish to present a petition in the name of my constituent, Mrs. Susan Brooks, and signed by approximately 25,000 residents of Colchester and elsewhere in the county of Essex concerning cancer services. For the third time in 10 years, the local cancer services are the subject of a review.
  The petition states:
  The petition of the Evening Gazette, published in Colchester, and residents of Colchester and surrounding areas of Essex
  Declares that we are opposed to the closure of cancer treatment services in Colchester.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to do all in his power to ensure that cancer treatment services continue to be provided in the town and that a cancer centre of excellence be built in Colchester.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

House Procedures (Reform)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Peter Bradley: It is a privilege—if I may use that word—to have the last hurrah of the summer. I see that Opposition Members have stayed behind for this Adjournment and I do not know whether I should disappoint them now or later, but my speech contains no mention of sex, drugs, rock and roll or Michael Ashcroft. I have no wish to keep hon. Members from the beach or the Minister from exercising his right to roam. However, I wish to make some serious points about the way in which we conduct our business in the House.
Although our traditions are important, they too frequently oppress originality of thought, expression and debate and limit our ability to serve—and remember that we serve—our constituents as effectively as we should.
I have contemplated initiating this debate almost from the day that I entered the House and for the past two years I have effectively bitten my tongue and suppressed my growing indignation. Had I spoken before, my views might have been uncharacteristically ill-considered and intemperate, but now, as all will recognise, I have matured with experience on the Back Benches and am widely recognised as a man of sound judgment who commands respect from all sides of the House as a consensus politician. I believe, therefore, that the time is right to state my views.
Some of my early frustrations in the House have certainly dissipated. For example, I am not sure that I would support the introduction of electronic voting in the House. Although voting in the Lobby does not guarantee that right hon. and hon. Members know what has been debated or what they are deciding, it gives them access to Ministers and that is an essentially democratic experience for them and for us. It provides the opportunity—which I have taken on many occasions—to raise important issues on behalf of constituents.
Other reforms are long overdue, however, and I find the pace of change painfully slow. I ask myself frequently what the Modernisation Committee has achieved. Thursday morning sittings are not much of a breakthrough and certainly offer no solutions to the late night sittings and the early morning Committees that mean that exhausted Members of Parliament are increasingly detached from family life and are often too shattered and too drained to do the work that they need to do on behalf of their constituents.
I grant that there have been advances and I particularly welcome the break with the 500-year-old tradition, dating back to the days of Henry VII, of printing Acts of Parliament on vellum made from animal hide. I believe that that break with tradition represents a great leap to freedom for the goat, but not much of a step forward for mankind.

227
This is a radical and reforming Government. Yet it is accountable to a Parliament which is top-heavy with tradition, cloaked in almost a masonic ritual and bound by labyrinthine procedures so complex, convoluted and arcane that only men in wigs are masters of them.
Mr. Tony McNulty: Leave the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) alone.
Mr. Bradley: With some honourable, and less honourable, exceptions.
There are procedures in this House that are so deliberately mysterious and obtuse as to be impenetrable to the majority of hon. Members—and, more importantly and more damagingly, to the public whom we serve. That is a serious point. Turn-outs in local and European elections are down because people, for whatever reason, have become disengaged from the democratic process. They love the pageantry and tradition of Parliament, but do they understand it? Does it speak to them, or for them? Do they own it, and own this institution?
It is a disgrace that the public are so unwelcome in this place. When they visit, they must queue outside in the wind and rain, and when they enter, there are precious few catering facilities open to them and few toilets for them to use. This is their Parliament—this is where they send us to make their laws. This is not our place. None of us was born to rule. We are sent here on licence and for a purpose—to serve our constituents, to interpret their aspirations, to meet their needs and to speak for them.
But even the language used in this place is a private language. In this Chamber, no one has a name, and we must all refer to each other as hon. or right hon. Members when the large majority of us do not believe that of ourselves, far less of each other. I have worked out that the longest form of address in this House would be for a Privy Councillor who was a commissioned officer, a Queen's counsel and the son of a duke, marquis or earl. He would be the right hon. gallant and learned noble Lord, the Member for Folderol.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: He could be a reverend as well.
Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for that intervention. I would submit that what I have described is not a form of address, but a filibuster. A former right hon. Member of this place, not content with having a title and a double-barrelled name—Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, who adorned this place from 1950 to 1962—had to be referred to as the right hon. learned and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough—or presumably just as the Soke of Peterborough for short. [Interruption.] Conservative Members knew him better than I do.
I spoke of a private language. This is a place where we may abolish the House of Lords, but not mention it in our proceedings; where we pass laws expressed in a language of statute which few of us can penetrate and which would be meaningless to our constituents for whom those laws are framed. I would submit that that is nonsense—but it does not have to be that way.
228
In the Scottish Parliament—born of centuries of history but unburdened by them—they meet in the morning and they finish their business in the afternoon. It has agendas that even I can understand, and it allows Members to call each other by name without necessarily ensuring that they are two sword-lengths apart—and the world north of the border simply has not ended.
Why can we not speak the language of our constituents when we claim to speak on their behalf? We wander corridors in the Palace of Westminster and sit in Committee Rooms hung with second-rate portraits of forgotten grandees who frown down upon our deliberations. Why do we not tear them down and replace them, for example, with views of our constituencies and of our constituents—views of life in contemporary Britain? That would inspire us more purposefully than the eminent Victorians who currently hang there in suspended animation.
Our detachment from the outside world is both insidious and dangerous. There are men in this place who have never been properly exposed to the harsh realities through which their constituents too often have to live—sometimes because of what we do here.
I call it the oak-panelled syndrome. Men born into oak-panelled manor houses, who attend oak-panelled prep schools and oak-panelled public schools, graduate to oak-panelled Oxbridge colleges or to Sandhurst, then go to oak-panelled inns of court and clubs in St. James's and make their progress from the Commons to the Lords, until they are interred in an oak casket.
Too many conceive of this place as a club, defined as much by those who are excluded as by those who are admitted. That exclusivity is pernicious and often nasty. I remember with shock and shame when the Lawrences were sitting beneath the Gallery and Opposition Members were making mischief about the writ for the Newark by-election; when my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) sought to intervene with the Chair to move to the statement on the Lawrence inquiry, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I mean no offence to you—said:
"I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no one in the Chamber apart from right hon. and hon. Members."—[Official Report, 29 March 1999: Vol. 328, c. 753.]
That was not only insensitive but demonstrably untrue. It is an Alice in Wonderland sense of reality so distorted that we see only ourselves here. That is to our shame.
Exclusivity is not limited by background or political persuasion. Just as it corrupts our relations with the outside world, a seductive but unhealthy exclusivity exists between hon. Members. So arcane are the rules and procedures of the House that one needs to have been here for at least 30 years to have mastered them. Those who have—Members and Officers alike—constitute a club within the club; an institution within the institution; an establishment within the establishment.
That establishment transcends political differences. No matter how radical or opposed to privilege hon. Members may profess to be, they use their knowledge of the procedures to their own advantage and too frequently to the disadvantage of others. Why should those who, simply because of their longevity or long service here, have spoken many times before, be allowed to speak many times again, before a younger and newer Member of Parliament is allowed to contribute ideas, energy or enthusiasm to the debate?

229
I was fortunate enough to be called to speak on the first day of Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill, but I lost count of the number of my hon. Friends who had spent time considering what they wanted to say and researching and preparing their speeches, and then spent two days in the Chamber without being called. That is a waste of time and energy. They could far more usefully have spent that time serving their constituents. There is a need for more equity in the arrangement of our debates. There is simple common sense in at least letting hon. Members know whether they are likely to be called. That would refresh and improve the standard of debate.
Life in the House is improbable, but I have discovered that death is impossible. Black Rod may batter at our doors, but the grim reaper does not have an official pass. When, sadly, a Minister in the previous Government died at the Dispatch Box, Hansard records that he ceased in mid-sentence, and marks his demise as "Sitting suspended." If the four horsemen of the apocalypse were to gallop headlong into the Chamber, breathing fire and brimstone, I have no doubt that a Conservative Member would have the presence of mind to seize a collapsible top hat and cry "I spy strangers." Those words would no doubt be inscribed on vellum and published in Hansard shortly before the world ended.
Reform is overdue. One reform was suggested to me this afternoon. I know that Conservative Members, in particular, like conspiracy theories involving politicians and journalists, but I believe that we should allow journalists access to the Terrace. That would mean that, when we plotted and conspired with them, at least they would be able to buy a round.
I am a great respecter of tradition, but we are weighed down with it in the House and that is not good for us. It does not help us to serve. It prevents the House from working as effectively, efficiently and equitably as it should.
The Government have a radical, modernising constitutional agenda, which has all but bypassed Parliament, and that is wrong. The Modernisation Committee must be bolder and try harder; otherwise, as we lurch into the 21st century, it is in danger of dragging us kicking and screaming into the 19th. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can be more radical when he replies.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): To debate reform of procedure at this late hour and with the school holidays well under way may seem ironic. After what has been said about the conventions of the House, it is with caution that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on securing this debate. Presumably he applied for it about a fortnight ago. In the meantime—last Wednesday—he demonstrated some of the merits of the House's conventions on freedom of speech. His actions were not without controversy, even though he admits to increasing maturity.
Before I address what has been said about our procedures and practices, let me remind the House that some changes have been made in the last two years. Despite what has been said, there is no longer any risk of this debate being interrupted by the apocalypse, or by hon. Members spying strangers or raising points of order while
230
wearing an opera hat. Neither need we be concerned that the military background of any hon. Members who seek to intervene in this debate will lead to them being referred to by the term "gallant"—the Modernisation Committee put that tradition away in the cupboard. At the same time, the precedence of Privy Councillors in debate has been dispensed with.
I understand what has been said about the conventions of addressing the Chair, referring to other Members as honourable and referring to their constituencies rather than surnames. Personally, I do not get enough opportunity to use the word "Bradley" in this House. My colleagues in the Ministry of Defence can say the word "Bradley" when they talk about military tactics and vehicles. Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment, when answering the frequent debates on devolved theories of the metaphysical basis of absolute idealism, may invoke the memory of the philosopher Francis Herbert Bradley. Even my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport may talk about Bill Bradley, who played basketball for the New York Knickerbockers before becoming Democratic Senator for New Jersey.
It is strange that we can now call Sebastian Coe by his real name since he ceased to be the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. However, that other Olympic runner must remain the right hon. and learned Member for North—East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
As hon. Members will know, others have tried before to reform some stranger aspects of this place. Richard Crossman tried to abolish the Clerks' wigs. His diary records that
"I even got the Cabinet to grant the wish of the Clerks at the Table to have their wigs abolished—despite the Prime Minister's proposal that they should wear them during Question Time and take them off at 3.30 pm."
In the event, the motion to abolish the wigs fell because the Opposition did not support the change.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin—as I call him more in affection than by tradition—has fallen foul of these conventions from time to time. His political career nearly came to an untimely end on 1 February this year when he said:
"The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The point is that in your election guide in 1997, your party made great play of the fact—"
At that point, the Deputy Speaker called him to order and said:
"The hon. Gentleman should use the correct form of address. He is addressing me at the moment."
To which my hon. Friend replied:
"Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The conventions of this House require attention, like the conventions of the other House."—[Official Report, 1 February 1996; Vol. 324, c. 674.]
My hon. Friend recovered later when he described the Opposition spokesman on constitutional matters—the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—as the Scarlet Pimpernel:
"They seek him here, they seek him there, but they cannot find him anywhere".—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c 666.]
That remark was in the highest traditions of invective in the House—it amused all present and left the victim uncertain whether to feel flattered or insulted.
The convention that remarks are addressed to the Chair is not unique to this House and its advantages are well known. Apart from avoiding overly personal remarks,

231
it avoids ambiguity about who is being addressed. In a packed House such as tonight's, confusion would easily arise if my remarks were not addressed to the Chair.
To many new Members, it seemed old-fashioned that Members were referred to not by name, but by constituency. Apart from anything else, it involved learning not just the names and faces of fellow Members but also constituency names—not all of which are as distinctive as The Wrekin or Sherwood. I recently heard the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) refer to the Member for "Easter Island"—what a treat it would be to represent such an exotic place.
A senior Member put all this into context for me when he said:
"I wish to make one point about our practice of calling hon. Members by their constituencies rather than by their names. I have always been proud to be the Member of Parliament for Ashton-Under-Lyne. It is my constituency and I am not here because I am myself, but because I represent the people of my constituency. It would be a retrograde step if we were to abandon that practice."—[Official Report, 13 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 1072.]
The third strand of our conventions is wording—is another Member hon. or right hon. or a Member or a Friend? I do not recall any hon. Member being called to order for omitting the "hon.". We have all tripped over whether a particular Member is "right" as well as "hon." or whether to say "Friend" or "Member". I am told that in the House of Lords, peers refer to extended relatives who are also peers as "my noble kinsman". It would give us all a great deal of pleasure if my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) described my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) as his "right hon. kinsman". Perhaps we should not encourage such familiarity, given the record number of Members with a spouse in the House. Who knows where such intimacy might lead?
When the House resumes in October we will have a debate on the procedural consequences of devolution, and will be able to compare procedures in the devolved legislatures with those operated here. Some of us may envy the opportunities that the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales have had to start with a clean sheet. How different things might be if we could start again from scratch. We will be able to watch how the new procedures in Edinburgh and Cardiff work in practice, and there will be lessons to learn and new methods to copy. We should not be afraid of trying to identify good and improved practice elsewhere or of considering its introduction here.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister is replying engagingly to an engaging speech by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). Will he address one point? The hon. Gentleman was critical of the Select Committee on Modernisation, but was guilty of a misunderstanding. The Committee has made serious proposals that deserve the attention of the House, but it has run into extreme difficulty among the dinosaurs, particularly those who are part of the usual channels.
232
The House must decide on the modernisation of our procedures rather than allowing the Opposition or the Government to do it.
Mr. Tipping: The autumn will bring experimental sittings in Westminster Hall, allowing four more Back Benchers' debates a week. It will also enable three dozen more Select Committee reports to be debated each year. Refinements will be needed as we learn how those sittings work. It will be interesting to see whether the semi-circular layout of the Grand Committee Room encourages a different atmosphere and more informal style of debate.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I wish the hon. Gentleman a good recess but does he agree that the only modernisation or experiments that count are those that bring more life back into this Chamber?
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman sheds light with all that he says. I read his columns with much interest. The task before us is to encourage the Westminster Hall experiment but ensure that the prime focus remains in this Chamber.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Tipping: I am not going to give way any more.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am a kinsman.
Mr. Tipping: As my hon. Friend is a kinsman, I give way.
Mr. Mackinlay: The real radical changes that are required involve not the cosmetics of wigs and silk stockings but whether we can make the Chamber able to scrutinise the Executive and make them accountable to this place. That is what has been eroded over many years, not just by this Government, and it should be repatriated by a radical Government to this place.
Mr. Tipping: As my hon. Friend knows, I am keen to give Back Benchers an opportunity to raise and pursue issues, as he just did so vigorously. The Westminster Hall experiment will give us an opportunity to do that but we can do far more.
I am delighted that the end of this year will see stage 1 of the reformed House of Lords, if all goes to plan. We can only speculate on the effect that the departure of 90 per cent. of hereditary peers will have on that place. The removal of the hereditary element will be the most dramatic form of modernisation of our Parliament, a truly radical reform of our procedures of which we can all be proud.
We must recognise that over the past two years several improvements have been made in our procedures. The work of Select Committees in pre-legislative scrutiny has been widely welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin played an important part in examining the draft Freedom of Information Bill as a member of the Public Administration Committee. When that and other draft Bills come to the House in their final form, we will all benefit from greater scrutiny. The quality of the eventual Acts of Parliament will be all the better.

233
As part of the process of improving the quality of legislation, we have also published new explanatory notes setting out the purpose and implications of each Government Bill, giving a detailed commentary on each clause. What is more, they are written in a language that we can all understand.
I talked earlier about getting rid of the term "gallant", and the Modernisation Committee has done that. It has done other things. The report on conduct in the Chamber published in March last year talked about greater flexibility in time limits on speeches. Tonight, we had a 15-minute rule on speeches. We relaxed the rules on quotations from other proceedings. The farce of opera hats and spying strangers has gone. The scrutiny of European documents has been extended as promised in our manifesto.
One reform that was examined but not proceeded with was electronic voting. The Modernisation Committee—I think that this was the point of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—consulted all Members but none of the options commanded the support of more than 13 per cent. of those who responded. Despite what was said tonight, I think that we will eventually return to that.
234
Only last week, the Modernisation Committee reported on how the new arrangements for Thursday sittings have worked and concluded that on the evidence that it had received, the balance between work in Westminster and in our constituencies had been maintained. Its report conclusively showed that the topics for discussion, the substance and the extra time available constituted a useful and radical step forward.
In closing my remarks, I turn to an annual procedure and tradition—the summer recess. It will be a time not only for rest but to address the concerns of all our constituents, who live in the real world. More importantly, it gives us time to reflect and formulate proposals for change. Our procedures have changed, and I anticipate that they will continue to do so. The rate of change is in our hands. With that, I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House and its staff and all my colleagues an enjoyable break.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am sure that I reciprocate the Minister's final remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the(a) purpose and (b) activities over the past 12 months of the (i) Horizontal Questions Working Group, (ii) General Affairs Working Group and (iii) Quality of Legislation Working Group, meeting at European Communities level. [91877]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Horizontal Questions Working Group reports to the Internal Market Council, and deals with cross-cutting issues concerning the internal market. Cabinet Office interest in the Working Group is confined to discussions on better regulation and simplification of legislation at the European level.

  The General Affairs Working Group reports primarily to the General Affairs Council (i.e. Foreign Ministers) and deals with a very wide range of general EU internal (co-ordination, institutions, etc.) and external (foreign relations) matters. Cabinet Office interest is via the Civil Service Corporate Management (CSCM) in discussing terms and conditions of employment of European civil servants (i.e. those employed in the Commission, Council Secretariat, European Parliament Secretariat, etc.) and in terms and conditions for MEPs.

  The Quality of Legislation Working Group, a time-limited group is working on the negotiation of an Inter-Institutional Agreement (i.e. between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council) on the quality of drafting of Community legislation. Cabinet

  April 1997 to March 1998

  April 1998 to March 1999

  Members

  Chair

  Members

  Chair

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  3

  1

  4

  0

  Advisory Committee on Advertising

  0

  1

  6

  0

  18 Male

  10 Male

  Advisory Committee on JPs

  19 Female

  0

  7 Female

  0

  Better Regulation Task Force

  15

  1

  2

  0

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  9

  1

  11

  0

  Committee on Standards in Public Life

  8

  1

  1

  0

  Security Commission

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  5

  1

  0

  0

  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

  1

  0

  0

  0

  British Government Panel on Sustainable Development

  0

  0

  5

  1

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  0

  0

  4

  1

  People's Panel Advisory Group

  5

  1

  0

  0

  The Government have made some progress in increasing representation of women, members of ethnic minority groups and of people with disabilities. Full departmental plans on equal opportunities were published by the
  156
  Office interest is via the Cabinet Office Legal Advisors (COLA), the Regulatory Impact Unit (RIU) and its legal advisers.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will not be making a statement at this stage.

  Public Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will list the chairmen appointed to those bodies in those years, similarly broken down. [92518]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  For the purposes of this answer it includes appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and those made by the Prime Minister to public bodies for which the Cabinet Office is responsible.

  The public bodies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible as Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are: the Advisory Committee on Advertising; the Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside; the Better Regulation Task Force; the Civil Service Appeal Board and the People's Panel Advisory Group.

  The Prime Minister appoints members to: the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; the Committee on Standards in Public Life; the Security Commission and Security Vetting Appeals Panel; the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee; the British Government Panel on Sustainable Development and the Senior Salaries Review Body. There are no ministerial appointments to positions in the Women's National Commission.

  The details of appointments made are given in the table. However, while appointments have been made to women and members of ethnic minority groups I am unable, with the exception of gender information for the Advisory Committee on JPs, to disclose the numbers as to do so would risk identifying individuals without their consent.

  Government on 25 May 1999 and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The plans set objectives and targets for improving representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and from people with disabilities.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what funding programmes local drug rehabilitation and prevention organisations can apply for under the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [93202]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Local drug service providers can bid to provide services under the prison service drugs strategy programme and the health and social services programmes and for contracts to provide services for the probation service.

  It is the role of Drug Action Teams and local commissioning agencies to ensure that individual services work coherently within a local strategic framework. Local service providers may seek guidance from the Drug Action Team on making bids for funding. Bids should be made to the relevant statutory agencies.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93464]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that their policies are relevant to the lives that people live today my Department is working with the Women's Unit, Home Office, and DfEE to develop good practices for ensuring that our policies meet the changing needs of all members of society.

  "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment", published by the Cabinet Office, Home Office, DfEE and the Women's Unit in November 1998, has been circulated to staff within my Department to ensure that the effects of any policy changes on all sections of the population are considered at the earliest stage of policy development.

  As part of the Modernising Government White Paper, we have made a commitment to increasing the number of female senior civil servants from 18 per cent. to 35 per cent. and those from ethnic minorities from 1.6 per cent. to 3.2 per cent. by 2004–05. We will be setting targets for people with disabilities later in the year.

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will publish the milestones for meeting the commitments set out in the Modernising Government White Paper. [93279]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Modernising Government White Paper was published on 30 March 1999 (CM3981). It set out key policies and principles underpinning the Government's long-term programme of reform to modernise public service. The programme involves everyone working in public services and everyone who uses them.

  I have today published a document setting out the milestones that need to be reached in order to meet the commitments we made in the White Paper. As we make clear in the document, our approach to ensuring that these commitments are taken forward means identifying key strategic drivers for change as well as the achievement of
  158
  specific targets. We will be doing more work to develop measurable outcomes and will include them within the work on the next round of public service agreements.

  The document describes progress to date in Modernising Government and work that will lead to further changes over coming months. The table of milestones names officials able to provide more detail on specific aspects. It is also being published electronically on the Cabinet Office website which we intend updating regularly to show progress. Copies of the document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral answer of 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 15, to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) when the July monthly Statement on millennium compliance in the public sector will be made. [93807]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Statement was made by way of written question on 23 July 1999,Official Report, column 665.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the President of the Council how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to her Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87316]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Of the 13 written questions tabled to my Department for a named day since 15 April, 85 per cent. (11) received an answer on that day.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the President of the Council how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day between May 1997 and 14 April 1999; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that named day. [91062]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 302.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Organic Waste
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if the House of Commons composts organic waste produced on the Parliamentary Estate. [93328]

  Mrs. Roe
  The Palace of Westminster contract for waste disposal does not specify that organic waste should be composted.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sure Start
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money from the Sure Start
  159
  Programme has been granted to projects in the parliamentary constituencies of (a) Birkenhead, (b) Wallasey, (c) Wirral, West and (d) Wirral, South. [91248]

  Ms Jowell
  No money from the Sure Start programme has been granted to projects in the parliamentary constituencies of Birkenhead, Wallasey, Wirral, West and Wirral, South. These parliamentary constituencies were not included within the 60 areas of the country invited to develop a local Sure Start programme in the first round. The 60 areas were chosen as trailblazers because they were areas which scored highly on an index of local deprivation and were areas where there was existing local capacity, so that they could set up quickly and therefore play a mentoring role to future programmes.

  We aim to set up 250 programmes in England by 2001–02 and are planning to invite a second round of applications in the autumn.

  Laboratory Teaching
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment with what scientific professional and academic organisations he has had discussions on(a) the improvement of the school scientific laboratory infrastructure and (b) the laboratory teaching of (i) physics, (ii) chemistry, (iii) biology, (iv) environmental sciences and (v) other sciences. [91279]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I, my ministerial colleagues and officials have regular meetings with a number of academic and professional organisations, notably the Association for Science Education, to discuss various aspects of science teaching. We have had no meetings specifically to discuss school scientific laboratory infrastructure and teaching, but we are considering how

  Home Domiciled Entrants to Higher Education Courses1 England and Wales

  19932

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Undergraduate

  Under 21

  194,656

  199,151

  200,754

  204,118

  216,936

  217,365

  21 and over

  203,210

  210,317

  228,552

  226,085

  220,906

  218,494

  Postgraduate

  99,083

  122,974

  126,254

  118,876

  123,841

  129,373

  Total entrants

  496,949

  532,442

  555,560

  549,079

  561,683

  565,232

  Note:

  1. Full-time and part-time courses. Excluding HE students in FE colleges.

  2. Figures for 1993 were collected on a different basis to those in later years. Includes a small number of HE students in FE colleges in Wales.

  The available information on non-completion consists of UK level full-time and sandwich first degree non-completion rates published in the Departmental Annual Report. The table shows these non-completion rates for the same period:

  UK1 Full-time and sandwich first degree non-completion rates

  Percentage

  Year

  Non-completion2

  1993–94

  317–18

  1994–95

  317–18

  1995–96

  318–19

  1996–97

  4n/a

  1997–98

  4n/a

  1998–99

  4n/a

  160
  best to work together with relevant organisations on this and other areas. We are committed to developing partnerships with such organisations to improve standards in all subjects, including science, and I will be working to improve and expand such partnerships in the coming months.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, stating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [91685]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 636.

  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that their policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, the Department for Education and Employment is working closely with the Women's Unit to develop good practices for carrying out gender impact appraisal.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students enrolled in full-time higher education courses in England and Wales in each of the years from 1993 to 1998; and how many such students failed to complete their courses in each of those years. [91930]

  Mr. Mudie
  The number of entrants to higher education courses, in each of these years, is given in the table.

  1 The institutional coverage of the non-completion rates is restricted to the former UFC-funded universities in the UK and former polytechnics in England.

  2 "Non-completion" covers all those leaving degree courses because of exam failure, ill health, personal and other reasons. It includes those switching to a lower level course but it excludes students transferring between degree courses or subjects.

  3 Ranges are given, because the introduction of a new data source in 1994–95 made it difficult to measure non-completion, under existing definitions, accurately.

  4 n/a = not available.

  "Non-completion" covers those who leave full-time and sandwich first degree courses for various reasons including exam failure, but students who failed their final examinations are not separately identified. The non-completion rates relate to a narrower range of courses and have a different institutional coverage than the entrant

  161
  figures shown. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to use the non-completion rates shown to estimate the number of entrants each year who did not complete.

  The Department is currently working with the higher education funding bodies in the UK to develop a method of calculating non-completion rates which can be applied to all UK higher education institutions and which takes into account the non-traditional routes that some students follow. These routes may include changing courses or institutions, repeating years or leaving higher education for a year or more before continuing their studies.

  It is intended to publish the results of this work in the next Departmental Annual Report.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) associated bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (1) fuel types and (2) engine cubic capacities; how many of the vehicles due for replacement by (A) his Department and (B) associated bodies listed in the National Asset Register will be replaced in (x) 1999–2000, (y) 2000–1 and (z) 2001–2 by vehicles using (al) petrol, (b2) diesel, (c3) natural gas, (d4) electric batteries and (e5) other; and how much his Department plans to spend in each year on vehicle replacements. [90689]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: The information provided in the following table is in respect of vehicles owned and leased by the DfEE, its non

  Financial year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Entrants to full-time teaching in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector

  New entrants

  15,900

  16,900

  18,100

  19,300

  19,500

  Those who in previous March were:

  In full-time service in another sector

  1,200

  1,200

  1,000

  1,000

  900

  In part-time service in any sector

  5,500

  5,100

  5,000

  5,300

  4,800

  In other service (mainly occasional)

  1,000

  900

  900

  900

  800

  Out of service

  8,200

  7,800

  6,300

  6,600

  6,100

  Previously retired

  100

  100

  200

  200

  100

  Total

  16,000

  15,100

  13,300

  13,900

  12,800

  Total entrants

  32,000

  32,000

  31,300

  33,200

  32,300

  (b) Movement from full-time teaching in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector

  Those who moved to:

  Full-time service in another sector

  2,500

  1,800

  1,700

  2,000

  2,000

  Part-time service in any sector

  5,200

  4,900

  5,700

  5,500

  5,900

  Other Service (mainly occasional)

  1,000

  1,000

  900

  700

  800

  Out of service

  12,900

  11,700

  10,800

  11,400

  9,800

  Retirement

  11,200

  11,600

  12,900

  12,400

  13,100

  Other 1

  100

  200

  400

  400

  300

  Total

  32,900

  31,200

  32,300

  32,300

  32,000

  1 The 'other' category includes those whose position is not known.

  Notes:

  1. The period 1995–96 is the latest for which full records of teacher movements are available.

  2. The latest teacher retirement data shows that early retirements from the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector, England and Wales fell from 15,500 in financial year 1997–98 to 4,600 in 1998–99.

  3. The full-time equivalent teachers in service in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England rose by 4,100 (1 per cent.) between January 1998 and 1999.
  162
  departmental public bodies (NDPBs), the Employment Service Agency (ES) and the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

  Currently 977 vehicles owned and 536 leased; 1,005 of which are petrol, 506 diesel and 2 LPG.

  Engine cc

  Petrol

  Diesel

  Petrol/Gas

  Owned

  Leased

  Up to 1600

  344

  42

  ——

  359

  27

  1600–1799

  192

  222

  ——

  328

  86

  1800–2000

  418

  151

  2

  197

  374

  2001–2200

  39

  22

  ——

  14

  47

  Over 2200

  12

  69

  ——

  79

  2

  Total

  1,005

  506

  2

  977

  536

  DfEE does not use a replacement cycle as the basis for replacing vehicles. Vehicles are replaced only when a new business case from a user is approved. The DfEE and the Employment Service continue to be "on target" to reduce their fleet size.

  In ES, there are now 284 vehicles less than in 1998 with the number continuing to fall. In DfEE, only 1 (one) replacement vehicle has been applied for under the Private User Scheme following the tightening of these rules.

  Teachers (State Schools)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers joined the profession in state schools in each of the last five years; how many left; and if he will make a statement. [92288]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of teachers entering and leaving full-time service in the maintained nursery primary and secondary sector in England and Wales, 1991–92 to 1995–96 were as follows:

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many disabled people have found work as a result of(a) the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds, (b) the New Deal for lone parents and (c) the New Deal for over 50 year olds in each claimant area to date. [92266]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Latest statistics to the end of April 1999 show the following job outcomes for people with disabilities under the New Deal for Young People:

  Unit of delivery

  Total job outcomes

  Tayside

  128

  Ayrshire

  122

  Borders

  36

  Dumfries and Galloway

  41

  Dunbarton

  51

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  137

  Fife

  114

  Forth Valley

  57

  Glasgow

  143

  Grampian

  53

  Moray, Strathspay and Badenoch

  19

  Lanarkshire

  147

  Renfrewshire

  112

  West Lothian

  51

  Argyll and The Islands

  19

  Caithness and Sutherland

  10

  Inverness and Nairn

  13

  Lochaber

  5

  Western Isles

  18

  Orkney

  3

  Ross and Cromarty

  15

  Shetland

  5

  Skye and Lochalsh

  3

  Newcastle, Gateshead and South Tyneside

  245

  Northumberland

  53

  Tyneside North

  51

  Durham North and Durham South

  209

  City of Sunderland formerly Wearside

  86

  Tees North and Tees South

  158

  Cumbria

  167

  Wirral

  137

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre

  60

  Bolton

  52

  Bury

  28

  Central Lancashire

  94

  Cheshire

  108

  City Pride Manchester

  299

  East Lancashire

  124

  Halton and Warrington

  75

  Knowsley

  44

  Liverpool

  166

  North Lancashire

  38

  Oldham

  35

  Rochdale

  64

  Sefton

  84

  St. Helens

  58

  Stockport

  45

  West Lancashire

  31

  Wigan

  86

  Sheffield

  164

  Rotherham

  122

  South Humber

  165

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  175

  Barnsley and The Dearne

  92

  Bradford

  144

  Hull and East Coast formerly Hull

  230

  Leeds

  178

  North Yorkshire

  121

  Wakefield and Doncaster

  207

  164

  Unit of delivery

  Total job outcomes

  West Wales

  150

  Swansea

  201

  North West Wales

  103

  Powys

  20

  Ceredigion

  32

  North East Wales formerly Flintshire and Wrexham

  64

  North Wales Coast

  35

  Cardiff and Vale

  113

  Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys

  96

  Heads of the Valley and Caerphilly

  153

  Newport, Torfaen and Monmouth

  129

  Black Country

  426

  Birmingham

  230

  Solihull

  18

  Staffordshire

  229

  Hereford and Worcester

  112

  Coventry

  72

  Warwickshire

  56

  Shropshire

  91

  Southern Derbyshire

  172

  Cambridge TTWA

  64

  North Derbyshire

  113

  Leicestershire

  124

  Lincolnshire

  113

  Norfolk

  121

  West Norfolk

  44

  Northamptonshire

  67

  Greater Nottingham

  130

  North Nottinghamshire

  118

  Peterborough

  68

  Suffolk

  79

  Waveney

  51

  Cornwall

  365

  Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset

  83

  Bristol and South Gloucestershire formerly Central Bristol

  110

  Dorset

  170

  Exeter and East Devon

  61

  Torbay and South Devon formerly South Devon

  82

  North Devon

  46

  Gloucestershire

  83

  Plymouth

  137

  Somerset

  126

  Wiltshire and Swindon formerly Wiltshire

  120

  Eastbourne and Hastings formerly Eastbourne

  113

  Lambeth

  41

  Harlow

  19

  Hackney and City

  39

  Hertfordshire

  164

  Brighton

  74

  Canterbury

  91

  Channel

  70

  Chatham

  143

  Crawley

  20

  Croydon and Bromley

  133

  Guildford

  51

  Lewisham

  62

  Maidstone, Dartford and West Kent

  98

  Southwark

  65

  Greenwich

  70

  Bexley

  33

  Sutton, Merton Esher, Kingston, Epsom

  109

  Wandsworth

  43

  West Sussex Coastal Plain

  49

  South Essex

  192

  North Essex formerly North and Mid Essex

  146

  Edgware and Leaside

  85

  North East London

  58

  Havering, Barking and Dagenham

  73

  Newham

  63

  Tower Hamlets

  15

  Camden and North Islington

  42

  Ealing and Hillingdon formerly Ealing

  48

  165

  Unit of delivery

  Total job outcomes

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  76

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  43

  Mid Hants

  21

  Oxfordshire

  56

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  89

  Isle of Wight

  39

  Reading

  42

  Slough

  72

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  58

  Wembley

  53

  Westminster

  14

  Hounslow and Richmond

  44

  Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea

  39

  Total

  13,329

  Latest statistics to the end of April 1999 show the following job outcomes for people with disabilities under the NDLP:

  Employment service regional office

  Total job outcomes

  Scotland

  38

  London and the South East

  70

  South West

  23

  East Midlands and Eastern

  32

  West Midlands

  48

  Wales

  28

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  29

  North West

  63

  Northern

  28

  Great Britain total

  359

  Notes:

  1. These figures relate to lone parents receiving in-work support while on NDLP and those who have left NDLP for employment.

  2. Statistics are not broken down below regional level.

  The initial pilots for New Deal for those over the age of 50 are not due to start until October 1999 followed by the main rollout in April 2000.

  Parliamentary Studies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to promote knowledge of, and interest in, parliamentary government through schools; and if he will make a statement. [92635]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced his proposals for the review of the National Curriculum in England in May 1999. This includes for the first time a proposed framework for citizenship in schools as a distinct statutory entitlement at Key Stages 3 and 4. Pupils will learn about key aspects of parliamentary government, elections and voting, and local and central government.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 526, on nursery education, what is the number of three-year-olds in each of the relevant local education authorities that (a) currently have free full-time early education places and (b) will have
  166
  free full-time early education places when the promised additional places are provided, defining full-time as five or more sessions of early education per week. [92218]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The Government are committed to almost doubling the proportion of three-year-olds with free nursery education. As the first stage in that process, we are creating 48,000 places in 1999–2000. The available information is shown in the following table.

  Numbers of free early years places provided for three-year-olds in the relevant local education authority areas in England

  Number of free, three-year-old places provided by LEAs in maintained nursery and primary schools1

  Estimated additional places to be created in 1999–2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,329

  262

  Barnsley

  1,406

  885

  Birmingham

  7,420

  6,059

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1,024

  600

  Blackpool

  316

  1,058

  Bolton

  2,104

  748

  Bradford

  4,694

  1,220

  Brent

  1,708

  1,017

  Camden

  928

  831

  County Durham

  3,786

  301

  Coventry

  1,968

  1,229

  Doncaster

  2,249

  593

  Ealing

  2,686

  410

  Gateshead

  1,313

  625

  Greenwich

  1,889

  821

  Hackney

  1,624

  1,444

  Halton

  663

  544

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,061

  595

  Haringey

  1,949

  704

  Hartlepool

  1,193

  34

  Hounslow

  1,505

  250

  Islington

  1,283

  1,043

  Kingston upon Hull

  2,252

  460

  Knowsley

  2,032

  65

  Lambeth

  1,911

  1,646

  Leeds

  6,231

  1,247

  Leicester

  2,343

  1,412

  Lewisham

  1,877

  1,566

  Liverpool

  3,920

  1,167

  Manchester

  4,229

  563

  Middlesbrough

  1,840

  57

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,789

  762

  Newham

  3,189

  1,618

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,010

  629

  North Tyneside

  1,816

  68

  Nottingham

  2,573

  1,016

  Oldham

  1,594

  1,086

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,784

  54

  Rochdale

  1,374

  900

  Rotherham

  1,443

  1,186

  Salford

  2,113

  154

  Sandwell

  3,106

  466

  Sheffield

  2,837

  2,565

  South Tyneside

  1,476

  73

  Southwark

  2,278

  958

  St. Helens

  1,113

  282

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,001

  66

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,950

  439

  Sunderland

  2,342

  469

  Tameside

  1,620

  593

  Tower Hamlets

  2,405

  275

  Wakefield

  2,625

  581

  Walsall

  2,951

  102

  Waltham Forest

  1,281

  1,562

  167

  Numbers of free early years places provided for three-year-olds in the relevant local education authority areas in England

  Number of free, three-year-old places provided by LEAs in maintained nursery and primary schools1

  Estimated additional places to be created in 1999–2000

  Wandsworth

  1,584

  1,601

  Wirral

  1,714

  1,437

  Wolverhampton

  2,654

  100

  Total

  123,355

  48,498

  1 Position as at January 1999

  New Deal Jobs (Bolton)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many jobs have been created in Bolton as a result of the introduction of the Government's New Deal. [92700]

  Number of pupils aged under five in maintained nursery and primary schools by Local Education Authority area in England, January 1999 (provisional)

  City of Leicester and Leicestershire

  Rutland

  England

  Pupils in nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools

  4,750

  101

  366,914

  Percentage of under 5 population at 31 December 1998

  21

  12

  30

  Pupils in infant classes in primary schools

  5,368

  208

  355,090

  Percentage of under 5 population at 31 December 1998

  24

  26

  29

  All pupils under 5 in nursery and primary schools

  10,118

  309

  722,004

  Percentage of under 5 population at 31 December 1998

  44

  38

  58

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92648]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Trips in and around London, which account for the majority of my working week, will normally be made by Government Car. The

  Numbers and proportion of permanent exclusions in schools in the Greater London local education authority areas January 1999 (provisional)

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Special2

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Per 1000 of the school population3

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Per 1000 of the school population3

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Per 1000 of the school population3

  City of London

  0

  0.0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Camden

  11

  1.0

  34

  3.1

  5

  16.2

  Hackney

  22

  1.2

  21

  2.9

  3

  6.9

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  12

  1.3

  39

  6.3

  1

  3.3

  Haringey

  5

  0.2

  38

  3.7

  3

  7.8

  Islington

  8

  0.5

  38

  5.0

  1

  3.7

  Kensington & Chelsea

  5

  0.7

  33

  9.7

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  15

  0.8

  40

  5.9

  7

  10.9

  Lewisham

  22

  1.0

  50

  4.5

  5

  9.3

  Newham

  12

  0.4

  42

  2.6

  0

  0.0

  Southwark

  15

  0.6

  76

  8.1

  5

  10.9

  Tower Hamlets

  5

  0.2

  39

  2.9

  5

  10.0

  Wandsworth

  10

  0.6

  59

  6.3

  7

  9.1

  Westminster

  3

  0.3

  60

  7.8

  0

  0.0

  168
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  New Deal is not a job creation scheme. However, in the Bolton Unit of Delivery for the period ending April 1999, 298 people have found sustained work through the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds and New Deal for those aged 25-plus.

  Nursery Places (Leicestershire)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery places are available in(a) North West Leicestershire and (b) Leicestershire with Leicester; what proportion this represents of the numbers of children in the appropriate age groups; and what proportions of children of nursery age nationally have access to nursery places. [92076]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is shown.

  last time I used a train in the course of my official duties was earlier this month when visiting Birmingham.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children were permanently excluded from school(a) per 1,000 of the school age population and (b) as a percentage of children from each ethnic group, in each local authority area in London. [93068]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  169

  Numbers and proportion of permanent exclusions in schools in the Greater London local education authority areas January 1999 (provisional)

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Special2

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Per 1000 of the school population3

  Number of permanent exclusion

  Per 1000 of the school population3

  Number permanent exclusions

  Per 1000 of the school population3

  Barking

  9

  0.5

  38

  3.7

  0

  0.0

  Barnet

  8

  0.3

  65

  3.2

  4

  10.3

  Bexley

  11

  0.5

  59

  3.8

  2

  5.5

  Brent

  7

  0.3

  90

  6.5

  0

  0.0

  Bromley

  10

  0.4

  83

  4.4

  0

  0.0

  Croydon

  17

  0.5

  85

  5.4

  6

  10.9

  Ealing

  11

  0.4

  71

  5.0

  0

  0.0

  Enfield

  10

  0.4

  74

  3.9

  3

  5.9

  Greenwich

  8

  0.4

  48

  3.5

  5

  6.9

  Harrow

  5

  0.2

  50

  6.1

  5

  24.6

  Havering

  4

  0.2

  66

  4.5

  0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  3

  0.1

  52

  3.4

  3

  4.8

  Hounslow

  8

  0.4

  61

  4.0

  2

  5.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0.0

  27

  3.3

  2

  8.9

  Merton

  4

  0.2

  32

  4.1

  0

  0.0

  Redbridge

  5

  0.2

  29

  1.7

  1

  2.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  0.1

  53

  7.0

  0

  0.0

  Sutton

  6

  0.4

  37

  2.9

  2

  7.1

  Waltham Forest

  10

  0.5

  76

  6.3

  3

  4.1

  1 Includes middle schools

  2 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools

  3 Numbers of permanent exclusions expressed as a proportion (per 1000) of the of the number of full-time and part-time pupils of all ages in primary, secondary and special schools, excluding dually registered pupils in special schools in January 1998

  4 Not applicable (no schools of this type)

  Percentages1 of permanent exclusions of pupils of compulsory school age by ethnic group in the Greater London education authority areas January 1999 (provisional)

  White

  Black Caribbean

  Black African

  Black other

  Indian

  Pakistani

  Bangladeshi

  Chinese

  Any other

  City of London

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Camden

  0.2

  1.9

  0.1

  0.4

  0.0

  0.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  Greenwich

  0.2

  0.5

  0.3

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  0.2

  Hackney

  0.2

  0.5

  0.2

  0.4

  0.1

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  0.3

  0.8

  0.5

  0.9

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  Islington

  0.4

  0.6

  0.3

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  Kensington & Chelsea

  0.7

  0.7

  1.0

  0.8

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  Lambeth

  0.2

  0.7

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.0

  Lewisham

  0.1

  0.6

  0.3

  0.3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  Southwark

  0.2

  1.0

  0.2

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  0.1

  Tower Hamlets

  0.2

  0.4

  0.1

  0.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.7

  Wandsworth

  0.3

  0.8

  0.3

  0.6

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.4

  0.2

  Westminster

  0.3

  1.1

  0.2

  0.7

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.3

  Barking

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  1.8

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  Barnet

  0.1

  1.2

  0.2

  0.5

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Bexley

  0.2

  0.6

  0.5

  1.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Brent

  0.2

  1.1

  0.4

  0.5

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Bromley

  0.2

  0.7

  0.9

  1.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  0.1

  Croydon

  0.2

  0.8

  0.3

  0.3

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.5

  0.1

  Ealing

  0.2

  0.6

  0.7

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  Enfield

  0.2

  0.8

  0.5

  0.2

  0.0

  0.4

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  Haringey

  0.1

  0.4

  0.2

  0.5

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Harrow

  0.2

  1.5

  0.5

  0.9

  0.1

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  Havering

  0.2

  0.5

  2.1

  1.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  0.2

  0.5

  0.4

  1.5

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Hounslow

  0.3

  0.5

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.2

  2.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  0.0

  Merton

  0.2

  0.7

  0.4

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Newham

  0.2

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Redbridge

  0.1

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.3

  3.8

  0.0

  0.9

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Sutton

  0.2

  0.8

  0.4

  0.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  Waltham Forest

  0.3

  1.1

  0.4

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  1 The number of permanent exclusions of compulsory school age expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of pupils of compulsory school age in each ethnic group, in primary, secondary and special schools (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January 1998

  2 Not applicable (no schools of this type)

  170

  National Homework Guidelines
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received regarding arrangements for children's homework. [93113]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since my response to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), 4 March 1999,Official Report, column 837, we have received a further 36 letters from schools and members of the public. These have raised no new issues.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the acceptance by job centres of advertisements for jobs paying less than the national minimum wage. [93124]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Allan Rogers, dated 27 July 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the acceptance by Jobcentres of advertisements for jobs paying less than the national minimum wage. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  In answer to your specific question, I am aware of one representation - to which I have replied - regarding whether Jobcentres would accept advertisements for jobs paying less than the national minimum wage.
  It may be helpful if I explain our arrangements for dealing with this matter. All Jobcentres have detailed instructions explaining that they must only take job vacancies that meet the requirements of the National Minimum Wage Act. When taking details of a job vacancy, if no wage rate is stated, the Jobcentre will ask the employer for an assurance that they are meeting the requirements of the Act. If

  £

  LEA name

  1998–99 allocation

  1999–2000 allocation

  Total allocation

  Barking and Dagenham

  622,000

  484,638

  1,106,638

  Barnet

  483,989

  562,500

  1,046,489

  Barnsley

  660,000

  429,757

  1,089,757

  Bath and NE Somerset

  350,000

  227,901

  577,901

  Bedfordshire

  920,000

  830,250

  1,750,250

  Bexley

  406,430

  488,360

  894,790

  Birmingham

  4,000,000

  4,000,000

  8,000,000

  Blackburn

  293,573

  449,871

  743,444

  Blackpool

  233,891

  376,443

  610,334

  Bolton

  750,000

  607,500

  1,357,500

  Bournemouth

  183,098

  187,500

  370,598

  Bracknell Forest

  196,886

  260,459

  457,345

  Bradford

  1,002,000

  1,600,000

  2,602,000

  Brent

  305,886

  358,131

  664,017

  Brighton and Hove

  769,000

  502,500

  1,271,500

  Bromley

  196,000

  536,027

  732,027

  Buckinghamshire

  1,250,000

  1,125,000

  2,375,000

  Bury

  393,713

  359,433

  753,146

  Calderdale

  179,278

  509,857

  689,135

  172
  employers remain unsure of their responsibilities under the Act the Jobcentre will advise them to contact the National Minimum Wage Advice Line for more detailed help.
  I hope this is helpful.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools(a) have produced and (b) are preparing development plans in connection with the National Grid for Learning. [93163]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All schools seeking grant in relation to the National Grid for Learning are expected to agree with their local education authority a development plan for the use of Information and Communications Technology. Information about the number of schools which have already done so is not held by the Department.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what part BT is playing in the establishment of the National Grid for Learning; and how it is otherwise providing information technology for schools. [93164]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  BT, in common with other companies operating in the telecommunications and ICT industries, has a role to play in making a range of services available to schools and other organisations in order to enable those institutions to make optimum use of the Information Age.

  The products and services that BT makes available to schools are a commercial decision and a matter for the company.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the sums allocated by each local authority in respect of the National Grid for Learning; and how much the sums amount to in each authority on(a) a per-pupil and (b) a per-school basis. [92746]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the NGfL funding devolved to each school is not held centrally by the Department. However, the total amount of grant allocated to each authority from the National Grid for Learning Standards Fund programme in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is set out in the tables. LEAs are required to devolve 95 per cent. of their allocation to schools.
  173

  £

  LEA name

  1998–99 allocation

  1999–2000 allocation

  Total allocation

  Cambridgeshire

  968,886

  911,606

  1,880,492

  Camden

  500,000

  383,667

  883,667

  Cheshire

  1,272,149

  982,500

  2,254,649

  City of Bristol

  763,657

  1,229,091

  1,992,748

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  540,171

  750,000

  1,290,171

  City of London

  0

  10,000

  10,000

  Cornwall

  978,576

  651,147

  1,629,723

  Coventry

  629,591

  1,013,313

  1,642,904

  Croydon

  480,000

  343,968

  823,968

  Cumbria

  1,500,000

  1,500,000

  3,000,000

  Darlington

  226,541

  185,947

  412,488

  Derby City

  417,900

  468,667

  886,567

  Derbyshire

  800,000

  637,500

  1,437,500

  Devon

  978,576

  1,212,754

  2,191,330

  Doncaster

  489,288

  338,596

  827,884

  Dorset

  800,000

  675,000

  1,475,000

  Dudley

  2,000,000

  2,000,000

  4,000,000

  Durham

  1,300,000

  2,032,695

  3,332,695

  Ealing

  300,000

  371,250

  671,250

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  800,000

  637,500

  1,437,500

  East Sussex

  782,861

  675,000

  1,457,861

  Enfield

  220,000

  273,482

  493,482

  Essex

  1,713,684

  1,723,500

  3,437,184

  Gateshead

  431,215

  337,500

  768,715

  Gloucestershire

  750,000

  586,032

  1,336,032

  Greenwich

  500,000

  520,000

  1,020,000

  Hackney

  346,955

  444,000

  790,955

  Halton

  311,121

  358,131

  669,252

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  300,000

  300,000

  600,000

  Hampshire

  2,201,797

  1,562,752

  3,764,549

  Haringey

  429,615

  358,131

  787,746

  Harrow

  348,208

  448,152

  796,360

  Hartlepool

  123,301

  195,344

  318,645

  Havering

  424,980

  285,202

  710,182

  Herefordshire

  234,858

  195,000

  429,858

  Hertfordshire

  1,957,153

  1,717,500

  3,674,653

  Hillingdon

  284,766

  325,573

  610,339

  Hounslow

  375,000

  364,642

  739,642

  Isle of Wight

  219,104

  399,921

  619,025

  Isles of Scilly

  10,412

  17,400

  27,812

  Islington

  500,000

  381,000

  881,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  351,802

  221,883

  573,685

  Kent

  2,240,000

  4,200,000

  6,440,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  262,376

  206,250

  468,626

  Kirklees

  1,000,000

  787,500

  1,787,500

  Knowsley

  1,450,000

  612,789

  2,062,789

  Lambeth

  650,000

  520,766

  1,170,766

  Lancashire

  2,500,000

  1,627,867

  4,127,867

  Leeds

  1,700,000

  1,350,000

  3,050,000

  Leicester City

  600,000

  455,803

  1,055,803

  Leicestershire

  997,900

  900,000

  1,897,900

  Lewisham

  435,377

  450,000

  885,377

  Lincolnshire

  978,576

  1,887,402

  2,865,978

  Liverpool

  978,576

  1,050,000

  2,028,576

  Luton

  374,087

  325,573

  699,660

  Manchester

  983,605

  1,410,000

  2,393,605

  Medway Towns

  456,300

  750,000

  1,206,300

  Merton

  294,293

  325,573

  619,866

  Middlesbrough

  300,000

  325,573

  625,573

  Milton Keynes

  396,465

  325,573

  722,038

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,016,000

  885,204

  1,901,204

  Newham

  501,347

  806,909

  1,308,256

  Norfolk

  1,615,739

  1,500,000

  3,115,739

  North East Lincolnshire

  520,000

  390,000

  910,000

  North Lincolnshire

  200,000

  150,000

  350,000

  North Somerset

  293,573

  213,305

  506,878

  North Tyneside

  563,533

  669,000

  1,232,533

  North Yorkshire

  969,671

  681,230

  1,650,901

  Northamptonshire

  1,500,000

  1,125,000

  2,625,000

  Northumberland

  489,288

  525,000

  1,014,288

  Nottingham City

  564,834

  403,208

  968,042

  Nottinghamshire

  1,406,000

  1,302,294

  2,708,294

  174 175

  £

  LEA name

  1998–99 allocation

  1999–2000 allocation

  Total allocation

  Oldham

  570,322

  651,147

  1,221,469

  Oxfordshire

  1,200,000

  1,050,000

  2,250,000

  Peterborough

  305,240

  264,691

  569,931

  Plymouth

  489,288

  830,450

  1,319,738

  Poole

  186,987

  179,065

  366,052

  Portsmouth

  346,000

  357,480

  703,480

  Reading

  210,368

  338,585

  548,953

  Redbridge

  493,733

  582,470

  1,076,203

  Redcar and Cleveland

  507,395

  545,733

  1,053,128

  Richmond upon Thames

  160,792

  259,800

  420,592

  Rochdale

  442,813

  354,000

  796,813

  Rotherham

  587,146

  390,688

  977,834

  Rutland

  56,412

  74,095

  130,507

  Salford

  547,274

  520,917

  1,068,191

  Sandwell

  405,882

  366,270

  772,152

  Sefton

  587,146

  813,934

  1,401,080

  Sheffield

  1,200,000

  900,000

  2,100,000

  Shropshire

  672,000

  622,035

  1,294,035

  Slough

  176,454

  284,000

  460,454

  Solihull

  460,000

  299,528

  759,528

  Somerset

  978,576

  2,200,000

  3,178,576

  South Gloucestershire

  533,455

  453,849

  987,304

  South Tyneside

  364,477

  488,360

  852,837

  Southampton

  500,000

  292,500

  792,500

  Southend-on-Sea

  0

  300,161

  300,161

  Southwark

  600,020

  624,981

  1,225,001

  St. Helens

  700,000

  546,536

  1,246,536

  Staffordshire

  2,500,000

  3,300,000

  5,500,000

  Stockport

  1,000,000

  851,651

  1,851,651

  Stockton-on-Tees

  500,000

  1,000,000

  1,500,000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  500,000

  1,000,000

  1,500,000

  Suffolk

  1,454,693

  975,000

  2,429,693

  Sunderland

  587,146

  390,688

  977,834

  Surrey

  2,000,000

  2,250,000'

  4,250,000

  Sutton

  241,484

  337,437

  578,921

  Tameside

  400,000

  300,000

  700,000

  Telford and Wrekin

  341,942

  1,950,000

  2,291,942

  Thamesdown (Swindon)

  322,792

  227,901

  550,693

  Thurrock

  224,640

  205,111

  429,751

  Torbay

  214,987

  262,500

  477,487

  Tower Hamlets

  400,000

  450,000

  850,000

  Trafford

  500,000

  525,000

  1,025,000

  Wakefield

  1,000,000

  750,000

  1,750,000

  Walsall

  559,690

  511,801

  1,071,491

  Waltham Forest

  391,431

  450,000

  841,431

  Wandsworth

  291,558

  454,553

  746,111

  Warrington

  401,364

  465,000

  866,364

  Warwickshire

  1,016,252

  1,122,141

  2,138,393

  West Berkshire

  307,488

  260,459

  567,947

  West Sussex

  1,000,000

  750,000

  1,750,000

  Westminster

  241,604

  258,750

  500,354

  Wigan

  685,947

  675,000

  1,360,947

  Wiltshire

  489,288

  716,262

  1,205,550

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  268,168

  300,000

  568,168

  Wirral

  671,532

  468,826

  1,140,358

  Wokingham

  316,656

  212,925

  529,581

  Wolverhampton

  556,915

  432,245

  980,160

  Worcestershire

  1,125,048

  900,000

  2,025,048

  York

  300,000

  260,459

  560,549

  Total

  102,009,845

  105,000,002

  207,009,847

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have submitted comments to the Standards Site of the National Grid for Learning. [92742]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Feedback forms on the Standards Site have been available since March 1999. To date,176
  237 forms have been returned. The site also has a discussion forum, within which teachers can, from day to day, debate issues raised by the standards agenda.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many visits have been paid to(a) the Standards Site, (b) the Virtual Teacher Centre, (c) the Governor Centre, (d) the Parent Centre,

  177
  (e) the Special Educational Needs Centre, (f) the National Year of Reading, (g) the Northern Ireland Network for Education, (h) the Scottish Virtual Teachers Centre and (i) the VTC Cymru of the schools section of the National Grid for Learning; [92743]

  (2) how many visits have been paid to (a) the further education section, (b) the higher education section, (c) the lifelong learning section, (d) the career development section, (e) the libraries section, (f) the museums and galleries section, (g) the community grids section, (h) the international networks section, (i) the Government and Agencies section and (j) the learning resource index of the National Grid for Learning. [92744]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Not all of this information is held centrally by the Department. Many of the sites are hosted remotely, by a wide range of public sector bodies and commercial companies, both in this country and internationally. Total hits between November 1998 and July 1999 on the NGfL server are 43,067,816. Around 13,000 pages are hosted locally, with about 240,000 pages being indexed as part of the NGfL across all of the sites.

  Figures which are available are as follows:

  Site

  Number of hits

  Standards site

  13,379,688

  Virtual Teacher Centre

  16,060,495

  Governor Centre

  89,366

  Parents Centre

  236,844

  Special Educational Needs Centre

  145,747

  The National Year of Reading

  533,000

  Scottish VTC

  12,700

  VTC Cymru

  564,330

  Further Education hub

  679,331

  Career Development

  652,216

  Learning Resource Index

  3,083,163

  1 Page views per day

  Notes:

  Unless otherwise indicated, figures are for hits, between November 1998 and July 1999

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many comments have been received from teachers via e-mail to the Web Keeper of the Virtual Teacher Centre. [92741]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Around 25 messages a week are received by the Virtual Teacher Centre (VTC) Web Keeper.

  In addition to this, conferencing activity on the VTC sees around 80,000 hits per month, with an average of 1,000 contributions made.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) universities, (d) colleges and (e) libraries are connected to the National Grid for Learning; and how many he estimates will be connected by the end of 1999. [92739]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Latest estimates indicate that 51 per cent. of primary schools and 90 per cent. of secondary schools and 100 per cent. of universities are connected to the Internet. An April 1999 survey suggested that 100 per cent. of colleges of further education had internet access.
  178
  Statistics collected late in 1997 found that 5 per cent. of public library service points offered public Internet access. The Library and Information Commission is currently compiling updated statistics, as part of the development of the Public Library ICT Network which will link all public libraries, where practicable, to the NGfl by 2002.

  While targets for connection by the end of 1999 have not been set, our aim is that all schools, colleges, universities, libraries and as many community centres as possible should be online and able to benefit from access the National Grid for Learning by 2002. To achieve this target we are supporting over £700 million of ICT-related expenditure in UK schools over this period.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact made by the National Grid for Learning on equipment purchasing by(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools. [93181]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not yet available from this year's survey of ICT in schools. The Government anticipate that the impact of its £657 million Standards Fund programme for the NGfL up to 2002 will be substantial, as will arrangements which they have announced this month for the availability of higher quality managed ICT services to schools at competitive prices.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the views of teachers on the National Grid for Learning. [92740]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The overall implementation of the National Grid for Learning, including school's purchasing strategies, is subject to a rigorous programme of independent evaluation. This also focuses on the Grid's impact on classroom practice and on students' achievements. Interim findings form these studies should be available early in 2000.

  The British Educational Communications and Technology agency, on behalf of the DfEE, is also carrying out evaluation of the classroom application of the Grid via the Multimedia Portables for Teachers project. Teachers are currently participating in curriculum groups, which provide feedback on the Grid's curriculum materials and identify any gaps in that provision.

  These activities are in addition to Ofsted's evaluation of the impact of ICT on teaching and learning.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of the National Grid for Learning; and what projections he has made of future costs. [92745]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A total figure encompassing investment by the Government, Local Authorities, commercial companies, education institutions, libraries, community and other NGfL-related projects is not held centrally by the Department. However, over £700 million will be allocated for schools' purchase of ICT networking and infrastructure by the year 2002. Additional funding for teacher and librarian training, content development and the equipping of libraries and related projects takes investment in this initiative to £1.6 billion. This funding
  179
  will enable all schools to be connected to the Grid by 2002, and will provide them with online access to a wide range of educational and managerial resources.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the timetable for the development of the National Grid for Learning. [92738]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The timetable for the development of the National Grid for Learning is as follows:

  Autumn 1998—opening of NGfL content framework, call for content and NGfL Challenge.

  January 1999—deadline for initial expressions of interest in managed services.

  Early 1999—major NGfL content upgrade for education and lifelong learning professionals.

  April 1999—deadline for proposals for Managed Services.

  Spring 1999—New Opportunities Fund support for teacher and librarian training begins.

  Summer 1999—approval of managed services for schools, libraries and other bodies.

  1999–2000—launch of interactive learning facilities for school age learners.

  end 2002—achievement of targets as set out in the National Grid for Learning Challenge.

  All targets to date have been fully met and on time.

  Mathematics and Science Teachers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many graduates in(a) maths, (b) physics and (c) chemistry are expected to commence teacher training in the current year; and how many commenced teacher training in each of the preceding five years. [92750]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of entrants to PGCE initial teacher training in maths and science in England and Wales for the five years 1994–95 to 1998–99 are given in the following table.

  Intake to PGCE initial teacher training (ITT) in England and Wales to train in maths and science, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  Year

  Maths

  Science

  1994–95

  1,651

  2,714

  1995–96

  1,575

  2,686

  1996–97

  1,443

  2,705

  1997–98

  1,233

  2,590

  1998–991

  981

  2,195

  1 Provisional mid-year data

  Sources:

  England: Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 1994–95; TTA Survey of ITT Providers 1995–96 to 1998–99

  Wales: Welsh Office 1994–95; Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 1995–96 to 1998–99

  It is too early to predict recruitment to PGCE courses in 1999–2000. However, following the introduction of £5,000 incentives in maths and science, applications have gone up substantially, by 37 per cent. for maths to 1,306 and 24 per cent. for science to 2,784. Within the figure for science there have been increases of 33 per cent. for physics and 27 per cent. for chemistry. We are therefore confident that the decline in recruitment since 1995 will be reversed this year. The following table taken from the Higher Education Statistics Agency's Student Record Survey shows the percentage of those commencing PGCE
  180
  teacher training who were graduates in maths, physics and chemistry in the years 1995–96 and 1997–98. These are the subjects of first degree and not necessarily the subjects or phase in which the student is undertaking teacher training. Information for the current year and 1998–99 is not yet available. There are a significant proportion of students for whom the first degree subject is unknown. The subjects of first degree do not include combined courses, or closely related courses such as engineering.

  Percentage of those commencing PGCE initial teacher training (ITT) in England and Wales with first degrees in maths, physics or chemistry, 1995–96 to 1997–98

  Year

  Maths

  Physics

  Chemistry

  1995–96

  4

  1

  2

  1996–97

  3

  1

  2

  1997–98

  3

  1

  2

  Note:

  Statistics has been included with maths

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency's Student Record Survey

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many trainees have been placed in schools or are to be placed in schools under his scheme to train 600 new maths and science teachers on the job; and how many of the trainees are graduates in(a) maths and (b) science. [92749]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) awarded a contract for the administration of the Maths and Science Placement Scheme in April. Over the next year, the programme will recruit 600 mature graduates in maths and science and match them to suitable vacancies in schools on the Graduate Teacher Programme. Approximately 300 will train as maths teachers and 300 as science teachers. We are still at an early stage of the scheme, but the TTA have already received 436 applications.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of(a) maths and (b) science teachers returning to teaching following his initiative to encourage returners to teaching. [92751]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We do not at present have figures in the form requested. Information on those returning to teaching after the package of measures announced in October 1998 will be produced in due course, but the latest data available now relate to 1996–97.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the planned timetable for the issuing of an information technology needs assessment CD ROM to teachers by the Teacher Training Agency. [93179]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All schools have now been invited to apply for the ICT needs identification assessment CD-ROM. It is available free of charge to UK schools. The latest estimates indicate that over 30,000 packs have been distributed by the Teacher Training Agency. This is an overwhelming response, which fully endorses the decision to produce the CD-ROM.
  181
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve the teaching of information technology in schools following the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Schools; and if he will make a statement. [92748]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are taking significant and unprecedented steps to improve the teaching of information technology in schools. We were appalled at the completely inadequate state of such preparation that had been made both in ITT and for serving teachers before May 1997.

  We have made available through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) £230 million to provide serving teachers and school library staff in the UK with training in the effective use of ICT in schools. There will be strong pedagogical content in the training to ensure that ICT is used effectively to enhance the learning experience. This will bring serving teachers up to the same standard as teachers emerging into the profession whose training will have followed, in part, the Initial Teacher Training Curriculum for ICT in Subject Teaching which was introduced in September 1998.

  To underpin the training we are making available over £300 million to increase the number of computers in schools, so teachers can have access to them. The availability of computers must go hand in hand with the training. In addition we recently made £23 million available for the purchase of 9,500 multimedia portables for teachers so that they can learn about IT in their own time.

  Finally, teachers will be able to access the virtual teachers centre (www.vtc.ngfl.gov.uk) being developed by the Government and schools will have the benefit of being able to get better value for the purchase of computers and equipment following our managed services programme launched on 21 July.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools have appointed National Lottery-approved training providers for IT training in each local authority area expressed as a proportion of schools in that area. [93182]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Training has already begun in 20 LEAs. The New Opportunities Fund is agreeing budget schedules with other LEAs and we expect training to begin nationally in September. This is the first time many serving teachers will have access to such training, which is being supported by £230 million.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of teachers in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools who have received information technology training through National Lottery-approved training providers; and how many he expects to receive such training in the academic year 1999–2000. [93180]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  During the Summer Term 1999, training within the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) ICT teacher training programme has begun in approximately 20 education authorities. NOF is actively engaged in collecting data on this training from Approved Providers,182
  and it is too early to give firm information on the number of teachers trained. These data will be available from NOF in September.

  Training was initiated during this term to meet the needs of those schools which are particularly advanced in the provision of ICT hardware. However, the majority of the approved training providers are not proposing to start training teachers before the next school year (1999–2000). The NOF programme will last three years, and is integrated with Government initiatives to roll out the necessary hardware in schools, for example via the Standards Fund. NOF thus expects demand to build steadily during the next school year. The programme is designed to reach all serving teachers over its lifetime.

  Bullying
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children are currently being educated at home as a result of bullying at school; and if he will make a statement. [93325]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally. The Department has recently issued guidance which will ensure that local authorities arrange education for children out of school for any reason, including post-traumatic stress as a result of bullying. It also sets out a legal duty on headteachers, from September of this year, to take measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many student loan accounts exist on which payments are suspended; what are the amounts involved; and what is the amount owing on each account. [93596]

  Mr. Mudie
  At 30 June 1999, 516,592 student loan accounts were in deferment with a value of £26.1 million. Listing amounts involved on each account would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many student loan accounts have been written off; what are the amounts involved on each account; and if he will make a statement. [93597]

  Mr. Mudie
  At 30 June 1999, 110,816 student loan accounts had been written off with a total value of £4.6 million. Listing the amounts written off on each of these accounts would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the competition to sell a third portfolio of student loan debt. [93824]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have successfully completed two sales of student loan debt in the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  A decision on the future timing of the third sale will be taken following the implementation of the new student support arrangements later this year, the 2000 Review and the outcome of the Review of Administration of Student Support, which is also due to report in 2000.
  183
  The postponement of the third sale will have no impact on borrowers. Sold loans will remain in the hands of the private sector owners and the remainder will stay in public ownership. The Student Loans Company continues to administer all loans as before.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received over the past 12 months from(a) vice-chancellors and (b) others concerning top-up fees. [93379]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have received a number of representations about tuition fees in higher education institutions. Prohibiting the charging of additional fees enables all students to have equal access to the courses on offer.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evidence he has of delays among local authorities in the assessment process of means for student loans and tuition fees. [93380]

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many LEAs he estimates will meet his Department's timetable for having the student grant assessments completed; [92821]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the reasons for delays in processing applications for student grants; [92866]

  (3) for what reasons a greater amount of information is required by the Student Loans Company in respect of grant applications than was formerly required by LEAs; [92867]

  (4) what the average period of time taken to assess grant applications and make payment (a) was under LEAs and (b) is currently under the Student Loans Company; and what reasons underlie any differences; [92868]

  (5) how many LEAs have carried out grant assessments and passed information to the Student Loans Company; and how many of these were using their own computer systems; [92869]

  Mr. Mudie
  Under the new arrangements LEAs, and not the Student Loans Company (SLC), are responsible for assessing eligibility for, and financial entitlement to, student support. The SLC is responsible for making payments to students based on these assessments. The information applicants are required to provide to LEAs is set out in the Education (Student Support) Regulations 1999.

  The Department is monitoring closely and regularly the progress being made by LEAs. This monitoring shows that they are currently at different stages in assessing applications. We expect virtually all applicants to be notified of their eligibility for support within the next fortnight. Also, a number of LEAs, including some with their own in-house software provision, are passing notifications of applicants' financial entitlement to support to the Student Loans Company. The position is changing daily and a significant number of other LEAs are expected to begin issuing financial notifications within the next couple of weeks. We expect that all LEAs will complete processing applications from students who
  184
  submitted their forms by the required timetable, and that cheques will be issued to those students at the start of their courses.

  School Computers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the expenditure on computers for schools by each local education authority on a per school basis in the last year. [92747]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on expenditure on ICT on a per school basis in each LEA is not held centrally by the Department. Figures on expenditure on ICT on a per school basis in England will be published later this year.

  Teachers (Early Leavers)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers of(a) mathematics, (b) science and (c) other subjects with (i) up to two years' experience, (ii) between two and 10 years' experience and (iii) more than 10 years' experience have left the teaching profession before reaching the age of 50 years in each of the last 20 years. [93183]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is not available.

  Football Study Support Centres
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1999,Official Report, columns 523-25, regarding football study support centres, when he expects to be able to make an estimate of the number of pupils attending centres at (a) Birmingham City, (b) Bristol City, (c) Liverpool, (d) Manchester United, (e) Stockport County, (f) Southampton and (g) West Bromwich Albion clubs in the current year. [92752]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  These seven clubs will open their "Playing for Success" study support centres during the 1999–2000 football season. The number of pupils to attend each centre will be agreed between the centre's manager, the local schools, and the Local Education Authority. Bristol City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Stockport County and Southampton have appointed centre managers to take up post in September of this year; their estimates of pupil numbers will be available in October 1999. Birmingham City and West Bromwich Albion expect to have centre managers in post in January 2000; estimates of their pupil numbers will be available in February 2000.

  Class Sizes (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made since 1 May 1997 in reducing the size of infant classes in Gloucestershire. [93138]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are no figures available for May 1997.
  185
  The number of five, six and seven-year olds in infant classes of more than 30 pupils in Gloucestershire fell from 5,001 in January 1998 to 4,418 in 1999; a reduction from 26.7 per cent. to 23.2 per cent. The average class size at Key Stage 1 also fell from 26.8 to 26.6 during the same period.

  A further substantial fall is expected in September 1999 following the allocation of £804,000 revenue funding and £629,000 capital investment in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those Gloucestershire schools where infant classes contain more than 30 pupils. [93151]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on class sizes for individual schools is not published centrally.

  Information for Gloucestershire local education authority as a whole is shown in the table.

  Key stage 1 classes with 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools

  January 1998

  January 19991

  Number of classes

  154

  136

  Number of pupils

  5,001

  4,418

  1 Provisional

  Departmental Expenditure (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the programmes funded directly by his Department, relating to social exclusion, regeneration, community development, employment or education, currently operating in(a) the City of Leeds and (b) the Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency, listing for each programme the amount of such funding for each of the last three years and the amount planned to be spent in each of the next three financial years. [92909]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested is not held by the Department centrally. The Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber (GOYH) have provided details which have been placed in the Library; separate figures for the Leeds, Central Parliamentary constituency are not available.

  New Deal (Injuries)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many injuries have been reported of New Deal clients, since 1 April 1998. [93439]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There have been 12 cases of fractures or an injury requiring a visit to a hospital. There have been 68 minor injuries not requiring any hospital treatment. This is in the context of 395,000 starts for young people and 25-plus in this period and is a much lower level of injury than the normal average level of industrial injuries in the work force.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many classes taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools contained 186
  (a) 31 or more pupils and (b) 36 or more pupils in (i) May 1997 and (ii) of the most recent date for which figures are available broken down by (A) local education authority and (B) parliamentary constituency; [93239]

  (2) how many classes taught by one teacher at Key Stage 2 contained (a) 31 or more pupils and (b) 36 or more pupils in (i) May 1997 and (ii) at the most recent date for which figures are available in each (A) local education authority and (B) parliamentary constituency; [93236]

  (3) what was the average class size for classes taught by one teacher in (a) May 1997 and (b) at the most recent date for which figures are available for (i) pupils in Key Stage 1, (ii) pupils in Key Stage 2, (iii) primary schools and (iv) secondary schools in (A) England and Wales and (B) each parliamentary constituency. [93237]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average class size in maintained secondary schools in England in(a) January 1998 and (b) January 1999. [93238]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is as follows:

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools in England

  Position as at January each year

  Average size of classes

  1999 (provisional)

  21.8

  1998

  21.7

  The overall average class size in schools has fallen from 24.9 to 24.8 in the same period and the average primary class size has fallen from 27.7 to 27.5.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the process and timetable under which a decision on any application to set up a new sixth form in a school will be taken pending the outcome of the review of the funding of sixth forms in schools, indicating the differences in approach dependent on the arrangements for funding any capital works required. [93374]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Under both current arrangements and those to be brought into force on 1 September, those proposing to set up a new sixth form at a school must consult in the area and then publish statutory proposals for the change. Under current arrangements, the proposals would fall to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide if there were any statutory objections. From September, proposals might fall to the local School Organisation Committee to decide or, if the Committee could not agree, to an Adjudicator. The current target for a decision is five months from the date of publication. No decisions have been made on changes in the system for
  187
  funding capital work necessary in order to implement proposals, and it is not expected that any changes would affect the statutory proposal system.

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will define the responsibilities for inspection in general further education colleges between the (i) Further Education Inspectorate and (ii) OFSTED, respectively, in connection with educational provision for persons aged 16 to 19 years in such colleges. [93377]

  Mr. Mudie
  Under current inspection arrangements, the Further Education and Funding Council are responsible for inspecting provision in further education colleges.

  Under the proposals in our "Learning to Succeed" White Paper (Cm 4392), OFSTED will take responsibility for the inspection of 16-19 provision in schools and colleges. For post-19 provision in colleges, and for work-based provision for all age groups, there will be a new independent inspectorate.

  Educational Bodies
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current number of(a) local education authorities, (b) TECs and (c) local lifelong learning partnerships; and how many local learning and skills councils are planned. [93378]

  Mr. Mudie
  There are currently 150 local education authorities, 72 Training and Enterprise Councils and 103 local learning partnerships in England. We have asked the Regional Development Agencies and the London Development Partnership for advice on the boundaries in their region for up to 50 local Learning and Skills Councils across England.

  "Learning to Succeed"
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown of the forecast administrative cost savings to be achieved under his proposals in "Learning to Succeed" (Cm 4392). [93381]

  Mr. Mudie
  We expect to secure at least £50 million in savings per annum in steady state as a result of the changes set out in the White Paper "Learning to Succeed". These will flow from cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy, simpler funding and administrative systems, and streamlining contracting arrangements. Detailed estimates of administrative cost savings to be achieved will be determined once we have considered, and taken decisions on, responses to the consultation, particularly on the precise functions to be carried out by the Learning and Skills Council at local and national levels.

  Numeracy Strategy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate of the number of primary school teachers was used to determine the print run of the numeracy strategy documents. [93373]
  188
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of primary school teachers in England is estimated at 190,000. An initial print run of 300,000 copies of the Framework for teaching mathematics was commissioned for publication in March.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the criteria used in allocating the tender to print the numeracy strategy file for teachers to a company in Italy. [93376]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We commissioned Cambridge University Press (CUP) to prepare the Framework for publication. CUP were selected because of its record in mathematical publications, its understanding of the pilot National Numeracy Project and the English National Curriculum. The selection of the printer was a matter entirely for CUP.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many copies of the numeracy strategy document for teachers were ordered from the printers; how many have been printed; how many schools have not received their full allocation to date; and when further copies will be made available. [93375]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  300,000 copies of the National Numeracy Strategy Framework for teaching mathematics were ordered and printed. Arrangements were made for all schools to receive three copies of the strategy's Framework on 16 March with over 200,000 copies available on request. A reprint of 200,000 copies was commissioned and all schools requesting additional copies received them before the end of summer term.

  Truancy and School Exclusions
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress there has been on tackling truancy and school exclusion since the Social Exclusion Unit's report on Truancy and School Exclusion was published in May 1998. [93825]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Ministerial Task Force on Truancy and School Exclusion, which I chair, has today sent its first annual report on truancy and school exclusion to the Prime Minister. The report sets out the action we have taken to implement the recommendations in the Social Exclusion Unit's report, including examples of good practice, and sets out our priorities for 1999–2000.

  We are pleased to report that permanent exclusions have fallen by 3 per cent. (from 12,700 in the 1996–97 school year to 12,300 in 1997–98). This is particularly good news because it is the first time that permanent exclusions have fallen since my Department began collecting information on exclusions in 1994–95.

  Since the "Truancy and School Exclusion" report was published, we have:
  made available through the "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" grant some £500 million over the next three years to tackle truancy and exclusion from school. As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that all pupils who are excluded for more than three weeks have access to a full-time and appropriate

  189
  timetable by 2002, this includes £22 million made available to local education authorities in 1999–2000 to extend out of school provision;
  required local education authorities to set targets for reducing unauthorised absence and permanent exclusions within their Education Development Plans—in order to meet the national target of a one third reduction in levels of unauthorised absence and school exclusion by 2002;
  given the police, under the "Crime and Disorder Act 1998", a new power to pick up truants and return them to designated premises.
  issued new guidance on "Social inclusion: Pupil Support", which brings together advice on attendance, discipline, the use of exclusion, education outside school and re-integration, with a focus on early intervention. The document emphasises the importance of multi-agency support.

  Our priorities for 1999–2000 include:
  new local education authority targets for reducing the level of fixed period exclusions;
  continued work to secure more joined up working at local level to support pupils who are at risk of truancy or disaffection;
  following recommendations in the Macpherson report, a consultation on how to increase the amount of exclusions information which is published down to school level, including information about the ethnicity of excluded pupils;
  generating more innovative ideas for tackling truancy and exclusion from school (from 2000–01);
  as part of the "Excellence in Cities" initiative, the introduction of learning mentors and learning support units to tackle disaffection and barriers to learning.

  Career Development Loans
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to(a) review and (b) evaluate the impact of the Career Development Loan Scheme on educational training. [93628]

  Mr. Mudie
  The effectiveness of the Career Development Loan (CDL) Scheme is subject to an annual review against targets and objectives, the Department has also started a fundamental review of the application processes and associated literature in partnership with the participating High Street banks.

  In addition, there is a rolling programme of evaluation undertaken by external specialists. The most recent evaluations have been:
  In 1997, research into the impact the loans had on individuals and their ability to undertake vocational training or continue in education had the loan not been available;
  In 1998, research into the views of training providers, both those who actively promote CDLs and those who have not had any trainees use the scheme;
  In 1999, research into the reasons why people do not take up a loan after showing initial interest and asking for the application pack.

  The first two reports are available from the DfEE Publications Unit and copies have been placed in the Library. The third will also be available in due course.

  Standards and Effectiveness Unit
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the increase in the(a) staff and (b) expenditure of the Standards and Effectiveness Unit since its inception; and what assessment he has made of the impact of this increase on (i) the bureaucratic burdens on schools and (ii) the number of circulars issued by his Department. [93312]
  190
  Ms Estelle Morris
  At its inception in May 1997 the number of staff in the Unit was 44, this rose to 107 in May 1998 and at the end of June 1999 stood at 152. The budget for the Unit in 1997–98 was £2.4 million; for 1998–99, £4.8 million; and for 1999–2000 it is £5.9 million. The numbers of staff in the Unit must be viewed against the numbers of staff and budget for the Department as a whole, both of which have remained stable over the last two years. The increase of staff in the Unit, therefore, reflects a refocusing of resources towards our top priority of raising standards in schools.

  The increased resources devoted to the Standards and Effectiveness Unit have led to a clearer focus on raising standards in schools, not to increased bureaucracy. The work of the Unit has not led to any significant increase in the number of circulars issued by the Department over the last three years. We draw a clear distinction between unnecessary bureaucratic activity, which hinders teachers' efforts to raise standards, and those activities that are integral to achieving higher standards. We have provided training and support materials as part of the strategies to improve standards in key areas such as literacy and numeracy and this has been welcomed by teachers.

  Following a systematic review of bureaucracy, the Department has initiated firm action to reduce the burden on schools.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Employment Service's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99 will be laid before Parliament. [93823]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have today laid before the House the Employment Service's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99 which gives full details of the Agency's performance and expenditure for that year.

  The Annual Report notes the very significant achievements of the Employment Service in 1998–99. In particular, the Employment Service successfully launched the New Deals for 18-24-year-olds, for those aged 25 and over and for Lone Parents through ground-breaking local partnerships of private, voluntary and public sector organisations.

  At the same time, the Report notes that during 1998–99 the Employment Service:
  handled 2.5 million job vacancies;
  placed directly into work over 1.2 million unemployed people including some 180,000 people who had been unemployed for more than six months and almost 100,000 people with disabilities;
  helped nearly a quarter of a million young people through the New Deal for 18-24-year-olds and directly placed 70,000 of them into jobs.

  Although the Employment Service did not succeed in meeting its main targets for the number of unemployed people placed into jobs, its performance needs to be seen against the background of further falls in unemployment over the year with numbers of long-term unemployed people at their lowest level for 20 years, a continuing emphasis on ensuring that all job placings were properly and accurately recorded and validated and the successful delivery of a very substantial agenda of other major developments, including New Deal implementation, by and within the Agency.
  191
  I am particularly pleased that the Employment Service is changing rapidly. People are noticing the difference. I am particularly pleased that standards of customer service in Jobcentres exceeded the target set and reached their highest recorded level ever.

  The Agency has also continued to play a key role in implementing our Modernising Government agenda including the introduction, on a pilot basis, of its new telephone job finding service, Employment Service Direct; the opening of its Peterlee Call Centre to improve services to employers throughout the Northern Region; and the introduction of Webvacs, its first internet jobs database.

  As the Chief Executive points out in his Report, none of this would have been possible without the quite remarkable effort and commitment of people throughout the Employment Service. I, too, am very grateful to them and wish them every success in 1999–2000.

  New Deal Leavers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who responded to the Survey of New Deal Leavers with Unknown Destinations stated that they had left for(a) unsubsidised work, (b) incapacity benefit, (c) income support and (d) another destination; and if he will list the other destinations. [93466]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A recently published survey of the destination of New Deal leavers with unknown destinations established that 43 per cent had left for paid employment. The other destinations are listed here:

  gone abroad

  claimed other benefit

  claimant deceased

  Full-Time education (other than as a New Deal Option)

  approved training

  starting non-New Deal Government Supported Training

  in prison/custody

  attending court

  on the witness protection programme

  partner working

  partner claiming

  signed off voluntarily due to a fraud investigation

  client signed off when a JSA disallowance applied

  the client is over the maximum savings limit

  on JSA but not on New Deal.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93457]

  Ms Hodge
  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that their policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, my Department is working closely with the Women's Unit and the Home Office to develop good practices for ensuring that our policies meet the changing needs of all members of society.
  192
  "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment guidelines", published by the Home Office, Women's Unit, and DfEE in November, has been circulated to all Departments to ensure that the effects of any policy changes on all sections of the population are considered at the earliest stage of policy development. My Department has underpinned the guidelines with more specific advice to all policy makers on how to consider the needs and requirements of different groups.

  International Labour Organisation Conventions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those International Labour Organisation conventions which the United Kingdom has stated it does not plan to ratify. [92826]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have made no such statement. When I attended the ILO Conference on 8 June I delivered the instrument of ratification for ILO Convention 111 on discrimination in employment to the ILO's Director General. We are currently considering ratification of both Convention 138 on the minimum age for employment and the new ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. I will make an announcement on these Conventions shortly.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will commission a study of the Norwegian experience in respect of the non-employment of smokers in asbestos-related work; and if he will make a statement. [93027]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  As far as I am aware, there is no policy in Norway on the non-employment of smokers in asbestos-related work. Because smoking increases the absolute lung cancer risk from asbestos, UK Government policy is to discourage those who work with asbestos from smoking. The Government have no further plans to commission research in this area.

DEFENCE

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the costs of(a) building new military hospital facilities to replace Royal Hospital, Haslar and (b) implementing improved security arrangements in the new establishment. [70872]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reviews, task forces and advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71521]
  193
  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the right hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 732, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred by (a) his agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department. [71016]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary ?of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 732, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred (a) by task forces and review bodies, (b) by focus groups, (c) on market research and (d) for publications and publicity; and if he will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [71017]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took; [74457]

  (2) if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 (a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates; [79282]

  (3) if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up (a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees. [79259]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will fund studies using radiological techniques proposed by Dundee and St. Andrew's Universities on the state of the health of UK nuclear veterans and their families. [74728]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are aware of the techniques that researchers at Dundee plan to use should their research proposals be adopted but we have serious doubts about their general applicability to nuclear test veterans. One of the techniques, the detection of chromosome aberrations, has already been the subject of a pilot study by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)194
  involving test veterans and was found to lack resolution since the level of such aberrations is naturally elevated in people of this age group.

  Of the other techniques, the magnitude of the dose required to produce long-term effects in the organs to be studied is very high. It is extremely unlikely that veterans could have received radiation doses sufficient to produce such effects 40 years after the alleged exposure. This is borne out by the fact that two robust epidemiological studies have shown no increase in leukaemia rates and no overall increase in mortality, either in cancer or non-cancer diagnoses. It would therefore be inappropriate to allocate public funds to this work.

  Chiefs of Staff
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings of the Chiefs of Staff since 21 December 1998. [84351]

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

  Building and Property Group
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the rules relating to the employment of sub-contractors at his Department's establishments under contracts with Building and Property Group Ltd. [80094]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: The Contractor shall not sub-let any or part of the Contract without the prior consent of the Project Manager. The Contractor is required to include in the sub-contractor's contract statutory obligations imposed on him by the Authority, relating, for example, to Corruption, Secrecy and any other provisions as may be necessary to enable the Contractor to fulfil his obligations under the Contract.

  Within the MOD Works Services Manager (WSM) and Establishment Works Consultant (EWC) contracts, there is a requirement on the contractor to provide a list of Companies/Consultants whom they intend to invite to tender, for any works in excess of £5,000. If he intends to invite a subsidiary or associated firm then this must be in addition to three other companies. Acceptance and award of contract should be to the lowest compliant tender.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1), pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1999,Official Report, column 685, on the Nimrod MRA4 programme, what was the nature of the technical difficulties experienced by BAe; and what extra costs will be placed on his Department because of the slippage in the in-service date from April 2003 to early 2005; [82528]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the procurement process for the maritime patrol aircraft requirement; and what were the in-service dates proposed by each of the bidders. [82529]
  195
  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Armed Forces (Manning Levels)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the additional annual full capitation costs to his Department if the services were manned up to establishment levels as at 31 March; and what is the breakdown of this figure between the(a) Royal Navy (excluding the Royal Marines), (b) Army, (c) Royal Air Force and (d) Royal Marines. [85911]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will respond to the request by Iraq's Foreign Minister on 21 November 1991 for a survey of the levels of depleted uranium contamination used in Operation Granby and Desert Storm. [86948]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) peers, (b) hon. Members and (c) hon. Members' staff, broken down by political party, are eligible for call up as (a) reservists and (b) members of the Territorial Army. [87339]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regular and reserve forces are(a) in theatre, (b) in support at home and (c) in training. [91592]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  UK Manufacturers
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to consider first(a) United Kingdom companies and (b) companies operating in the United Kingdom when placing orders; and what further plans he has to support United Kingdom manufacturers. [88403]

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

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Chichester of 22 April Ref (82417) on special advisers; [89064]
  196
  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) of 31 March 1999, Official Report, column 674, on special advisers, if he will give the average cost per head for each official and adviser for the trips listed. [82417]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who provided to the Saville Inquiry the series of documents released in October 1998 to lawyers acting for those killed or wounded in Londonderry on 30 January 1972, with particular reference to the document which identified the names, rank, number and appointment of individual soldiers; and by the authority of which Government Department they were handed to the Saville Inquiry. [88812]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each location where the United Kingdom has tested(a) chemical weapons, (b) biological weapons and (c) bacteriological weapons; and what steps have been taken to monitor and clean the locations after the tests. [89734]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  British Forces (Germany)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British forces personnel are currently stationed in Germany; and at what annual cost. [90173]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Service Families (Support)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the provision of briefing, communications and military welfare services for the families of Territorial Army personnel and reservists from all three services on tours of duty abroad. [90261]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sea Wolf
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the early release of the contract to purchase the second tranche (block 2) of the Sea Wolf missile fusing system. [90167]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: The contract for the Sea Wolf missile fuse was placed in 1997 and there is no requirement for further purchases at this time. Turning to the Sea Wolf missile itself, we are

  197
  currently engaged in pre-contractual negotiations with the Prime Contractor, Matra BAe Dynamics (MBD), on the final tranche of the missile requirement, which is known as Block 2. Subject to the outcome of these discussions, we plan to place the Block 2 contract later this year.

  Kapton Insulation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the use of Kapton insulation in military aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [91574]

  Mr. Spellar
  Kapton is a trademarked material. It is one of a range of polyamide coverings used to insulate aircraft wires. The MOD has been aware of potential problems associated with polyamide insulated wires since they were first identified in 1985. Accordingly the use of polyamide insulated wires in MOD aircraft is reviewed regularly. Work has included a detailed assessment of each aircraft installation; a review of defence standards on aircraft wiring; and work with the British Standards Institute to develop standards that are suitable for all airborne electrical wires and cables. We have also developed clear procurement guidelines and improved inspection and husbandry techniques. Decisions about wiring installations on MOD aircraft are made by experienced engineers who are responsible for assessing the risks and benefits, and for making safety and value judgments accordingly.

  Apache Helicopter
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Apache helicopters his Department is planning to acquire; at what cost; what reassessment has been made of their strategic role following the Kosovo conflict; and if he will make a statement. [91874]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We are acquiring 67 WAH-64 Apache attack helicopters at an estimated cost of some £3.1bn, including munitions and a 30-year training contract. We are currently studying the US Army's report into the deployment of Apache to the Balkans. It is too early to draw any firm conclusions, but we will take full account of any lessons for the aircraft's role.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what analysis has been undertaken of the effectiveness of the Apache helicopter since the Kosovo campaign. [92477]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We are currently studying the US Army's report into the deployment of US Army Apaches to the Balkans. It is too early to draw any firm conclusions, but we will take a full account of any lessons for the aircraft's role with the British Army.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Apache helicopters are(a) in service and (b) on order for the RAF. [92494]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently no Apache helicopters in service with the British Army. Sixty-seven WAH-64 Apache attack helicopters are on order. They will be operated by the Army.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the total trained requirement and (b) the
  198
  total trained strength of the (i) Royal Artillery, (ii) Royal Engineers, (iii) Royal Signals, (iv) Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, (v) Royal Logistic Corps and (vi) Royal Army Medical Service. [91593]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Electronic Tags
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the development of personal tags capable of the electronic storage of personal information including medical records. [92166]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Personnel (Bosnia)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom service personnel have been disabled in the course of their duties in Bosnia during the last three years; and what percentage of these have been found alternative work within the armed forces. [92215]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: Information on injuries occurring to military personnel serving in Bosnia is not collected in a format which would enable identification of personnel who have become disabled, as defined in the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.

  Anglo-US Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which organisation within the United States Department of Defence his Department is holding discussions to obtain replacements of stocks of Tomahawk missiles used in the Kosovo theatre; on what date these discussions began; and when his Department expects to conclude these discussions. [92254]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about our negotiations with the United States Department of Defense for the replacement of stocks of TOMAHAWK missiles used in Kosovo. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Discussions, which began on an informal basis in April, are being held with the Programme Executive Office Cruise Missiles and Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles (PEO(CU)) in the US Department of Defense. These are expected to conclude at the end of August with the placement of a contract.

  Army Medical Centre, Millbank
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current use and the planned future use of the Army Medical Centre buildings at Millbank. [92458]
  199
  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92649]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. I last travelled by train in the course of my departmental duties on 18 November 1998. In addition, I frequently travel to and from my constituency by train, most recently on 18 July 1999.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he has made to give emergency assistance to the Fire Service in case of a national firefighters' strike. [92900]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has longstanding arrangements with the Home Office to provide emergency fire cover at their request in the event of industrial action in the Fire Service. Our ability to respond to such a request would depend on the nature and extent of the request and on our operational commitments at the time.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many export orders have been placed for the Eurofighter; and if he will make a statement. [93280]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There have been no export orders for Eurofighter as yet, although the prime contractor, Eurofighter Gmbh, has identified a number of potential early customers.

  Tomahawk Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans the Government have to procure Tactical Tomahawk missiles currently under development in the United States; and if he will make a statement; [91331]

  (2) what plans the Government have to give individual Swiftsure and Trafalgar class SSNs on-board capability for the tactical targeting of Tomahawk missiles; and if he will make a statement. [91332]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government expect to conclude negotiations with the United States Department of Defense for the replenishment of Tomahawk missile stocks; and if he will make a statement. [91327]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.
  200
  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about when the Ministry of Defence expects to conclude negotiations for the replenishment of TOMAHAWK missile stocks. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Negotiations with the United States Department of Defense for the replenishment of RN TOMAHAWK missiles used in the Balkans are progressing and we expect a contract to be placed by the end of August.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions have been made in his Department's budget for the planned refurbishment of the Royal Navy's Block III Tomahawk missiles for(a) this financial year and (b) the next financial year. [91329]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the budgetary provision for refurbishment of the Royal Navy's Block III TOMAHAWK missiles for this and next financial year. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  No provision has been made in this and the next financial year as no RN TOMAHAWK missile refurbishment are planned during this period. Refurbishments are planned to commence from 2003.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first planned refurbishment of the Royal Navy's Block III Tomahawk missiles will take place; and if he will make a statement. [91330]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the first planned refurbishment of the Royal Navy's Block III TOMAHAWK missiles. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  I can confirm that the first refurbishment of Royal Navy TOMAHAWK missiles is planned for 2003.

  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the final selection for the future aircraft carrier is planned to take place; and if he will make a statement. [91334]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.
  201
  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Ministry of Defence's plans for the future aircraft carriers. This matter falls to me for answer within my responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Bids have been received from two industrial teams for the next phase of the programme (the Assessment Phase) which will develop overall design proposals. Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of this process, we plan contract placement for the Assessment Phase this Autumn. Bids for the Demonstration and Manufacture Phase are scheduled for 2003 with contract placement scheduled for 2004.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of animals in defence research. [93788]

  Mr. Spellar
  The independent Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. Jeremy Lucke, has recently published its third annual Report. The Committee was set up in 1996 specifically to keep under review the care and welfare arrangements of animals used in defence research. I am placing a copy of the Report in the Library of the House.

  The use of animals in defence research is concerned with providing the Armed Forces with safe and effective protection against hazards encountered while conducting their duties, and is kept to the absolute minimum.

  The Committee's Report highlights the work being done by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to find alternatives to the use of animals. In particular, the increasing use of in-vitro studies will lead to a reduction in the number of animals used. For example, use of such technology means that experiments to test the effectiveness of decontaminant and barrier creams against a chemical warfare agent, which would otherwise have needed up to 90 animals, was achieved without using any animals at all.

  There is still much to be done in developing technologies which allow the use of animals in experiments to be further reduced. We welcome continuing scrutiny by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and aim to minimise the use of animals as far as possible, against the continuing requirement to research effective measures to counter the hazards faced by the armed forces in the conduct of their duties.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [93790]

  Mr. Spellar
  The key targets set for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency for the financial year 1999–2000 are as follows:

  1. Return on capital employed

  Consistent with Treasury requirements, to achieve at least 6 per cent. return on capital employed.

  2. Manpower charging rates

  To set manpower chargeout rates for 2000–01 which reflect a reduction in DERA overheads compared with 1999–2000 budgeted levels.
  202
  3. New business

  To increase new business income (from customers other than the MOD) to £140M in 1999–2000.

  4. Professional standing

  To increase the number of staff elected as Fellows of professional bodies by 10 per cent.

  5. Progress on work

  To achieve on time 90 per cent. of the agreed milestones on work for MOD customers.

  6. Customer satisfaction

  To increase the level of customer satisfaction, as measured by customer surveys.

  7. Defence diversification

  To establish at least six Defence Diversification Offices across the UK.

  Three year rolling targets carried over from 1998–99:

  Over a period of three years, to achieve a 20 per cent. increase in peer reviewed publications per professional.

  Over a period of three years, to increase by 50 per cent. the number of scientific teams assessed as 'world class' in the technical assessment exercise.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reason for the purchase of protective shields for mobile phones by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency together with an explanation of the perceived use of such devices. [93285]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Exports (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the number of staff employed by the Defence Export Services Organisation in Indonesia in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98 and (b) the budget of DESO's branch office in Indonesia in (1) 1996–97 and (2) 1997–98. [93291]

  Mr. Spellar
  The details are as follows:

  Number of staff employed by DESO in Indonesia

  The Budget of DESO's branch office in Indonesia (£)

  1996–97

  1 UK based civilian

  88,000

  1 locally engaged driver

  1 locally engaged PA/clerk for two months

  1997–98

  1 UK based civilian

  179,000

  1 locally engaged driver

  1 locally engaged PA/clerk for eight and a half months

  The increase in 1997–98 is due to rent payments of £86,000 which were paid in advance for three years. Naturally, under these arrangements, no payment was due in 1996–97.

  Child Support Agency
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 417, on the Child Support Agency, if deductions from pay to meet child maintenance assessments are made when this would take total deductions over the 25 per cent. limit. [93371]
  203
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Exports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will implement the recommendation made by the Defence Committee in its Second report (The Appointment of the New Head of Defence Export Services HC 512) to commission a detailed assessment of the full costs and benefits of defence exports for the UK; and if he will make a statement. [93558]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government welcome the Defence Select Committee's invitation to provide a more systematic and detailed assessment of the full costs and benefits of defence exports for the UK. Work has been set in hand and we will inform the Committee of the conclusions when this is complete.

  Ballistic Missile Programme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the terms of reference of the Technical Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme established to address the technical requirements of a United Kingdom ballistic missile defence programme; and if he will make a statement on their work since establishment. [92963]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme is a three year programme which was initiated following the Strategic Defence Review. It forms part of the Corporate Research Programme. Its purposes are (i) to monitor developments in the potential threat and the technologies available to counter it and (ii) to establish a position from which a national requirement for fielding an active ballistic missile defence system could be developed, should one become necessary. The programme focuses on the characteristics of ballistic missiles, the performance of radar and other sensors, the guidance of interceptors, and their potential to defeat ballistic missile warheads including those containing biological or chemical agents.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) of 21 July 1999,Official Report, columns 534-35, about the defence response to the threat posed by biological and chemical weapons, what expenditure he plans in this area additional to the level of spending previously earmarked for (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [93337]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In our report, "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons", we outlined plans resulting from the Strategic Defence Review and subsequent work to enhance our biological and chemical defence capability. The additional expenditure over the next three years is expected to be some £12 million in 1999–2000, £22 million in 2000–01 and £31 million in 2001–02.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the operating costs in the last financial year of the units involved in biological and chemical defence tasks. [93314]
  204
  Mr. George Robertson
  In 1998–99, the units dedicated to biological and chemical defence tasks were the Royal Yeomanry and the Defence NBC Centre. The operating cost of those units was some £5 million.

  Land Command, Wilton
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HQ Land Command at Wilton has stand-by generators adequate to ensure security of electricity supply to meet all normal requirements. [92964]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Headquarters Land Command has four generators that would provide immediate backup if the main supply of electricity were to fail. This is sufficient to maintain the essential requirements of the headquarters.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the incidence and expected future trends in the use of Spade Adam training base for tactical low-flying training involving heavy jets; [93322]

  (2) if he will list the number of low-flying training flights across the Scottish borders by heavy jets at (a) 100 and (b) 250 feet for the last five years for which figures are available; [93320]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the incidence and expected future trends in tactical low-flying training over the Border Region in heavy jets. [93321]

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

  Royal Regiment of Wales
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Welsh Colonels have served in the Royal Regiment of Wales during the past 10 years. [93324]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In the period between 1989 and 1999, there have been eight Commanding Officers in the Royal Regiment of Wales. It is not mandatory for serving personnel to provide details of their ethnic origin and when they do those details are given on a confidential basis. It would not therefore be appropriate to provide details on an individual basis, but I understand that four of the Commanding Officers in the period have classified themselves as Welsh.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Welsh Commanding Officers are serving in the Royal Regiment of Wales. [93323]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since 1 July 1999, there has been only one Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Wales, and consequently only one Commanding Officer. It is not mandatory for serving personnel to provide details of their ethnic origin and when they do those details are given on a confidential basis.

  Smart Procurement Initiative
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the reduction in cost
  205
  overruns for major projects in each of the next five years arising from the introduction of the Smart Procurement initiative; and if he will make a statement. [93548]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sierra Leone
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department is providing to the Government of Sierra Leone following the Lomé Peace Agreement. [93789]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I am pleased to announce today that the Government are prepared to offer up to 20 UK military observers to an expanded United Nations Observation Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL). This is a substantial increase from the five who are currently deployed with UNOMSIL.

  This clearly demonstrates our support for UN peacekeeping operations. The UN Mission has a vital role in upholding peace and democracy in Sierra Leone and we should play our part in that process.

  Over and above our support for the UN, we already have in place an eight-man training team to advise on basic training for recruits to the new Sierra Leone army. This team will help to establish more professional and better-trained armed forces.

  We also currently have a military officer and civilian adviser in Freetown. Their role is to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in undertaking a review of Sierra Leone's Defence Policy, the roles of the Ministry of Defence and Defence Headquarters, and the size and shape of a new Sierra Leone Armed Forces. The aim of this project is to ensure appropriate civilian control and accountability of the armed forces.

  Volvo
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the prospects for continued production in the UK by Volvo; [69322]

  (2) if he will assess the (a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of withdrawing the MOD contract with Volvo Trucks; [69319]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the closure of the Irvine Truck plant; and if he will list the contracts in place with Volvo; [69320]

  (4) what representations he has received from Volvo on the closure of the Irvine plant. [69321]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Radiation (Chatham Dockyard)
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former Chatham Dockyard workers who were subjected to radiation have received compensation to date. [64561]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  New Deal
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many New Deal candidates have taken up appointments in his Department; what percentage they are of his Department's civilian workforce; and what their appointments are. [65626]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 July 1999, the MOD has employed 15 people on short-term and three people on permanent appointments from the New Deal initiative, representing less than 1 per cent. of the civilian workforce. There are currently 17 New Deal candidates in post, a further four awaiting pre-employment checks and the Employment Services are attempting to fill another 37 posts identified as suitable for New Deal candidates.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his estimate of the proportion of the defence budget taken by(a) civilian and (b) armed forces salaries on (i) 31 March 2000, (ii) 31 March 1999, (iii) 31 March 1998 and (iv)31 March 1997 and assuming future pay awards match the Government's inflation assumptions on (1) 31 March 2002 and (2) 31 March 2003; [71672]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the civilian and (b) the armed forces salary bills in the financial year 1999–2000. [71673]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Multiple Myeloma
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a review study of the cancers reported in the early National Radiological Protection Board studies in cases involving multiple myeloma. [74730]

  Mr. Spellar
  Earlier studies by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) embraced all cancer related illnesses including multiple myeloma. The overall conclusion of these studies was that the total incidence of cancer among nuclear test veterans was less than among the general population and no higher than among the control group. I announced on 25 February 1999 that my Department would fund a further study to address the incidence of multiple myeloma among nuclear test veterans. This is because there was some uncertainty about the incidence of this particular illness following the first NRPB study; and we wish to assess whether or not there is any significance in the recently reported increased rates.

  Landing Platform Docks Contract
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Landing Platform Docks contract is(a) on schedule and (b) proceeding to budget; and if he will make a statement; [75127]

  (2) what (a) detailed and (b) major changes his Department has sought to make to the design of the ships under the Landing Platform Docks contract; what was the

  207
  cost to his Department of such changes; what measures have been taken to ensure that costs do not increase on the contract; and if he will make a statement; [75126]

  (3) what stage the work on the Landing Platform Docks contract has reached for (a) the first and (b) second ship; and if he will make a statement. [75128]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Procurement Instructions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Chief of Defence procurement instructions have been issued since 1 June 1998; and how many were unclassified. [82246]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Chief of Defence Procurement Instructions. This matter falls to me for answer within my responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Twenty-three Chief of Defence Procurement Instructions have been issued since 1' June 1998. All of them were unclassified, but a number contain information about the Defence Procurement Agency's procedures which could prejudice the effective conduct of the Agency and would, therefore, be withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  No new Chief of Defence Procurement instructions have been issued since April. Although they remain extant they are being replaced by the Acquisition Management System which fulfils a similar function in respect of Smart Procurement procedures.

  Young Soldiers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers aged under 18 years are stationed in(a) Yugoslavia and (b) Kosovo. [89126]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 52, to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom shipbuilders have facilities to build an aircraft carrier with a displacement in excess of 45,000 tons. [92400]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on 16 July 1999,Official Report, column 352. The size of the new aircraft carriers is currently estimated to be up to 40,000 tonnes.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what options have been considered for aircraft 208
  types to operate from the two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. [92420]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the aircraft options for the new aircraft carriers. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The combat aircraft to equip the two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is known as the Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft (FCBA). A strong contender for FCBA is a variant of the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and the UK is participating in the Concept Demonstration Phase of its development. We are also assessing a navalised version of the Eurofighter, the US F-18 Super Hornet, the French Rafale-M and an advanced version of the Harrier. No decision has yet been made on the choice of aircraft to meet the FCBA.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the proposed(a) displaced weight and (b) overall length of the two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. [92421]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the proposed displaced weight and overall length of the two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. This matter falls to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The current estimate is that the new aircraft carriers will displace up to 40,000 tonnes and have an overall length of approximately 300 metres. The final decision on their design, including their size, however, will be influenced by the selection of the Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft late next year.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are used for the processing of plutonium removed from warheads for refurbishment. [92814]

  Mr. George Robertson
  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 Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence which asked what facilities are used for the processing of plutonium removed from warheads for refurbishment. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  I can confirm that all such work is carried out in specialised facilities at AWE Aldermaston.

  Trident Warhead
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reasons the British Trident Warhead requires refurbishing early in the next decade; [93273]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States to prepare for the refurbishment of the Trident Warhead. [93272]

  Mr. George Robertson
  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 Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 27 July 1999:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for the reasons why British Trident Warhead requires refurbishing early in the next decade, and what discussions have taken place with the United States Government to prepare for the refurbishment of the warheads. This matter falls to me for answer within my responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Chapter four, "Deterrence and Disarmament", of the Strategic Defence Review stated that the Government needed to ensure that Trident would remain an effective deterrent for up to 30 years. Whilst Trident remains in service the warheads will be refurbished as necessary to ensure that that undertaking is fulfilled and that they remain safe and serviceable at all times.
  There are regular discussions and exchanges of information with the United States in regard to the Trident programme, made under the auspices of the 1958 Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes (Cmnd. 537 as amended). These discussions include refurbishment of the warhead.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93465]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that its policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, my Department is working with the Women's Unit, Home Office, and DfEE to develop good practices for ensuring that our policies meet the changing needs of all members of society.

  "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment", published by the Cabinet Office, Home Office, DfEE and the Women's Unit in November 1998, has been circulated to staff within my Department to ensure that the effects of any policy changes, on all sections of the population, are considered at the earliest stage of policy development.

  My Department currently has no baseline for policy appraisal, but we will shortly be introducing new procedures for monitoring.

  Training Group Defence Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Training Group Defence Agency for financial year 1999–2000. [86705]
  210
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Pursuant to my answer of 9 June 1999,Official Report, columns 331-32, I regret that the information given under Key Target 4 was incorrect. The target should have read:
  "To provide an Information System to produce full output costings and associated unit cost and efficiency measures by April 2000".

  Armed Forces (Youth Recruitment)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people under the age of 18 years currently serve in the armed forces; in which services; and with what duties. [66225]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Depleted Uranium Weapons (Kosovo)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what health monitoring of pregnant women and children is being undertaken in Kosovo in areas affected by the use of depleted uranium weapons. [93455]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There are currently no health monitoring programmes in place in Kosovo under the auspices of UK forces; however a joint task force has been set up by the UN Environment Programme and the UN Commission on Settlements to assess the environmental and health aspects of the conflict.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a document outlining the responsibilities of his Department and the staffing structure. [91605]

  Dr. Reid
  The memorandum I recently presented to the Scottish Affairs Committee has, with the permission of the Committee, been placed in the Library in the House of Commons. The staffing structure will be published in due course.

  Duty Free
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the sectors of the Scottish economy which will be affected by the abolition of duty free within the European Union. [91606]

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on the Scottish economy of the abolition of duty free within the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [91615]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The previous Government agreed to the abolition of duty free within the EU in 1991. We took steps to simplify the new regulations whenever possible to mitigate the impact on industry in Scotland, and elsewhere in the UK.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on revisions to the Assisted Areas Map in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [91607]

  Dr. Reid
  Revision of the Assisted Areas Map across Britain is a reserved matter for the UK Government. I have been in close touch with The First Minister throughout the final stages of the Review. The proposals for new assisted areas announced on 15 July represent overall a fair outcome for Scotland.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to ministerial colleagues regarding the proposed boundaries of Assisted Areas in Scotland. [91614]

  Dr. Reid
  Scottish Office Ministers and officials were fully involved in discussions within Government on the Review of Assisted Areas.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact in Scotland of the Post Office White Paper. [91608]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The benefits that will arise from the measures in the White Paper are expected to apply throughout the United Kingdom. These include setting criteria to ensure that a truly national service is provided, including especially Post Office Counters' services and a universal service of postal delivery.

  The Economy
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the state of the Scottish economy. [91609]

  Dr. Reid
  I will discuss the state of the Scottish economy with the Chancellor as necessary, to ensure that his outstanding management of the UK economy continues to benefit Scotland as it has done over the last two years.

  Job Prospects
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on increasing job prospects in areas of high unemployment. [91610]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been involved recently in a number of discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other colleagues about the review of the Assisted Areas Map and the Objective 2 Map.

  In redrawing the AA Map, the Government have been concerned to strike the right balance between areas of greatest need and areas offering the greatest potential for development. Given that coverage for the United Kingdom on both Maps had to be reduced, this has involved some difficult decisions. However I am satisfied that the outcome is a fair result for Scotland.

  Departmental Internet Site
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reasons for the discontinuation of his Department's internet site. [91611]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The work of the Department changed radically on 1 July. The new website will be fully operational soon.

  Oil Industry
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Chancellor of Exchequer on the concerns of those using single-person companies about the consequences of the proposals contained in Treasury press release IR35 for the future of the oil industry in Scotland. [91613]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have recently received a letter from the hon. Gentleman setting out the views of a number of organisations on the proposals contained in Treasury Press Release IR35. I will ensure that these representations are conveyed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Food Safety
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Government have to encourage the co-ordination of policy on food safety matters between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. [91616]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Co-ordination of food safety will be for the Food Standards Agency. Until it is established, policy will continue to be co-ordinated by means of close working relations between the Government and the Scottish Executive.

  Referendum (Independence)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had concerning his reserved powers to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. [91617]

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on utilising his powers to call a referendum on Scottish independence. [91619]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government have no intention of holding any referendum on Scottish independence. Scottish voters demonstrated their clear support for devolution on 11 September 1997, and again on 6 May this year.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish TUC to discuss UK Government assistance for the Scottish shipbuilding industry; and if he will make a statement. [91618]

  Dr. Reid
  The STUC have not so far requested a meeting with me to discuss the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. The Scottish Executive is in regular discussion with the STUC on issues affecting the shipbuilding industry. The Department of Trade and Industry, which retains overall responsibility for the shipbuilding industry
  213
  in the UK, also has continuing discussions in its Shipbuilding Forum with all parties that have an interest in the competitiveness of the industry.

  Fishing Industry
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to discuss reserved matters relating to the catching sector of the fishing industry. [91620]

  Dr. Reid
  I met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 24 June to discuss the designation of the Scottish Fisheries Zone.

  Research Council Grants
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made to ensure that Scottish universities apply for and use grants from research councils in a co-ordinated manner. [91621]

  Mr. Macdonald
  It is a matter for individual Scottish universities, departments and researchers to apply for Research Council grants that they consider relevant to their research objectives and expertise.

  Coastguard Service
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans next to meet the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss the future of the coastguard service in Scotland. [91622]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Secretary of State has regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions on a range of issues, reflecting his continuing role of representing Scottish interests on matters reserved to the UK Parliament.

  Official Engagements
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official engagements he has attended since 1 July. [91623]

  Dr. Reid
  Twenty three. This does not include attendance at Cabinet and Cabinet Committee meetings, bilaterals with Cabinet colleagues and regular meetings with the Advocate General and Scotland Office Ministers.

  Tuition Fees
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the costs of abolishing tuition fees in Scotland will be met by the UK Government; and if he will make a statement. [91625]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Executive has set up an independent Committee of Inquiry to examine Scottish student finance. Until the Committee has reported the question does not arise. It is worth noting, however, that over 50 per cent. of Scottish students assessed this year paid no tuition fees.

  One Parent Families Scotland
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet One Parent Families Scotland to discuss the funding of the work of that organisation in relation to reserved areas. [91626]
  214
  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to so do in the immediate future. But if the hon. Member would like to write with any specific points, we would be happy to consider them.

  Concordat (EU Matters)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress with the concordat with the Scottish Parliament on EU matters. [91627]

  Dr. Reid
  Concordats will guide working relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive on a range of matters, including those relating to the EU. They will be published once they have been agreed with the Scottish Executive.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to discuss the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's anti-drugs strategy in Scotland. [91612]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend has not met formally with the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator. Responsibility for implementing drugs strategy in Scotland rests with the Scottish Executive.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what practical arrangements he has put in place to provide help to disabled people to seek and retain jobs through(a) financial support, (b) transport and (c) individual physical help. [91235]

  Ms Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  In Scotland, as elsewhere, most disabled people are helped into work through the mainstream services offered by the Employment Service with additional support for those who require more help. The Disability Service Teams offer specialist employment measures tailored to the needs of individual disabled people. The six Disability Service Teams in Scotland plan to spend around £10 million 1999–2000 on specialist programmes for people with disabilities in Scotland, including Access to Work, the Job Introduction Scheme, Work Preparation and Supported Employment Opportunities.

  The Access to Work programme provides both financial and technical support to remove barriers to work created by disability. Support can take many forms, including help with getting to work; the cost of aids and adaptations to equipment, computers or the work place; and of communicators for people with a hearing or visual impairment.

  In addition, the New Deal for Disabled People is piloting a range of initiatives, to help disabled people and those with long-term illness on incapacity benefits into work and training at a cost of £195 million over the lifetime of this Parliament. The Personal Adviser service is being piloted in Lanarkshire, and there are three Innovative Schemes operating in Scotland.
  215
  The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations came into force on 1 November 1998 and apply to all new rail vehicles entering service from 1 January 1999. These regulations, which are the first regulations to be made under Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, will considerably improve access for disabled passengers, including wheelchair users, to new rail vehicles. Similar regulations for buses, coaches and taxis are also proposed and consultation on the draft regulations covering these vehicles is expected this year.

  River Tweed
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Board of Scottish Natural Heritage has considered the River Tweed as a candidate Special Area of Conservation under the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora; and what was their decision. [88787]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The Board of Scottish Natural Heritage considered the case for recommending the River Tweed as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and concluded that it should be recommended as one.

  It is, however, for the Government to decide what sites should be proposed to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation. The Government decided, in the light of their own appraisal of the scientific case for this site, that the River Tweed should not be proposed as a candidate SAC.

  The implementation of the Habitats Directive in Scotland is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the scientific advice received from Scottish Natural Heritage concerning the notification of the River Tweed as a candidate Special Area of Conservation under the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora. [88788]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 22 July 1999, Official Report, column 5860.

  The implementation of the Habitats Directive in Scotland is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from Scottish Natural Heritage concerning the notification of the River Tweed as a candidate Special Area of Conservation under the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora. [88786]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Scottish Natural Heritage advised The Scottish Office that they considered there was a strong case for proposing the River Tweed as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

  However, further scientific advice from Scottish Office specialist advisers and from the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory indicated that there were reasons why, when applying the criteria for site selection specified in the Habitats Directive, the Tweed was not an outstanding
  216
  candidate for SAC status for Atlantic salmon. Those reasons included the relatively poor state of the spawning salmon stock, the very substantial modification by man of the watercourse and discharges into the river environment. The Government have proposed five other rivers to the European Commission as candidate SACs for Atlantic salmon which we believe better meet the selection criteria of the Habitats Directive.

  The implementation of the Habitats Directive in Scotland is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Research
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that research in Scottish institutions funded by research councils is properly integrated with research funded by the Scottish Executive to ensure the best use of resources. [90778]

  Dr. Reid
  Appropriate integration of the two streams of the research funding has been recognised for some time as an important matter. The Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee—which draws its members from the senior officials of the Research Councils, the Funding Councils (including SHEFC), the UK and devolved departments with responsibility for Higher Education and the Office of Science and Technology—aims to co-ordinate science and engineering base research activity across the UK and to ensure that it is consistent with, and targeted on, Government objectives.

  Research in Scottish Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is funded both by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) and the UK Research Councils Policy relating to the former is devolved and therefore a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament similarly, the UK Research Council are the responsibility of my noble Friend, Lord Sainsbury.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [91998]

  Dr. Reid
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for copies of my reply to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Quangos
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appointments to quangos he made between(a) 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (b) 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999; and in each case of those how many were members of Britain's (i) Asian and (ii) ethnic minority communities. [92145]

  Dr. Reid
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for copies of my reply to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been
  217
  seen by (a) him, (b) other Ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92172]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Scottish Office was guided by the convention governing access to papers of a previous Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980, Official Report, columns 305-07.

  Adjacent Waters Boundary Order
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Executive about the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order; and if he will make a statement. [93269]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Following the debate in the Scottish Parliament about the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order on 3 June, the Scottish Executive Minister for Rural Affairs, Mr. Ross Finnie, wrote to the Secretary of State. His letter conveyed fishermen's concerns about the Order. The Secretary of State met with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 24 June.

  Concordats
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to publish the concordats covering administrative arrangements relating to co-operation between Whitehall departments and departments of the Scottish Executive. [93278]

  Dr. Reid
  The UK Government will shortly make proposals on concordats which will guide working relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive on a range of matters. They will be published once they have been agreed with the Scottish Executive.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his continuing responsibilities relating to research on matters pertaining to shellfish farming. [92278]

  Dr. Reid
  Ministerial responsibility for research on matters pertaining to shellfish farming, and fish generally, lies with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, in Scotland, with the Scottish Executive.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his responsibilities are in relation to the use by police of(a) MIBK and (b) CS gas spray. [92320]

  Dr. Reid
  None. From 1 July this became a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much he has agreed to increase the Scottish block grant in each of the next three years to meet the new burdens on Scottish(a) health authorities, (b) ambulance
  218
  authorities, (c) police authorities, (d) fire authorities and (e) local authorities laid out in paragraph 7 of Chapter 5 of the Ministry of Defence paper entitled, "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons". [93094]

  Dr. Reid
  No additional provision has been made. Any additional costs for the authorities mentioned are likely to be very small in relation to the overall provision.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of transferring oral questions to other departments; and in what ways it has changed since 1 July. [93243]

  Dr. Reid
  The policy on transferring oral questions has not changed since 1 July.

  Fur Farms
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mink and fox factory farms there are, by county, in Scotland. [93617]

  Dr. Reid
  This is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received regarding the closure of magistrates courts in shire counties. [91634]

  Mr. Vaz
  So far this year my Department has received 139 representations regarding the closure of magistrates courts in shire counties.

  Under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, the Lord Chancellor has a role in magistrates courthouse closures only where an appeal has been lodged. All representations received are carefully considered before any final decisions are made.

  Police Authority-Magistrates Court Committee Chairmen
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department pursuant to his answer of 7 July 1999,Official Report, column 556, on police authority and magistrates court committee chairmen, if he will take steps to avoid the appointment of the same individual to both chairmanships where the areas of operation are approximately the same; and if he will make a statement. [91635]

  Mr. Vaz
  The chairman of a police authority and a magistrates court committee are both appointed by the members of their respective bodies. Neither the Home Secretary nor the Lord Chancellor, has any involvement in these appointments. The Lord Chancellor has however taken powers in the Access to Justice Bill for the preparation of a code of conduct to be observed by magistrates courts committee members and the panels that select them.

  Judges (Discourteous Remarks)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice and guidance he is issuing to judges concerning comments made by them from the bench which may be perceived as being sexist, racist or otherwise disparaging and discourteous. [91636]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Judicial Studies Board, which is an independent body controlled by a Board whose members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, is responsible for providing high-quality training to full and part-time judges. All JSB courses and seminars include modules on equal treatment issues. The JSB's Equal Treatment Advisory Committee is chaired by Mr. Justice Keene and will be publishing the second edition of its guidance to full and part-time judges on ethnic minority issues in the autumn. Further material relating to disability, gender and sexual orientation, litigants in person and children will be issued in the following months.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how he intends that experience of the pilot and associate pilot schemes will inform the process of establishing a national community legal service. [91638]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Pioneers and Associates were chosen for two reasons. First, they are all committed to developing high quality, responsive services to meet the needs of local communities. And second, they represent a range of areas with different characteristics. Some are urban, some rural and some semi-rural. This means that, in one way or another, the various models of best practice which emerge will be capable of transfer onto a national basis.

  There will be a careful rolling out, so that the lessons from the Pioneers and Associates can be tailored in a detailed way to meet specific local needs in the rest of the country.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how the Pioneer Partnerships for the community legal service have sought to improve access to legal advice and representation by socially excluded groups; and if he will make a statement. [91637]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Pioneer Partnerships are working to establish best practice in joined up planning of the advice provision. This will ensure we have the right services of the right quality at the right price to allow the disadvantaged to resolve disputes, enforce their rights or seek the protection of the courts.

  Judiciary (Communication)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's role as an intermediary between Government and the judiciary. [91640]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn),Official Report, column 116, and also to the Lord Chancellor's speech to the Third Worldwide Common
  220
  Law Judiciary Conference on 5 July 1999, in which he restated the role of his office. I have placed a copy of his speech in the Library.

  Magistrates and County Courts (Lichfield)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement concerning the future of the magistrates and county courts in Lichfield. [91641]

  Mr. Vaz
  Under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, decisions concerning the future of a magistrates' court are for the relevant magistrates' courts committee to determine, after consultation with the paying authority or authorities. The local authorities that contribute financially to the running of the service may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. Staffordshire Magistrates' Courts Committee expect to make their final determination concerning the future of Lichfield Magistrates' Court at their meeting on 28 July.

  With regard to Lichfield County Court, last September the Lord Chancellor gave permission to begin a public consultation exercise on the proposal to close the court. This has now concluded. I have yet to make a decision on the closure of the county court. As the hon. Member knows, I visited Lichfield Magistrates' Court and County Court at his invitation on 23 July.

  Judiciary (Independence)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's role as guarantor of the political independence of the judiciary. [91642]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave today to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman),Official Report, columns 117-18.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current backlog of adjudication appeals in immigration cases. [92895]

  Mr. Vaz
  When a case is received from the Home Office, a first hearing usually takes place within six weeks of receipt, and notice of this is sent out to the parties within five working days. If the appeal cannot be dealt with at the first hearing, it is adjourned and directions given for its progress to a second hearing, which usually takes place within a further six weeks. 1,303 appeals are currently at various stages of progress but there is no backlog, as the Immigration Appellate Authority is currently meeting all its targets.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will reconsider the level of property value taken into account in the awarding of legal aid, with particular reference to London. [92962]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have no plans to do so. It is important to note that the actual market value of the home does not determine eligibility for legal aid. The means test instead takes account of the equity value of the home—that is, the difference between its current market value and the
  221
  amount required to redeem any mortgage secured on it. This amount depends on the personal circumstances of the applicant and not on where they live. The present amount of equity disregarded for the purposes of determining legal aid eligibility is £100,000. This level was set in the Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1996. The Lord Chancellor consulted widely on those regulations, which were introduced to deal with the problem of apparently wealthy applicants receiving legal aid, and there was broad agreement that exempting a universal amount of equity was the correct way to proceed. The amount is the same as the maximum value up to which mortgage interest is paid for people receiving Income Support. Since eligibility for legal aid is related to movements in benefit levels, it would not be appropriate to make any changes independent of the benefit system.

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what targets he has set for the maximum reasonable period for the Immigration Appellate Authority to wait, after an appeal has been lodged for a child refused entry clearance under paragraph 297(e) of the Immigration Rules, before it receives the explanatory statement for the case. [93332]

  Mr. Vaz
  The main component of this type of appeal is the explanatory statement itself, which is currently issued by the IAA within five days of receipt from the Home Office.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the Lord Chancellor intends to do to satisfy himself that appointments to the professional judiciary and as Queen's Counsel are made fairly and on merit and that there are safeguards in the appointments procedures against discrimination on the grounds of race or gender. [93793]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Lord Chancellor has appointed Sir Leonard Peach, until recently Commissioner for Public Appointments and currently Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland and a Civil Service Commissioner, to provide a report to him on the operation of the appointments procedures in relation to all Judicial and Queen's Counsel appointments and in particular to advise on:

  The appropriateness and effectiveness of a) the criteria and b) the procedures for selecting the best candidates;

  The extent to which candidates are assessed objectively against the criteria for appointment; and

  The existence of safeguards in the procedures against discrimination on the grounds of race or gender.

  Sir Leonard Peach will also make recommendations, as appropriate, to the Lord Chancellor for further developments in the selection procedures for Judicial and Queen's Counsel appointments.

  In preparing his report, Sir Leonard Peach will have full access to all aspects of the appointments process and members of the legal profession and judges will be among those he will consult.

  Corporate Bodies
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to make an announcement on Law Commission report No. 253, "The Execution of Deeds and Documents By or on Behalf of Bodies Corporate". [93791]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government accept the Law Commission's recommendations in Report No. 253: "The Execution of Deeds and Documents By or on Behalf of Bodies Corporate" and will legislate when Parliamentary time allows.

  Solicitors (Complaints)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action has been taken to address the problems faced by the Law Society and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors about the handling of complaints. [93792]

  Mr. Vaz
  The performance in the handling of complaints by the Law Society has been deteriorating to an unacceptable level. The Government have therefore amended the Access to Justice Bill to allow for a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner to be appointed. The Commissioner would oversee the handling of complaints by the legal professional bodies. The Lord Chancellor hopes not to have to appoint a Commissioner, but will do so if the situation does not improve significantly.

  The Lord Chancellor has written to Robert Sayer, the President of the Law Society, to set down the improvements in performance by the Law Society and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors that could persuade the Government that it was unnecessary to introduce a Commissioner. Copies of this letter have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Children
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the merger of the children's work of the Official Solicitor, the Guardian ad Litem and Reporting Officer Service and Family Court Welfare Service will be finalised and the decision communicated to the relevant parties. [93786]

  Mr. Vaz
  I am pleased to announce that the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health and the First Secretary for Wales have agreed to set up a new service, when legislative time permits, which will combine the present Family Court Welfare function provided by the Probation Service, the Children's Branch of the Official Solicitor's Department and the Guardian ad Litem and Reporting Officer Service which local authorities currently provide. The Lord Chancellor will take responsibility for the new service, which will be set up as a non-departmental public body. The service will cover England and Wales and will serve the High Court of the Family Division, County Courts, including Care Centres, and Family Proceedings Courts.

  An inter-departmental project team to set up the new service has been established, which the Lord Chancellor's Department will lead. The project management framework to be adopted will ensure close liaison with the relevant services in creating the new organisation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by her Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [92002]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is no current requirement to consult on or publish gender impact assessments in Northern Ireland. The Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment (PAFT) administrative guidelines recommend assessments of the equality and discrimination implications when new policies and services are proposed or existing ones are reviewed. Such assessments cover a broad range of issues where there is potential for discriminatory impact—region and political opinion; gender; race; disability; age; marital status; dependants,

  Trust

  31 December 1997

  31 December 1998

  31 March 1999

  Down Lisburn

  470

  775

  885

  Newry and Mourne

  481

  657

  328

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  253

  457

  492

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times Ministers in her Department held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government between 1 January 1998 and

  Date

  Location

  Minister

  Irish Minister

  13 January 1998

  Department of Education, Bangor

  Mr. Worthington

  Mr. E. O'Cuiv TD and 4 officials

  14 January 1998

  Castle Buildings

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. M. Smith TD

  26 January 1998

  Parliament Buildings

  Mr. Worthington

  Mr. D. Ahern TD and 6 officials

  25 February 1998

  Hotel Conrad, Dublin

  Mr. Worthington

  Mr. B. Cowen TD and 7 officials

  2 March 1998

  Waterfront Hall, Belfast

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. T. Kitt TD

  20 March 1998

  Belfast City Hall

  Lord Dubs

  Dr. M. Woods TD

  27 March 1998

  Killyhevlin Hotel, Enniskillen

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. N. Treacy TD and 1 official

  6 April 1998

  Department of Education, Bangor

  Mr. Worthington

  Mr. M. Martin TD and 5 officials

  17–18 April 1998

  Aghadoe Heights Hotel, Killarney

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. J. Walsh TD and 2 officials

  19 April 1998

  Leopardstown Race Course, Dublin

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. J. Walsh TD

  15 May 1998

  Balyshannon, Co. Donegal

  Lord Dubs

  Dr. M. Woods TD

  15 May 1998

  The Old Courthouse, Lifford

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. J. Walsh TD

  16 June 1998

  Department of Justice, Dublin

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. J. O'Donohue TD

  5 September 1998

  Aghalane Bridge, Co. Cavan

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. N. Dempsey TD

  15 October 1998

  Dublin

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. B. Molloy TD

  16 October 1998

  Hillsborough Castle

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. J. Walsh TD and 1 official

  5 November 1998

  Royal Hospital, Dublin

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. N. Treacy TD and 2 officials

  6 November 1998

  Belfast

  Lord Dubs

  Taoiseach

  4 December 1998

  White Horse Hotel, Cootehill, Co. Cavan

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. J. Walsh TD

  15 December 1998

  Castle Buildings

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. J. O'Donoghue TD

  17–18 December 1998

  Brussels

  Lord Dubs

  Dr. M. Woods TD

  22 December 1998

  Dublin

  Lord Dubs

  Mr. N. Dempsey TD

  Education
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to increase the levels of educational attainment, with particular reference to the standards required for the jobs being created through the Industrial Development Board. [93033]
  224
  sexual orientation. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the PAFT administrative guidelines will be superseded by a statutory duty on public authority in relation to equality of opportunity. This will require equality schemes to be drawn up by public authorities, including arrangements for impact assessments with consultation and publication.

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were awaiting assessments by occupational therapists for disabled facilities in the (i) Down Lisburn Trust, (ii) Newry and Mourne Trust and (iii) Banbridge and Craigavon Trust(a) in 1997, (b) in 1998 and (c) at the latest available date. [92011]

  Mr. McFall
  Information is not available in the form requested, as occupational therapy activity is not analysed by reason for referral. The table shows the total numbers of people awaiting commencement of assessment at the end of the relevant quarter.

  31 December 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials at each meeting. [92268]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have met Irish Ministers very frequently throughout the Talks Process. Further meetings held by other Ministerial colleagues in 1998 include:

  Mr. McFall
  The Government have taken a number of steps to seek to ensure that the education system in Northern Ireland develops the range of skills which are likely to be required by employers now and in the future. A major schools improvement programme which will be supported by new investment in the school system for the
  225
  period up to 2002 is underway. That, together with a new educational technology strategy and a review of the curriculum, will seek to ensure higher and more relevant educational attainment and prepare young people for future vocational development. In addition, I have published a set of proposals on lifelong learning, "A new Learning Culture for All", in which I set out Government policy for improving general skill levels and for meeting the skill needs of Northern Ireland for the future. Included in the proposals are initiatives to widen and increase access to education and training provision, put in place a skills identification and monitoring system and significantly increase the number of higher and further education places available. I have established a Northern Ireland Skills task Force to advise the Department of Education and the Training and Employment Agency on issues related to skills identification and responses to labour market and skill needs. The Industrial Development Board will play a significant role in that task Force ensuring that its focus includes the target sectors for inward investment and company expansion.

  The information and advice from the Skills Task Force and from our labour market research will enable us to focus the education and training provision in Northern Ireland, at all levels, on the future needs of the local economy. This is an issue addressed in the recently published Economic Development Strategy, "Strategy 2010".

  Residents Groups (Funding)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funding has been provided to the(a) Lower Ormeau Concerned Community, (b) Bogside Residents Group and (c) Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition in each year since 1995. [92959]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  (a) £3,000 in 1997

  (b) £3,000 in 1997

  (c) Reimbursement of travel expenses for meetings with the Prime Minister in London in 1999.

  Drumcree Protest
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many weapons were seized in the

  Proposed recurrent allocations to Trusts in 1999–2000 by WHSSB

  £000

  Programme of Care

  Community care

  Child care

  Acute

  Cancer

  Renal

  Mental health

  Learning disability

  Total

  Alinagalvin

  —

  —

  349

  409

  —

  —

  —

  758

  Sperrin Lakeland

  2,471

  686

  415

  83

  178

  324

  240

  4,397

  Foyle

  2,375

  653

  —

  —

  —

  196

  315

  3,539

  Royal Group

  —

  —

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  Belfast City

  —

  —

  50

  439

  48

  —

  —

  537

  Causeway

  —

  —

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  Ulster and Community

  —

  —

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  NI Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  40

  Total

  4,846

  1,339

  1,061

  931

  266

  520

  555

  9,518

  226
  vicinity of the Drumcree protest in July 1998; how many of these were returned to their owners; how many were legally registered weapons; how many have subsequently been destroyed; who verified this process; and where the remaining weapons are stored. [92737]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: One home-made firearm was seized in the vicinity of the Drumcree protest in July 1998 and is currently held in Portadown RUC station pending a disposal order.

  Note:

  In light of the reference to legally registered weapons this phrase has been interpreted as referring to firearms and the question has been answered using that interpretation. A number of other items were seized during the period.

  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much is to be spent on cancer services in the Western Health and Social Services Board in the financial year 1999–2000; and how much was spent in financial year 1998–99. [93049]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The total planned expenditure on cancer services in the Western Health and Social Services Board in the financial year 1999–2000 is £3.95 million and the total spent on cancer services by the Board in the financial year 1998–99 was £2.94 million.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will provide a breakdown of the use of the increase in the money received for the 1999–2000 financial year over the previous year by the Western Health and Social Services Board on the basis of expenditure to each programme of care for each trust; and how much of this funding allocated within each programme and trust is on a (i) recurring and (ii) non-recurring basis. [93050]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The proposed breakdown of the use of the increase in the money received for the 1999–2000 financial year over the previous year by the Western Health and Social Services Board, on the basis of expenditure to each programme of care for each trust and the amount of this funding the Board proposes to allocate on a recurring basis, is shown in the table. Community care recurring funding extends over 1999–2000 to 2001–02 and £2.1 million is available for use non-recurrently in 1999–2000.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Child Support Agency's 1998–99 annual report and accounts will be published. [93787]

  Mr. McFall
  The Northern Ireland Child Support Agency published its 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts on Friday 23 July. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The Agency has met five of the six Ministerial targets and all Milestone targets. An outturn of £14.7 million was achieved for the Maintenance Collected target of £15.8 million and, although this target was not achieved, the maintenance collected is an increase of 16 per cent. on 1997–98 and a 51 per cent. increase on 1996–97.

  The Agency has placed a strong emphasis on improving the quality of service to customers and it is gratifying to see that an outturn of 71 per cent. has been achieved for the processing of maintenance assessments against a 65 per cent. target Improvements in quality are also evident with an outturn of 85 per cent. for the accuracy of assessment target of 75 per cent. The Report included details of the contribution which the Northern Ireland Agency makes to the overall performance of the Great Britain Agency through its partnership contract to deliver services to the people of Eastern England.

  The Agency recognises that customers have a right to good service provided by skilled staff and the foundations for continuing improvements are in place. Major changes in service delivery, including additional hours of contact with customers and more use of the telephone, will improve customer contact and the service provided. However, the Agency has a long way to go in improving the quality of its work, particularly in the accuracy of maintenance assessments which it makes.

  In the longer term, the Government's recently published proposals for a thorough reform of the child support system represent the best opportunity to radically improve services to customers especially, and most importantly, by putting children first.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) for an employing firm situated in the council districts of (i) Londonderry, (ii) Strabane, (iii) Limavady, (iv) Coleraine and (v) Magherafelt, what geographical area the Fair Employment Commission takes into account in order to determine the percentage of

  Camowen/Drumragh

  Culdaff

  Dennett

  Derg

  Deele

  Faughan

  Finn & Reelan

  Foyle

  Glenelly/Owenkillen

  Mourne/Strule

  Roe

  Misc.

  Totals

  Returns of salmon and grilse rod catches 1983–97

  1983

  4

  —

  3

  11

  —

  273

  339

  15

  10

  89

  80

  7

  831

  1984

  4

  —

  3

  13

  —

  52

  75

  80

  5

  79

  53

  15

  379

  1985

  37

  2

  6

  103

  2

  564

  309

  7

  64

  496

  224

  —

  1,814

  1986

  14

  1

  2

  10

  —

  371

  324

  25

  22

  270

  119

  14

  1,172

  1987

  3

  —

  1

  3

  —

  89

  77

  14

  12

  82

  96

  13

  390

  1988

  13

  —

  —

  9

  3

  165

  208

  39

  20

  410

  77

  16

  960

  1989

  3

  1

  4

  5

  —

  370

  170

  20

  22

  297

  81

  2

  975

  1990

  2

  1

  15

  40

  —

  332

  188

  4

  25

  156

  119

  45

  927

  1991

  11

  —

  —

  38

  —

  220

  82

  7

  10

  84

  30

  —

  482

  1992

  1

  —

  —

  26

  2

  209

  121

  7

  5

  87

  60

  5

  523

  1993

  55

  —

  5

  86

  —

  298

  243

  10

  43

  398

  69

  7

  1,214

  1994

  5

  —

  —

  83

  —

  198

  972

  9

  23

  447

  16

  6

  1,759

  228
  (a) Roman Catholic, (b) Protestant and (c) other which should be employed so as to reflect the percentage balance of the area; [93633]

  (2) what percentage of the economically active population aged 16 to 64 years in the council districts of (i) Londonderry, (ii) Strabane, (iii) Limavady, (iv) Coleraine and (v) Magherafelt are deemed by the Fair Employment Commission to be (a) Roman Catholic, (b) Protestant and (c) other; and what percentage in each council district are (1) male, (2) female and (3) self-employed; [93631]

  (3) by whom the progress of the Fair Employment Commission towards a pattern of fair employment is monitored and reviewed; what is the timescale for the achievement of fair employment by the Commission; and what was the timescale determined to achieve fair percentages of Roman Catholics and Protestants in 1994; [93634]

  (4) what percentage of the economically active population aged 16 to 64 years resident in (a) that part of Londonderry council area which lies on the West side of the River Foyle and (b) the remainder of that council area are deemed by the Fair Employment Commission to be (i) Roman Catholic, (ii) Protestant and (iii) other; [93632]

  (5) what geographical area the Fair Employment Commission takes into account when determining the percentage of (a) Roman Catholic and (b) Protestant staff it employs; and what is the percentage of (i) Roman Catholic, (ii) Protestant and (iii) others, economically active in that geographical area. [93636]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Foyle Fisheries
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the number of (i) salmon and grilse, (ii) sea trout and (iii) brown trout taken by anglers in each river in the Foyle Fisheries Commission area in each of the last 15 years. [93635]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The number of salmon and grilse and sea trout taken by anglers in each of the rivers in the Foyle Fisheries Commission area is shown in the table. These figures are compiled from returns made by anglers. The figures are incomplete as a varying percentage of anglers make returns each year. No figures are available for brown trout catches.
  229

  Camowen/Drumragh

  Culdaff

  Dennett

  Derg

  Deele

  Faughan

  Finn & Reelan

  Foyle

  Glenelly/Owenkillen

  Mourne/Strule

  Roe

  Misc.

  Totals

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  141

  237

  25

  9

  174

  79

  22

  708

  1996

  5

  —

  5

  40

  —

  251

  524

  21

  7

  534

  41

  16

  1,444

  1997

  13

  —

  5

  273

  —

  187

  207

  9

  39

  247

  31

  9

  1,020

  Returns of sea trout catches 1983–97

  1983

  2

  15

  165

  5

  —

  5,723

  103

  39

  368

  85

  195

  57

  6,757

  1984

  4

  27

  152

  6

  —

  1,425

  209

  188

  254

  84

  773

  466

  3,588

  1985

  40

  29

  68

  121

  36

  2,808

  137

  46

  633

  148

  772

  —

  4,838

  1986

  30

  22

  39

  13

  11

  1,864

  245

  42

  271

  79

  135

  178

  2,929

  1987

  —

  5

  14

  11

  5

  1,210

  253

  263

  97

  73

  207

  218

  2,356

  1988

  —

  —

  17

  23

  16

  1,003

  135

  175

  364

  25

  216

  107

  2,081

  1989

  —

  —

  95

  5

  —

  648

  55

  122

  170

  23

  166

  128

  1,412

  1990

  6

  4

  220

  10

  8

  660

  138

  9

  63

  38

  193

  50

  1,399

  1991

  —

  —

  14

  4

  —

  1,043

  25

  7

  10

  9

  110

  —

  1,222

  1992

  4

  —

  27

  30

  1

  1,035

  19

  45

  19

  1

  62

  172

  1,415

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  3

  10

  617

  56

  —

  11

  12

  22

  7

  738

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  19

  3

  390

  98

  —

  52

  12

  11

  7

  592

  1995

  —

  —

  17

  25

  —

  139

  88

  129

  223

  13

  102

  23

  759

  1996

  —

  —

  38

  4

  3

  397

  99

  34

  4

  154

  23

  15

  771

  1997

  —

  —

  26

  18

  —

  426

  109

  12

  13

  79

  78

  41

  802

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each of the last 15 years the density of (i) brown trout, (ii) sea trout and (iii) salmon parr and salmon smalts per 100 square metres, or such area as is used by the Foyle Fisheries Commission, determined by electric fishing surveys in each of the rivers in the Foyle Fisheries Commission area. [93639]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is not available.

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) on which roads, and on how many occasions on each such road, radar traps were operated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the council areas of (i) Londonderry, (ii) Limavady, (iii) Strabane and (iv) Coleraine during the last three months for which such information is available; [93629]

  (2) how many vehicles which did not have a vehicle excise duty disc displayed were detected on (a) the East Bank and (b) the West Bank of Londonderry during the last six months for which such figures are available. [93630]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Policy Unit (US Visits)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 1999,Official Report, column 480, on United States visits by his Policy Unit, how many meetings each member held with members and officials of the United States Government on each visit, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Policy Unit members involved and the names of the United States Ministers and officials at each meeting. [92302]
  230
  The Prime Minister
  Details of the three occasions on which members of the Policy Unit have travelled to the United States of America on official business since 1 January 1998 when not accompanying me or other Ministers are as follows:

  Dates

  Unit member

  6–9 December 1998

  Robert Hill

  29–31 January 1999

  David Miliband

  21–28 March 1999

  Sharon White

  All visits were to attend a series of meetings with US public officials. All visits were undertaken in line with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Special Envoys
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham of 20 July 1999,Official Report, column 962, if he will list the occasions on which special envoys have been used by his Government, and the names of the envoys concerned. [93178]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given today to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), Official Report, column 373, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  UK Delegations
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Prime Minister if there are any changes in the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union. [93655]

  The Prime Minister
  Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE replaces the right hon. Sir Alastair Goodlad KCMG as a full representative of the Delegation. Following the resignation of Lord Grenfell from the Delegation, the right hon. Lord Clinton-Davis has been appointed as a substitute representative from the Government benches.

  Parliamentary Questions (Good English)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will inform all members of his administration that, when giving written or oral replies to parliamentary questions, they should not use the locutions relocate, meet with and consult with, and that they should use good English. [93214]

  The Prime Minister
  What matters most is that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, as required by the Ministerial Code. The use of clear and concise English can be the best way of achieving this. However, I do not think it necessary to proscribe the use of any particular phrase.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to visit(a) the Czech Republic, (b) Hungary, (c) Slovenia and (d) Estonia. [92691]

  The Prime Minister
  I recognise the importance of these countries but have no plans to visit at present.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he intends to visit Poland; [92692]

  (2) on how many occasions dates have been identified with the UK Embassy in Poland for the Prime Minister to visit Poland and have subsequently been abandoned. [92802]

  The Prime Minister
  I regret that I have had to postpone my visit to Poland on two occasions due to pressure of other duties, mainly talks on Northern Ireland. I hope to reinstate a visit as soon as the opportunity arises.

  Petitions
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of the public petitions submitted to the Government in each of the last two years. [93469]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no operational requirement to maintain these details and no central list is therefore collated. However, in respect of my office, 101 petitions have been received this year, of which 14 contained more than 10,000 signatures. In line with the practice adopted by previous Governments, petitions delivered to my Office are acknowledged wherever possible and the relevant Government Department informed. Where appropriate, the views expressed are reflected in advice to Ministers about what the public response is to an issue.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the National Cancer Forum to assess progress on implementing the Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services; and if he will make a statement. [93625]

  The Prime Minister
  The aim of the Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services is to improve the quality and consistency of cancer services across the country. The National Cancer Forum has been established to advise on the on-going implementation of the Policy Framework.
  232
  I met members of the National Cancer Forum in May when I hosted a meeting in Downing Street to review progress and to identify where further action is needed to improve cancer prevention and care.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Population Control Agencies
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's health budget is paid to(a) IPPF, (b) UNFPA and (c) other population control agencies which provide abortion services as well as contraceptives. [93431]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) works with national governments, multilateral agencies and civil society groups in over 150 countries to enable more poor people to benefit from good quality reproductive health care, including voluntary family counselling and services; HIV/AIDS/STD prevention, treatment and care; essential obstetric care, including treatment for the consequences of unsafe abortion and, where legal, elective termination of pregnancy. Around 7.5 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. of DFID's 1998–99 health expenditure of £200 million was invested via UNFPA and IPPF respectively in order to enable poor people to exercise their basic right to reproductive choice and reproductive health.

  Abortion and Sterilisation Programmes
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the British Government funds compulsory abortion and sterilisation programmes. [93432]

  Clare Short
  All UK Government assistance for sexual and reproductive health is contingent on respect for the human rights principles and standards of privacy and free and informed choice upheld at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development. Coercion and control have no place in UN supported family planning.

  Health Services (Young People)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the British Government's policy in respect of health services for young people. [93495]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development's policies in respect of health services for young people seek to implement the Key Actions recently adopted by the UN General Assembly further to implement the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development and are consistent with the UK Government's recent White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation".

  People Living in Extreme Poverty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what targets have been set by her Department to increase the income of those people who are living on less than one US dollar a day. [92855]
  233
  Clare Short
  Our aim is to mobilise the international system to achieve the internationally agreed target of reducing by half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. In the Comprehensive Spending Review published in July 1998, we set out key targets to be achieved by the end of this Parliament, including annual growth of 1.5 per cent. in Gross Domestic Product per capita, and quantified measures for progress in health and education, strategies for sustainable development, improvements in the effectiveness of the international system and increased effectiveness of the United Kingdom's bilateral aid programme. Progress against these targets, which closely reflect the International Development Goals, will be rigorously monitored in the Department's annual Output and Performance Analysis which will be made publicly available.

  Public Attitudes (Monitoring)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for monitoring public attitudes on international development issues. [93699]

  Clare Short
  The Government are committed to working to increase public awareness and understanding of international development issues and to monitoring the effectiveness of this work. We are therefore conducting a baseline survey this month through the Office for National Statistics' Omnibus Survey, and will make the results publicly available. Further surveys will be undertaken periodically, in order to measure progress against our objectives.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department is providing for intensive shrimp production in Bangladesh. [93703]

  Clare Short
  We have recently agreed to provide £9.76 million to support the Government of Bangladesh's Fourth Fisheries Project. The project will engage government, non-governmental and community based organisations in improving aquatic resource management of inland waters and coastal polders. Fourteen per cent. of the funding will support a component for improving the shrimp production system. Our contribution is 25 per cent. of the total project requirements, which will be parallel financed with the World bank and the Bangladesh Government over five years.

  As a major supporter of sustainable fisheries development in Bangladesh for many years, we share local concerns about the environmental and social impact of past development of the shrimp industry. We have been able to influence development partners in this sector, using our expertise to provide strong environmental and social analyses in the design of the new project. This helped to put poverty elimination and environmental sustainability objectives at the centre of project design. For the shrimp component, we also helped to modify the focus of the project to the creation of more diverse and stable livelihoods in areas where shrimp are produced.

  The project plans to promote the production of shrimp by smallholders, but this is conditional on the outcome of a feasibility study in the first year which will fully
  234
  consider social and environmental dimensions in consultation with the communities concerned and NGOs. The project will also support a regional initiative to develop a Code of Conduct for responsible shrimp culture.

  Montserrat
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Montserratians have been admitted to the United Kingdom as evacuees; how many still remain in the United Kingdom; and how many have returned to Montserrat. [93627]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

HEALTH

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of extent of the multiplied risk which occurs when smokers are exposed to asbestos in relation to contraction of(a) lung cancer and (b) asbestosis; and if he will make a statement. [93024]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  Workers exposed to asbestos have been found to have up to ten times the risk of lung cancer compared with other workers. A typical smoker, not exposed to asbestos, has about fifteen times the risk of contracting lung cancer compared with non-smokers. When both exposures are present the risks can be—approximately—multiplied together. The total risk of lung cancer faced by smokers exposed to asbestos will depend on the type of fibre to which they are exposed, on the amount to which they are exposed and for how long, but it will be much higher than for non-smokers. The development of asbestosis is unaffected by smoking.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which existing private finance initiative contracts in the National Health Service provide for the automatic transfer of assets back to his Department after the expiry of the contract or for his Department to have first right of refusal to buy back the units after the expiry of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [89873]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: For all the first wave of prioritised major private finance initiative schemes any leasehold interest held by the private sector partner will either "fall away" at the end of the contract period or the National Health Service trust can exercise an option to take back the leasehold interest, in both cases returning full ownership of the asset to the NHS trust. This principle is set out in NHS Executive guidance on the PFI and will be followed by all subsequent schemes.

  Acute NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums have been appropriated from the Primary Care Modernisation Fund to support acute NHS trusts in London. [91724]
  235
  Mr. Denham
  In 1999–2000, London health authorities received modernisation funds of £13.1 million for improving primary care as part of their unified allocations. It is for health authorities, in partnership with National Health Service trusts, primary care groups, local authorities and local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health and modernisation services. In doing so they must however deliver at least the guaranteed floor level of expenditure on general practitioner practice infrastructure costs.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pensioners living in the Tooting parliamentary constituency are able to obtain free eye tests; and if he will make a statement. [92238]

  Mr. Denham
  From 1 April, everyone aged 60 or over became eligible for free National Health Service sight tests. We made access to eye care easier for older people because they are most at risk of sight threatening disease.

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) since May 1997, how much money has been allocated to Barnet Health Authority to tackle(a) waiting lists and (b) winter pressures; [92369]

  (2) since May 1997, how much funding in addition to original expenditure plans has been allocated to Barnet Health Authority for additional cancer treatments; and on what the money has been (a) spent and (b) allocated; [92415]

  (3) how much funding in addition to original expenditure plans has been allocated to Barnet Health Authority since May 1997 for its core work; [92417]

  (4) how much funding in addition to original expenditure plans has been allocated to mental health services in the Barnet Health Authority area since May 1997; and on what the money has been (a) spent and (b) allocated; [92418]

  (5) how much has been allocated to Barnet Health Authority from the modernisation fund; and on what the money has been spent; [92366]

  (6) how much funding, in addition to original expenditure plans, has been given to (a) Barnet Health Authority and (b) Barnet Council to improve continuing and community care since May 1997; and for what purposes the money has been allocated. [92419]

  Mr. Denham
  The information available is provided in the following tables. Table 1 shows the additional resources allocated to Barnet Health Authority since May 1997. Table 2 shows Barnet Health Authority's Modernisation Fund allocations announced to date. Table 3 shows the additional grants provided this year to Barnet Council specifically for community care.
  236

  Table 1: Barnet Health Authority cash increases since May 1997

  £000

  Purpose

  Amount

  Breast cancer services

  66

  Winter pressures

  1,057

  GMS cash limited—salaried doctors scheme

  26

  Special assistance for health authorities undergoing strategic change

  4,200

  Emergency pressure

  50

  1997–98 Total

  5,399

  Cash uplift for 1998–99 revenue allocations

  6,176

  Total cash increase in 1998–99 special allocations

  940

  Special assistance for health authorities undergoing strategic change

  1,500

  Waiting list addition

  1,955

  Waiting list performance fund

  217

  Whole systems support for waiting lists

  441

  Winter pressures

  1,080

  Winter pressure contingency

  110

  Colorectal cancer

  63

  1998–99 Total

  12,482

  Cash uplift for 1999–2000 revenue allocations (including Modernisation Fund)

  12,899

  Increase in drugs misuse special allocation

  93

  Recruitment and Retention Allowance

  671

  1999–2000 Total

  13,663

  Total extra cash since May 1997

  31,544

  Table 2: Barnet Health Authority Modernisation Fund allocations (1999–2000)

  Modernisation Fund included in main allocations

  £000

  Waiting lists

  1,706

  PCG Management Costs

  886

  Improving Primary Care

  501

  Mental Health

  440

  Recruitment and Retention

  671

  Primary Care Groups IT

  80

  Nurse Prescribing

  41

  Connections to GP Net

  323

  Calman Lung Cancer

  68

  Primary Care

  108

  Table 3: Additional grants provided this year to the London Borough of Barnet specifically for community care

  Grants

  £000

  Partnership Grant

  1,775

  Prevention Grant

  140

  Carers Grant

  138

  Increase in Mental Health Grant

  251

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of male and female nurses in training. [92435]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data from the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are that at 31 March 1999 there were 6,319 male and 44,740 female nurses and midwives in training in England.

  Arachnoiditis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were given myelography with Myodil between 1971 and 1987; and of those how many subsequently developed arachnoiditis. [92472]
  237
  Mr. Hutton
  Available information does not separately identify patients undergoing myelography with Myodil or the occurrence of arachnoiditis associated with myelography.

  Acute Care
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute care hospitals in the NHS have(a) dual sex wards and (b) shared toilet facilities. [92370]

  Mr. Denham
  The data collected by the National Health Service Executive on mixed sex hospital accommodation are at health authority level and do not at present contain detailed information about the position in NHS trusts. We are, however, looking to collect trust level information from health authorities in collections from September 1999 onwards.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health implications of the siting of mobile phone transmitter masts. [92361]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government obtain advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on the risks to health from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including those emitted by mobile phone masts. At locations accessible to the public the exposure to EMFs emitted by mobile phone transmitters are well below the maximum exposure levels recommended by NRPB in their guidelines. (Restrictions on human exposure to static and time varying electromagnetic fields and radiation. Documents of the NRPB, 4, No 5,7-63 (1993)). These guidelines are intended to prevent acute adverse responses to increased heat load and elevated body temperature. Copies of the guidelines have been placed in the Library.

  Concerns have been expressed that there may be other, non-established, health effects of exposure to EMFs, particularly cancer. The question of possible long-term health effects, and specifically cancer-related issues, associated with exposures to electromagnetic fields and radiation has been addressed by the NRPB Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (chaired by Professor Sir Richard Doll). The Group has concluded that there is no firm evidence for the existence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to electromagnetic fields but there is a need for further good quality research to be carried out. This view is supported by international bodies, including the World Health Organisation.

  Research into the possible long term health effects of electromagnetic fields in general is being undertaken on a worldwide basis. The Department is currently contributing to the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields Project which includes health effects of electromagnetic fields and is funding studies investigating possible biological effects from EMF generally. A three year study in the UK of occupational exposure to radiofrequency fields, including those from TV and radio transmitters, was launched in November 1998. The Department is supporting this study.

  We recently announced a working group, chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS FRSE, to assess the current state of research into the health implications of mobile telephones usage. Further details of the group will be announced shortly.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92661]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost effective travel arrangements. Trips in and around London, which account for the majority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's working week, will normally be made by Government car. The last time he used a train in the course of his official duties was on 23 July 1999 when visiting the National Health Service Executive Headquarters in Leeds.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women were detained in psychiatric hospitals in England and Wales on 1 July. [92921]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information available is contained in the Department of Health's Statistical Bulletin "In-patients formally detained in hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation, England: 1987–88 and 1992–93 to 1997–98". My hon. Friend may wish to refer to this Bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a national strategy on sexual and reproductive health; and if he will make a statement. [93441]

  Ms Jowell
  I announced on 23 March that the Department will, over the coming year, be developing an integrated strategy on sexual health. Professor Michael Adler will, be joining the Department in September to lead work on the strategy and ensure that it is co-ordinated with work on the HIV/AIDS strategy and teenage pregnancy. We will be in a position to announce the membership of the External Reference Group to assist him in this work shortly.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report the findings of the Quinquennial Review of the Medical Devices Agency, which the Minister for Public Health announced on 2 May; and if he will make a statement about the future status of the Medical Devices Agency and the Medicines Control Agency. [93798]

  Mr. Denham
  We are publishing today the report of the Medical Devices Agency quinquennial review. Copies have been placed in the Library. The review concludes that the Agency is well respected in the medical device field both in the United Kingdom and Europe and has performed consistently well against its key targets. It finds that Executive Agency status has been beneficial and recommends that the MDA should remain as an Agency.

  In light of the recommendation of the report we announced on 9 December 1998 and the more recent conclusions of the quinquennial reviews respectively of the MDA and the Medicines Control Agency, we have

  239
  decided that the two Agencies should not be merged and that both should retain their status as separate Agencies for the time being.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the 12 Annual report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship. [93820]

  Mr. Dobson
  I have today published the 12 Annual Report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Estates Agency
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the NHS Estates Agency. [93888]

  Mr. Denham
  A quinquennial review of the Agency falls to be completed by the end of this year. This will address the performance of the Agency and will re-examine all the options ("Prior Options") which were considered before the Agency was launched.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93459]

  Mr. Denham
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Dementia Research
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much in each of the last three years his Department has spent on dementia research; and how much is allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review for the next two years. [93309]

  Mr. Hutton
  With regard to the Department's spending on dementia research in the last three years I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 289.

  Comprehensive Spending Review settlements are given to Government Departments and do not include allocations to particular research programmes. Ministers are currently reviewing planned expenditure for 2000–01.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities in the United Kingdom provide IVF treatment to women whose spouses have children by a previous marriage; and what was the cost of such provision to each authority in the last two financial years. [92581]

  Ms Jowell
  Information is not currently available in the form requested. However, a College of Health survey of health authorities (commissioned by the 240
  National Infertility Awareness Campaign in 1998) lists 70 health authorities which had formal eligibility criteria for assisted conception. Details can be found in the survey report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the cost of providing National Health Service infertility treatment to individuals with existing children is not collected.

  The Department is currently conducting a survey of health authority provision of infertility services in England. This should provide information on eligibility criteria used by all health authorities. The results of the survey are likely to be available later in the year.

  Pharmacy Strategy
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the planned date for publication of the Government's pharmacy strategy review document; and when he expects it to be published. [92966]

  Mr. Denham
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish updated guidance on continence services following the Review of Continence Services published on 2 September 1988. [93557]

  Mr. Hutton
  We hope to issue shortly updated guidance which has been developed in the light of the current review of continence policy.

  Immunisation
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities have reported shortages of(a) DTP, (b) haemophilus, (c) polio, (d) MMR and (e) BCG vaccines over the last 12 months. [93222]

  Ms Jowell
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children over one year of age have received(a) polio vaccine, (b) haemophilus B vaccine and (c) DTP immunisation; [93217]

  (2) how many children over the age of two years have not received MMR immunisation; [93221]

  (3) how many children at school entry age have not received (a) full DTP immunisation, (b) polio vaccine and (c) MUR immunisation. [93218]

  Ms Jowell
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children over the age of 14 years have not received BCG immunisation. [93220]

  Ms Jowell
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested. The latest figures on number of BCG immunisations given are published in the Statistical Bulletin National Health Service Immunisation Statistical, England: 1997–98, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Councillors
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 1998,Official Report, column 257, on councillors, if he will list the percentage of (a) men and (b) women councillors in each local authority at the latest available date. [93520]

  Ms Jowell
  The Women's Unit collated and analysed information on the gender breakdown of councillors during 1998. This information was made public on 10 December 1998 (copies placed in the Library). The tables break down the results by region and by local authority. This information is not routinely collected by any department.

  Medicines (Advertising Regulations)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the legal advice pertaining to the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 267) referred to by the Minister for Public Health on 28 April 1999,Official Report, Ninth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, column 23. [93447]

  Ms Jowell
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Meningitis C Vaccine
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will deposit in the Library all data used in the assessment of cost-effectiveness of the new meningitis C vaccine. [93341]

  Ms Jowell
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  IT Procurement
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the review of procurement processes mentioned in the Information for Health document has been carried out. [92582]

  Mr. Denham
  The purpose of the review into National Health Service information management and technology procurement in England is to improve the procurement and implementation of "fit for purpose" clinical systems. The review is in two phases, with the first phase reporting to Ministers at the end of March 1999. The second Phase is due for completion shortly. Relevant information from the review will be published on the IM and T investment website at www.open.gov.uk/doh/itinvest.htm.

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are for the NHS Information Authority to implement a standard PFI contract for IT services. [92583]

  Mr. Denham
  The desirability and feasibility of a standard Private Finance Initiative contract for Information Technology services is being considered as part of the National Health Service IT Procurement Review. In addition, Her Majesty's Treasury's Task Force are developing standard contract clauses for IT services. The NHS Executive will take this work into account before considering whether to implement standard contracts for IT services, whether funded through the Private Finance Initiative or public capital.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department will take to introduce guidance to health authorities concerning compulsory labelling of ingredients produced as a result of genetic modification in meals served to hospital patients. [93363]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government have recently produced guidance on labelling of food containing genetically modified ingredients which includes meals served to hospital patients.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what additional funding he will provide to enhance ambulance and accident and emergency services' ability to protect staff and to improve decontamination facilities, as announced in the Government paper on 21 July, "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons"; and if he will make a statement; [93096]

  (2) what additional resources he will make available to (a) health authorities and (b) ambulance trusts in England and Wales for the preparation, provision and annual funding needed to meet the new tasks announced in the Government paper on 21 July, "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons"; and if he will make a statement; [93098]

  (3) in what ways, and at what cost, his Department will co-ordinate the emergency provision of healthcare services in response to a release of biological or chemical material, as announced on 21 July in the Government paper, "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons"; and if he will make a statement. [93097]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department and the National Health Service have already begun to enhance the capacity of the health service to deal with a possible threat from chemical or biological weapons. Measures being taken as part of this enhancement programme include the further strengthening of protection for ambulance service and hospital staff, and the improvement of decontamination facilities.

  Improvements to facilities for decontamination are included in the Government's £115 million accident and emergency modernisation programme, which was announced earlier this year. We are making resources available to ensure the success of the enhancement programme to strengthen further the response capacity of the health service.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the link between the level of prescription charges payable by a patient and a capital disregard was introduced; and if he will make a statement. [93382]

  Mr. Denham
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment was made in preparing his White
  243
  Paper, "Saving Lives-Our Healthier Nation", of the effect on diabetics of changes in the prescribing of insulin and insulin pen needles. [93288]

  Ms Jowell
  The White Paper,"Saving Lives—Our Healthier Nation", was published on 6 July. We are still considering representations from organisations on separate proposals to allow insulin pen needles to be prescribed by NHS general practitioners.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations were considered from the British Diabetics Association and diabetes sufferers before producing his White Paper, "Saving Lives—Our Healthier Nation". [93289]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health received and considered 34 responses about diabetes from organisations, including the British Diabetic Association, and a further 63 from individuals.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the spending of public funds by community health councils is audited and scrutinised. [93211]

  Mr. Denham
  Community health councils are subject to internal audit by the National Health Service Executive. They also produce an annual financial report.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the accountability of community health councils; and to whom they are accountable. [93209]

  Mr. Denham
  Community health councils (CHCs) are subject to the regulations under which they were established. They are accountable to the public, the establishing body, Parliament and the courts. National Health Service Executive Regional Offices maintain strategic links with CHCs.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions in the past five years when the actions of community health councils have been subject to judicial review. [93212]

  Mr. Denham
  As far as we are aware, there have been no occasions in the past five years when the actions of community health councils have been subject to judicial review

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the funding of community health councils is determined. [93210]

  Mr. Denham
  Community health councils are funded centrally at a level judged appropriate to cover the expenditure they reasonably incur in the course of performing their functions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the value of tourism to the economies of(a) the east midlands and (b) Leicestershire in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [83169]
  244
  Janet Anderson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact on the United Kingdom tourist industry of electronic commerce. [93142]

  Janet Anderson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the materials used in the construction of the Millennium Dome originated from East Midlands companies. [90500]

  Janet Anderson
  New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) does not keep detailed records of the regional origin of materials used for the construction of the Dome. Contracts totalling over £4 million have been let to companies in the Midlands—Keller Ground Engineering; Euro Air; and Terrapin.

  Ministerial Meetings (USA)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what meetings the previous Under-Secretary, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), held with officials of the United States Government during his visit in January 1998 to Los Angeles; and if he will list the date of, location of, and names of departments of the US officials who took part in each meeting. [92267]

  Janet Anderson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Shooting Events
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the ban on handguns will prevent shooting events being staged during any international games held in the United Kingdom. [92760]

  Mr. Banks
  Prohibited weapons may not be possessed without the express authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. During the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 through Parliament, it was agreed that provision could be made for competitors in pistol events in major competitions such as the Olympics or Commonwealth Games to be granted temporary authority to allow them to bring their pistols into the country for the duration of the event. Indeed, the European Police Pistol Championships were held in this country shortly after the prohibition on handguns took effect, and I understand the arrangements worked smoothly and no problems were experienced by any of the competitors.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provisions have been made to allow sportsmen and women who have previously represented
  245
  the United Kingdom in events using handguns of a calibre now banned to continue to compete in future Olympic and Commonwealth Games. [92759]

  Mr. Banks
  The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 prohibited handguns of the type used in competition shooting, but it applies only in Great Britain. There is no bar to British pistol shooters practising and competing abroad in whatever disciplines or events they wish. I understand that some competition shooters have chosen to practice and compete in this way.

  World Cup
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the authorities in Botswana over the hosting of the Football World Cup in 2006. [93143]

  Mr. Banks
  During my visit to Botswana from 26-30 April with the Football Association I met the hon. Lt. Gen. Mompati S. Merafhe MP, Botswanan Minister for Foreign Affairs, the hon. B. K. Temane MP, Minister for Labour and Home Affairs, the Chairman and representatives of the Botswanan Football Association. I discussed a number of sports issues including UEFA's Meridian Project which links the English FA with Botswana, the significance of sport in national development and the forthcoming Botswanan White Paper on Sports Policy. I also took the opportunity to outline the merits of the FA's bid for the 2006 World Cup. The meetings were extremely useful and productive, and built upon the excellent bi-lateral relations which already exist between our two countries.

  Trafalgar Square
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which organisations applied to hold meetings in Trafalgar Square, London on 18 July; in what order the applications were received; which organisation held a meeting on 18 July at Trafalgar Square; and if he will make a statement. [92939]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The Turkish Cypriot Network (TCN) and the National Federation of Greek Cypriots (NFGC) made requests by telephone some time ago to use Trafalgar Square on 18 July and the NFGC by letter on 4 January. Both organisations were advised that the normal practice is to consider applications no more than 3 months in advance and that they should re-apply at that time.

  The TCN applied to hold a party and were invited on 20 April to submit details of their intentions: these were submitted on 30 April and permission was refused on 7 May since the proposed celebrations were inappropriate to and out of scale with Trafalgar Square. On 3 May the NFGC sent by facsimile a copy of a letter dated 18 April seeking approval to hold a rally in Trafalgar Square with speeches; similar rallies have been held in Trafalgar Square by this group for a number of years.

  The TCN submitted a revised proposal on 12 May. Two other requests to use Trafalgar Square on 18 July were made during this period, but no details were given and no reply received to the Department's request for further information.
  246
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's judgment was that the proposal from the NFGC of 7 May was the first which constituted an application for an event suitable for Trafalgar Square and he noted that such an event had taken place in previous years: this application therefore received consent. The TCN were invited to consider alternative venues for their event. A march from Marble Arch to Belgrave Square, which we understand TCN attended, was held by the British Council of Turkish Cypriot Associations on 18 July.

  Millennium Experience (North-West)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about employment opportunities in the north west resulting from the celebrations connected with the Millennium Experience. [72123]

  Janet Anderson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93463]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that their policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, my Department is working with the Women's Unit, Home Office and DfEE to develop good practices for ensuring that our policies meet the changing needs of all members of society.

  "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment", published by the Cabinet Office, Home Office, DfEE and the Women's Unit in November 1998, has been circulated to staff within my Department to ensure that the effects of any policy changes on all sections of the population are considered at the earliest stage of policy development.

  My Department has set targets for measuring progress on equal treatment in its own employment policies and in appointments to its sponsored bodies. It requires those sponsored bodies to set targets for equal treatment in their areas of interest.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Baton Rounds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes are to be made to the guidelines on the police use of baton rounds. [93894]

  Mr. Straw
  I have approved new operational guidelines on the use of baton rounds, which will be issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, replacing current Home Office guidance. These will come into force on 1 August 1999. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the guidelines will apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  247
  The new guidelines will clarify that baton rounds may be used where other methods of policing to restore order have been tried and failed or are likely to fail; and there is a risk of loss of life or serious injury arising from serious public disorder; or a risk of serious and substantial damage to property which gives rise to a risk of loss of life or serious injury. The new guidelines clarify that, in assessing the risk of loss of life or serious injury occurring, account should be taken of the risk to police officers and members of the emergency services as well as to members of the public and others. The revised guidelines place the use of baton rounds within the current command and control structure for dealing with serious public disorder and other critical incidents.

  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Government Information
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the 1988 report on the operation of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [93895]

  Mr. Straw
  I have published this report today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the Interdepartmental Working Group on Preventing Unsuitable People from Working with Children and Abuse of Trust on the details of their scheme to protect children following their report on 25 January; and if he will make a statement. [93896]

  Mr. Straw
  Following its report on 25 January, we asked the Interdepartmental Working Group to work up the details of the scheme. It has now completed this work. I will be placing a short summary in the Library on 29 July.

  Immigration
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 1996; and if he will make a statement. [93897]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 1996 has been amended and copies have been placed in the Library.

  It was necessary to amend the Direction in order to:
  enable detention, where facilities have been specially provided, at immigration offices which are not at ports of entry. This will allow our proposals for a new reporting centre at Becket House to be implemented in October of this year when it is expected to be ready for operation;
  delete the 'out of date' reference to Meadvale detention centre, which is no longer in operation; and
  amend reference to a 'place of safety' in a Northern Ireland context to take account of the observations of the Legislative Counsel in Northern Ireland.

  Ethnic Minority Staff
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his race equality employment targets for ethnic minority staff in the Home Office and its service areas. [93898]

  Mr. Straw
  I will tomorrow place a copy of "Race Equality—The Home Secretary's Employment Targets" in the Library. The paper sets out recruitment, retention and career progression targets for ethnic minority staff in the Home Office, the prison, the police, the fire and the probation services.

  Travel Documents
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on charging for Home Office travel documents. [93899]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office has issued travel documents to refugees, stateless persons and some other third country nationals for many years. This service has always been subject to the payment of a fee. These travel documents are issued under the Royal Prerogative, but there is no specific legal power for the taking of fees in connection with such documents. The Home Office first received legal advice raising questions about the legal basis for charges and advising that specific powers should be taken to charge for these documents on 9 February 1999. I have, therefore, decided that it would be right for applications outstanding on that date to be processed free of charge, as will applications received between that date and the date on which new fees regulations are made. These applicants need take no action. Refunds, where appropriate, will be offered automatically by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, although it is likely to be some months before all applicants receive their refunds.

  Until 31 December 1993, refunds were made to all applicants whose applications for a travel document were refused. Since then, the practice has been to charge for processing applications, whether or not a document is issued. It is not proposed to offer refunds to applicants whose cases were completed before 9 February 1999, who were charged in good faith and who received the document for which they applied. But there are an estimated 1,500 applicants who received neither a travel document, because their application was refused, nor a refund, because their application was determined after 31 December 1993. It is proposed to offer refunds to such applicants provided they apply before 30 November 1999. It is, however, not possible to identify such applications from Home Office records and we are inviting those immigration advisers who are members of the Immigration and Nationality User Panel to help to trace those who may be eligible for a refund.

  An information line has been established which gives more detail about eligibility for refunds, how to apply if necessary, and how refunds will be made. The number of the information line is 020 8681 5615. Information is also being placed on the Immigration and Nationality internet web site—www.homeoffice.gov.uk./ind/hpg.htm.

  In the light of the legal advice which has been received, I have decided that it would be right to put beyond doubt the power to levy fees in connection with Home Office travel documents. A new clause to this effect will

  249
  accordingly be brought forward to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is currently before the House of Lords. The clause will be retrospective—it will have the effect of making charges imposed by the Home Office in the past, in connection with travel documents, lawful.

  In the meantime, there is an enabling power in the Finance Act 1973 to charge for services provided by the Government pursuant to any international treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party. This would cover documents issued to refugees and stateless persons in accordance with the relevant United Nations Conventions, although not other types of travel document. I have decided to exercise these powers pending the enactment of wider powers in the Immigration and Asylum Bill. When the Bill has received Royal Assent, regulations will be made covering fees for the full range of travel documents.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the fourth report on the impact of the National Lottery on the horserace betting levy. [93900]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An update on the impact of the National Lottery on the horserace betting levy has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library. This fulfils an undertaking made during the passage of the National Lottery Bill.

  The paper, which has been prepared by the Economics and Resource Analysis Unit of the Home Office, examines continuing trends in off-course betting expenditure, on which the levy is closely dependent.

  The statistical analysis suggests that, in 1998, approximately £1.1 billion was diverted from off-course betting expenditure as a direct result of the National Lottery. This equates to off-course betting expenditure being about 13.2 per cent. below the level it would have reached in the absence of the Lottery. Horserace betting accounts for about 69 per cent. of off-course betting expenditure and, therefore, the levy yield is likely to have been similarly affected. This can be only an approximate figure, and the effect of the Lottery may vary over time.

  Motorcycle Gatherings
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions over the past three years when the police have recommended to organisers of motorcycle gatherings that the event be cancelled; for what reason the recommendation in each case was made; what was the response of the organisers; on the occasions when the event subsequently went ahead, if there were any arrests; and if he will make a statement. [92755]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not collated centrally. The decision to recommend cancellation of an event on public order or public safety grounds is an operational matter for the local chief officer of police.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirement is placed upon the police to take account of losses likely to be incurred when they recommend to organisers of motorcycle gatherings that the event be cancelled; and if he will make a statement. [92756]
  250
  Mr. Boateng
  None. This is a matter for event organisers and the local police.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he has taken to improve the management of Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution and Remand Centre, Feltham following the report by the steering group set up by the Director General of the Prison Service in response to the recommendations made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. [92629]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The steering group set up by the Director General of the Prison Service for Feltham Young Offenders Institution, following the Chief Inspector of Prisons' report, endorsed the recommendations contained in the four reports submitted to it by the task force which went into Feltham to address the immediate problems. The recommendations will form part of an action plan detailing improvements to be taken forward and will build on the six month improvement plan charted at the time of the inspection. This action plan is expected to be finalised shortly.

  Many improvements have already been taken forward at Feltham. The task force identified 39 issues for immediate action, 33 of these have now been implemented and work on the remaining six is well in hand. The significant achievements include:
  making significant in-roads into the 'transit-camp' problem by ending the use of Kestrel unit as a daily discharge unit and the use of Osprey unit for allocation purposes;
  reducing the capacity of Feltham by 72 thereby reducing the overcrowding and allowing the refurbishment of two units to begin;
  increasing the quality of health care by moving into a fully refurbished health care unit and through the provision of eight officers on detached duty from other establishments to offset the staff shortages; discussions have begun with the local health authority about future service delivery;
  increasing the amount of physical education from two to five classes in both the morning and afternoon sessions;
  increasing the numbers attending education by 30;
  securing additional £2 million funding to develop a separate regime for under 18 year olds which will include 12 hours out of cell each day and 30 hours purposeful activity each week, for which a further £3.4 million capital investment is being made to provide separate reception and education facilities for the under 18s.
  an assessment centre has been held to recruit more officers. Consultation on proposals for revised staff attendance and shift patterns commenced this month;
  nearly 600 mattresses have been replaced and general cleanliness and hygiene have been improved with new cleaning schedules and inspection arrangements; and
  funds have been made available to undertake a backlog of small repairs.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if a court can order a secure remand for a young defendant when no place is available; and if he will make a statement; [92917]

  (2) what was the total availability of local authority secure accommodation for juvenile and young offenders on the last date for which figures are available and in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [92916]
  251
  (3) what has been the demand for secure accommodation for juvenile and young offenders in each of the last 12 months; on how many occasions a place was not found when requested; and if he will make a statement; [92915]

  (4) what representations he has received about the operation of the national clearing system for secure accommodation for juvenile and young offenders; and if he will make a statement; [92918]

  Mr. Straw
  The local authority secure estate is used both to accommodate any child who is being looked after by the local authority under the Children Act 1989, and to hold those who are sentenced under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, those sentenced to a secure training order under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and those who are held on secure remand. Since 1994, the number of approved secure places, those children accommodated and the occupancy rate of secure units available1 in England and Wales2 (as at 31 March) is given in the table:

  Year

  Approved places

  Children accommodated

  Occupancy rate (per cent.)

  1994

  289

  244

  84

  1995

  266

  233

  88

  1996

  274

  246

  90

  1997

  348

  290

  83

  1998

  456

  334

  73

  1 Children Accommodated in Secure Units, year ending 31 March 1998

  2 Welsh information has only been available since 1997 (previously Wales had two small units providing two places each)

  A Government funded building programme was put in place to expand the local authority secure estate by 170 places specifically to allow for the implementation of the provisions in relation to court-ordered secure remands. These places are now available and the total number of approved places in local authority secure accommodation is 460.

  Section 97 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which came into force on 1 June 1999, allows courts, where certain criteria are met, to remand direct to local authority secure accommodation 12 to 14 year old boys and girls and 15 and 16 year old girls. Where a court remands a child or young person to local authority secure accommodation, it must designate a relevant local authority. Under section 23(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, there is a requirement on the court to consult the designated local authority before it imposes a security requirement. The purpose of such consultation is to allow the local authority to provide the court with information so that the court is best placed to make an appropriate decision depending on the circumstances of the case. Such information should include the nature and availability of local provision to support a remand in the community, and the nature and availability of secure and non-secure local authority accommodation. Where the court then remands a child or young person to local authority secure accommodation, the designated local authority is under a duty under section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to comply with the security requirement.

  Section 98 of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, which also came into force on 1 June 1999, allows courts, where certain criteria are met, to remand direct to local authority
  252
  secure accommodation 15 and 16 year old boys whom, by reason of their physical or emotional immaturity or a propensity to harm themselves, the courts consider it would be undesirable to remand to Prison Service accommodation. Before reaching such an opinion the court must consult a probation officer, a local authority social worker or a member of a youth offending team and before ordering a remand to local authority secure accommodation in such a case, the court must be notified that such accommodation is available.

  In providing advice to the courts about the availability of local authority secure accommodation and in complying with security requirements imposed by the courts, local authorities may use information held by the national bedbank service, set up and funded by the Department of Health and operated by Leeds Social Services Department. This is not a clearing house facility and is designed only to provide information to local authorities on the availability of secure places. We have received one written representation on the operation of the national bedbank service.

  Information is not recorded centrally on the demand for local authority secure accommodation or the number of occasions a place has not been found when requested.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on 22 July 1999, Official Report, columns 622-23, that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will, from April 2000, become the commissioning and purchasing body for all forms of secure accommodation for children and young people on remand or under sentence. A copy of the Board's advice on how this should operate has been placed in the Library. One element is the establishment of a clearing house facility to manage the placement of children and young people in secure accommodation, including the local authority secure estate. The Board is now consulting local authorities and other bodies on its proposals.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the size of young offender institutions in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [92883]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The size of Young Offender Institutions in England and Wales was considered as part of the design for the Prison Service's new distinct juvenile estate, and I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 27 April 1999,Official Report, column 109, about the composition of the estate.

  Since then, Aylesbury has been withdrawn from the estate as the need for the role originally envisaged for the establishment has changed. Aylesbury will continue to take a small number of difficult/longer-term juveniles where that offers the most appropriate way of meeting their individual needs.

  There are no proposals to vary the size of Young Offender Institutions for 18-20 year old offenders.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review staff training in young offender institutions in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [92884]
  253
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service is in the process of developing its 'Nature of Adolescence' training for staff who work with young people in custody. This work is being carried out in collaboration with the Trust for the Study of Adolescence. Separately, the Youth Justice Board has begun tendering for the provision of training for all staff who work in the youth justice system, which will make with special provision for those who work in secure facilities. This is to support the implementation of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the delivery of the principal aim of the youth justice system which is to prevent offending by children and young people.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it is currently taking the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to respond to correspondence; what progress has been made in reducing the time taken; and if he will make a statement. [92714]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The latest position is that 60 per cent. of correspondence is responded to within 20 working days, excluding correspondence related to applications and casework. Additional staff are being recruited and overtime exercises are being brought into operation in order to achieve significant improvements in response times.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made in respect of each month in the current year of the average daily number of(a) callers trying to make a call to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, (b) calls made to that Directorate and (c) calls answered by the Telephone Caller Unit. [92843]

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Public Caller Unit, Croydon

  723

  627

  723

  661

  663

  862

  Asylum Screening Unit, Croydon

  325

  297

  175

  226

  202

  239

  Liverpool Public Enquiry Office

  44

  40

  32

  26

  40

  34

  Midlands Public Enquiry Office

  92

  97

  86

  81

  81

  117

  Glasgow Public Enquiry Office

  40

  33

  43

  32

  32

  54

  Belfast Public Enquiry Office

  17

  14

  10

  11

  14

  23

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average waiting time in each month in 1999 and for the most recent date for which information is available for consideration of applications to each of the divisions of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [92893]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The average waiting times in each month of 1999 for nationality cases are set out in the table:

  Average waiting times (Months)

  Month

  Naturalisation

  Registration

  Overall

  January

  20.5

  9

  19.4

  February

  20.3

  7.7

  18.9

  March

  20.6

  6.8

  19.1

  April

  20.8

  6.4

  18.7

  May

  20.7

  7.2

  18.9

  June

  20.5

  6.6

  18.2

  254
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The figures relating to telephone calls to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are provided each month by British Telecom and are actuals rather than estimates. Daily averages, by month, are set out in the table:

  Number of callers

  Number of calls

  Calls answered

  January

  n/a

  60,043

  2,109

  February

  5,281

  50,217

  1,669

  March

  5,432

  46,334

  1,781

  April

  4,112

  42,601

  1,495

  May

  4,610

  48,301

  1,535

  June

  5,617

  56,223

  1,707

  Staff in the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB) are being hampered in their ability to deal with calls quickly because of delays in other parts of the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD), arising from the transition to Team Based Caseworking. Measures are in place to improve the situation, including recruitment of around 300 staff to fill vacancies in ICD. INEB staff are being given more in-depth training in call handling and new staff are being recruited and trained. Much of the increase in calls in June has been connected with passport inquiries.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily number of personal callers to each public inquiry office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each month since the beginning of 1999. [92894]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The average daily number of callers to each public inquiry office during 1999 is set out in the table:

  Average waiting times for immigration and asylum cases are not recorded as Integrated Casework Directorate caseworking procedures give priority to types of application rather than dealing with cases in chronological order. All applications are sifted in the Initial Consideration Unit. Straightforward cases (about 40 per cent.) are dealt with under a fast track procedure within about four weeks of receipt. More complex cases are allocated to Case Management Units for detailed consideration. The length of time between receipt and decision will depend on the complexity of the case. Delays in dealing with cases may be due to a variety of factors, including legal interventions by applicants and court cases.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the backlog of cases for each of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's divisions at the end of each month in 1999 and at the latest date for which information is available. [92896]
  255
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Integrated Casework Directorate, which was set up at the beginning of 1999, handles all nationality, immigration and asylum casework previously dealt with in five separate Immigration and Nationality Directorate divisions. The backlog of immigration and asylum cases, and separately nationality cases, at the end of each month is set out in the table:

  Month

  Number of cases

  Immigration and Asylum

  January

  63,622

  February

  69,388

  March

  84,404

  April

  93,943

  May

  122,102

  June

  145,991

  Nationality

  January

  101,600

  February

  101,100

  March

  101,700

  April

  101,700

  May

  101,000

  June

  95,200

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries for whose nationals the fast-track service operated by the Public Caller Unit at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for the quick determination of certain types of immigration applications is not available. [93304]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The availability of the fast-track service operated by the Public Caller Unit (PCU) at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) is normally determined by the category of application rather than the nationality of the applicant, as well as by the individual facts of each case. The only exception to general policy is in respect of North Korean and Libyan nationals. However, in the light of the recent resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya, we are in the process of reviewing our policy towards Libyan nationals. In recent months, because of pressures resulting from the major changes which have taken place in IND, the PCU fast-track service has had to be restricted and occasionally suspended altogether.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration and asylum cases his Department has had outstanding for over one year; if he will provide a breakdown of the years in which the cases commenced and indicate the progress being made in eliminating the backlog; and if he will make a statement. [92713]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are approximately 80,935 immigration and asylum cases that have been outstanding for over one year. The breakdown is:

  Number

  1998

  36,081

  1997

  15,964

  1996

  8,134

  1995

  9,438

  1994

  4,820

  256

  Number

  1993

  1,327

  1992

  343

  1991

  245

  1990

  109

  Pre 1990

  133

  Undated

  4,341

  A number of measures have already been identified to tackle the general backlog which has built up because of the difficulties encountered in setting up the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD). These include the setting up of an After Entry Clearance Team and a Correspondence Backlog Team. Steps already taken include special exercises to target priority cases such as work permit applications, changes in procedures that will result in increased productivity and increased staffing.

  Additionally, immediate and long term plans are in hand to tackle the more substantive backlogs in the areas of asylum, enforcement and nationality.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards(a) the proposed mutual recognition of member states of the European Union and each other's decisions on asylum applications and (b) the proposed harmonisation within the European Union of criteria for the recognition of refugees. [92783]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: It is a requirement of The Treaty of Amsterdam for measures that determine minimum standards applicable to the handling of asylum applications be introduced. The United Kingdom has the choice to opt in to such measures. There has been no proposal as yet regarding minimum standards for the criteria in recognising refugees. There has been no proposal to effect the mutual recognition of other member states' asylum decisions and such a proposal is not a requirement of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for asylum have been made in each month since the beginning of 1999(a) by persons arriving at ports of entry and (b) by persons already in the United Kingdom; [92777]

  (2) how many asylum seekers entered the United Kingdom in each month since March 1999; and of these how many were (a) granted asylum, (b) granted leave to remain and (c) refused the right to remain; [92778]

  (3) what was the backlog of asylum casework in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the last date for which information is available; [92841]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The information requested was made available on the Home Office Internet site at http//www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index/htm, as part of the monthly reporting of asylum figures, on 26 July 1999.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum decisions were made in each month from January 1997 to the latest month for which information is available. [92790]
  257
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The requested information is given in the table:

  Decisions1 made on Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdoms, excluding dependants, January 1997 to June 1999, by month

  Year/month

  Decisions

  1997

  January

  3,260

  February

  3,090

  March

  2,845

  April

  3,390

  May

  2,880

  June

  2,930

  July

  3,480

  August

  2,980

  September

  2,800

  October

  3,035

  November

  2,990

  December

  2,355

  Total

  36,045

  1998

  January

  3,065

  February

  3,035

  March

  3,070

  April

  2,520

  May

  2,360

  June

  2,675

  July

  2,710

  August

  2,480

  September

  2,825

  October

  3,255

  November

  2,780

  December

  800

  Total

  31,570

  1999 2

  January

  995

  February

  1,275

  March

  1,855

  April

  3,045

  May

  4,185

  June

  4,680

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2 Provisional

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were received from Sri Lanka nationals in each of the last 10 years; how many of the applications have been(a) granted, (b) refused but subject to appeal, (c) refused and exhausted appeal, (d) awaiting initial decision, (e) deported and (f) left the country; and if he will make a statement. [93549]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies he is planning to ensure that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is able to cope with the forecast increase in applications for naturalisation expected 12 months after the granting of indefinite leave to remain to refugees and those affected by the backlog clearance programme, without lengthening current waiting periods. [93336]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No increase in applications for naturalisation resulting from output elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is expected imminently. By the time these applications start to reach 258
  the Integrated Casework Directorate's Liverpool office (which has superseded the Nationality Directorate), various initiatives to speed up output will have taken effect.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Ministerial Group on the Family will consider the effect of the immigration rules and the nationality legislation on families with members abroad. [93454]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In "Supporting Families: summary of responses to the consultation document", published on 8 June 1999, we said that the Ministerial Group on the Family is working on five new initiatives; support for boys, young men and fathers; supporting stepfamilies; adoption policy and practice; the support available to families at different crisis points; and ensuring that Government funding for families fits together well. Given the existing priorities of the group, it has no plans to look into the effect of immigration rules and nationality legislation on families with members abroad at present.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the funding of immigration advice under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971. [93452]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Subject to the approval of Parliament, funding for advice, assistance and representation will be available through legal aid from January 2000. In due course, when we have had the opportunity to assess the true level of need for immigration advice, we will consider whether funding under section 23 should be transferred from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to curtail the use of prison accommodation for those detained solely under Immigration Act powers; and by what date he expects to cease to use prison accommodation. [93516]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are committed, as resources become available, to the pursuit of a strategy of detaining those detained soley under Immigration Act 1971 powers in dedicated detention centres and holding centres, not prisons. Key to this strategy is the replacement of the Harmondsworth centre and the use of Her Majesty's Prison Rochester by two larger, purpose designed centres at Heathrow and Aldington. These facilities are expected to be available by the spring of 2002 and will offer an increase of some 250 beds. There are more immediate plans to provide a dedicated centre in the North of England for about 150 detainees within the next six to nine months. This will reduce the ad hoc use of prisons. In order that this can be delivered quickly, it is likely to be provided and managed by the Prison Service. It will however be a self contained, discrete unit solely for the use of Immigration Act detainees.

  This strategy will ensure a net gain of about 300-350 detention places by 2002 and will greatly reduce the use of prison accommodation. However the Government accept that there will always be a need to use prisons for a minority of detainees, due to their special requirements, and this practice will continue. The number of such detainees detained in prison accommodation by 2002 is expected to be minimal.
  259
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds Immigration Service staff refuse to accept those who are themselves asylum seekers, with permission to work, as interpreters or representatives of other asylum seekers at interviews. [93514]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 178.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warnings have been given to employers concerning liability to prosecution under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 for the hiring of persons who do not have authority to work in the United Kingdom in the last year. [93450]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am afraid there is no central record of the number of section 8 warning letters that have been issued to employers.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) breaches of airport security have been occasioned by and (b) immigration offences have been committed by the solicitors or other representatives of persons attending interviews with the Immigration Service at airports. [93335]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Aviation security is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). I am, however, advised that the Transport Security (Aviation) section of the DETR maintains a voluntary reporting system of aviation security incidents at airports, but the information does not categorise incidents of this kind. Similarly, the Immigration Service does not hold information about immigration offences in the form requested.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid out in repatriation expenses under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the past five years. [93453]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The International Social Services of the United Kingdom is funded to administer the Voluntary Return Scheme on behalf of the Government.

  The financial returns indicate the following expenditure for the last five years:

  £

  Year

  Assistance

  Administration

  Total

  1998–99

  48,610

  63,500

  112,110

  1997–98

  59,113

  54,713

  113,826

  1996–97

  50,464

  57,221

  107,685

  1995–96

  38,819

  88,128

  126,947

  1994–95

  73,182

  89,406

  162,588

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions to deport, pursuant to section 3(5)(a) Immigration Act 1971 have been taken, in the past 12 months for (i) failure to report to a medical officer, (ii) failure to support and accommodate without recourse to public funds, (iii) obtaining leave to enter by deception, (iv) obtaining 260
  leave to remain by deception, (v) assisting the entry of another person an illegal entrant and (vi) assisting the entry of another person as an asylum claimant. [93334]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  3,930 decisions to deport were taken under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 in 1998. 210 of these were for breach of conditions but the records do not show the nature of the conditions which had not been compiled with. It is, therefore, not possible to identify whether any of this latter group of decisions were taken for either of the first two reasons listed in the question other than by examining the individual case files.

  Someone who obtains leave to enter by deception is an illegal entrant and would not be subject to deportation action under section 3(5)(a). Someone who obtains leave to remain by deception is currently liable to deportation under section 3(5)(aa) of the Act. No more than five decisions to deport were taken under that section in 1998.

  It is extremely unlikely that someone who had assisted the entry of an illegal entrant or an asylum claimant contrary to section 25(1) of the Act would be subject to deportation under section 3(5)(a). In those circumstances, deportation action under either section 3(5)(b) or, where applicable, section 3(6) of the 1971 Act would be more appropriate, 120 decisions to deport were taken under section 3(5)(b) in 1998 and 340 people were recommended for deportation by a court in that year, but again records are not sufficiently detailed to show whether or not the decision was taken for one or other of the last two reasons listed in the question and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examining each individual case file.

  Apart from the number of decisions to deport under section 3(5)(aa), the figures in this reply have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Departmental Expenditure (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the programmes funded directly by his Department, relating to social exclusion, regeneration, community development, employment or education, currently operating in(a) the City of Leeds and (b) the Leeds Central parliamentary constituency, listing for each programme the amount of such funding for each of the last three years and the amount planned to be spent in each of the next three financial years. [92913]

  Mr. Boateng
  The projects shown in the table have been separately funded by the Home Office in the last three years or are to be funded within the next three years. Future funding decisions remain to be announced.

  In addition, the new Home Office Family Support Grants programme was set up to fund family and parenting support across the country. Grants awarded this year will not go to any projects operating in Leeds alone, but £2,611,813 has been allocated this year to national charities for projects supporting parents and families across the country. This includes, for example, Parentline, a national helpline for parents, and funding for Fathers

  261
  Direct, a new national charity, which will map the support available for fathers in every town or region. Some of this funding for national organisations will, therefore, directly benefit Leeds.

  Area

  Project

  Award £

  Year

  Projects funded by the Home Office

  Crime Reduction Unit

  Leeds City—Burley/Hyde Park/Kirkstall

  Crime Reduction Programme—Reducing Burglary Initiative

  60,000 (1999)

  1999–2000

  Target hardening approach aimed at multi-occupancy/shared housing and crime prevention publicity campaign

  Leeds City—Belle Isle/Biddleton

  Crime Reduction Programme—Reducing Burglary Initiative Environmental changes aimed at reducing offending opportunities, including fencing of back gardens, improved street lighting etc.

  60,000

  1999–2000

  Chapeltown and Harehills

  CCTV Challenge Competition Round 2

  192,000

  1996–97

  Leeds Waterfront

  CCTV Challenge Competition Round 3

  99,000

  1997–98

  Projects funded by Home Office Race Equality Unit

  Leeds West Indian Carnival

  European Year Against Racism

  6,845

  1997–98

  One off grant payment for Projects to tackle racist attitudes and racial harassment

  Leeds Racial Harassment Project

  European Year Against Racism

  6,000

  1997–98

  One off grant payment for Projects to tackle racist attitudes and racial harassment

  Projects funded by the Home Office Central Drugs Prevention Unit

  Project

  1996–97 £

  1997–98

  Community Development Chapeltown Phase One—Community Profiling

  To tackle drugs prevention through a community development approach (Initial community profile)

  4,600

  1996–97

  Chapeltown project support scheme

  To tackle drugs prevention through a community development approach (Continuation of WYO (3)(2) above)

  9,996

  1997–98

  Working with Racial and Cultural Diversity: Network Promotion Event

  To extend drug awareness and drugs prevention in racially and culturally diverse communities across West Yorkshire (including Leeds based groups)

  18,000

  1996–97 (£1,500) 1997–98 (£16,500)

  Family of Schools

  To support the development of drugs education and drugs policy in two 'families of schools' in Leeds

  6,000

  1996–97 (£3,000) 1997–98 (£3,000)

  Positive Steps

  To develop drama education workshop in Leeds schools

  1,830

  1996–97

  Community Drugs Awareness

  To raise drug awareness within the Jewish Community in Leeds

  5,000

  1996–97

  Drugs Information for young people

  To provide drugs education for 12–16 year olds in East Leeds

  1,900

  1996–97

  Working with drugs users in housing need

  To provide a training package for those working with drugs users in housing need

  2,000

  1996–97

  The Big Deal

  To provide drugs education to young people in schools in West Yorkshire (including Leeds)

  3,050

  1997–98

  Drugs Awareness in black-led Churches

  To provide drugs awareness to members of black-led churches in West Yorkshire (including Leeds)

  1,400

  1996–97

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug seizures occurred in each of the last three years per region; and what was the estimated value of the drugs. [92888]

  Mr. Boateng
  Regional data relating to drug seizure numbers and value are not available because relevant information from the Regional Crime Squads, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and British Transport Police cannot be disaggregated into regions. These three authorities contributed nearly three-quarters of total seizures by weight, and therefore value in the United Kingdom in 1997.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood patrol or warden schemes are currently in operation in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [92886]
  262
  Since April 1994, four Home Office spending programmes have been included in the Single Regenerations Budget (SRB), some funding of which has gone and is going to projects in Leeds.

  Mr. Boateng
  No central record is kept of the number of neighbourhood warden-type schemes that are operating in England and Wales.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports were made by action teams led by his Department on the issue of neighbourhood wardens before April. [93048]

  Mr. Boateng
  The draft report of the Policy Action Team on Neighbourhood Wardens, which was chaired by a senior civil servant from the Home Office, was submitted to the Social Exclusion Unit in April. The report is to be consulted upon and then will be published in due course.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of the Policy Action Team relating to neighbourhood wardens; and if he will make a statement. [93383]
  263
  Mr. Boateng
  The draft report of the Policy Action team on Neighbourhood Wardens, which was chaired by a senior civil servant from the Home Office, was submitted to the Social Exclusion Unit in April. The report is to be consulted upon and then will be published in due course.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to the use of the private security industry for policing functions including police patrol; [93046]

  (2) what discussions Ministers in his Department have had with (a) chief police officers and their representatives, (b) Police Federation Representatives and (c) representatives of private security companies, since May 1997 concerning the future of police patrolling; and if he will make a statement; [92887]

  (3) which (a) ministerial committees and (b) working groups are assessing policy in relation to the private security industry and policing functions including police patrol; and if he will make a statement. [93047]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have no plans for police patrol or any other police functions to be carried out by the private security industry, except that we have proposed that the escorting of certain abnormal loads should, in future, be carried out by the private sector. Representatives of the police and other bodies have raised many matters in discussions, but neither I nor my Ministerial colleagues have proposed any changes to responsibility for police patrolling. No Ministerial committees or Working Groups are currently examining any such proposals.

  Criminals (Age Profile)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the last year for which figures are 264
  available, what was the average age of people who committed a (a) violent offence, (b) property offence and (c) sex offence; and if he will make a statement. [92890]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information as to the age of offenders is available only for those cautioned or convicted. The average age cannot be calculated exactly from data on the Home Office Cautions and Court Proceedings databases, but the median age in 1997 for violent offence was 23 years, for property offences it was 22 years; and for sex offences it was 33 years. The table shows the number of persons cautioned or convicted from which the median age has been derived.

  Number of persons either cautioned or convicted for an indictable violent 1, property 2 or sex offence in England and Wales by age, 1997

  Age

  Violent offence 1

  Property offence 2

  Sex offence

  10

  135

  1,355

  16

  11

  350

  2,962

  19

  12

  841

  5,611

  66

  13

  1,654

  9,158

  142

  14

  3,067

  13,258

  248

  15

  4,243

  15,747

  241

  16

  4,653

  16,772

  243

  17

  4,636

  18,022

  206

  18

  4,071

  17,171

  182

  19

  3,390

  13,998

  142

  20

  2,842

  12,407

  104

  21

  2,591

  11,479

  101

  22

  2,472

  10,736

  120

  23

  2,208

  10,027

  113

  24

  2,274

  9,548

  137

  25 and under 303

  10,058

  40,294

  670

  30 and under 35

  7,892

  27,538

  764

  35 and under 40

  5,144

  16,231

  636

  40 and under 50

  5,148

  16,538

  1,009

  50 and under 60

  2,124

  7,414

  703

  60 and over

  1,099

  3,513

  579

  All ages

  70,892

  279,779

  6,441

  1 Violence against the person, sex and robbery offences

  2 Burglary, theft, handling stolen goods, fraud, forgery and criminal damage offences

  3 Includes persons, cautioned or convicted of an indictable offence, given the default age of 25 where the exact age was not known

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will present to Parliament a report on the operation of all private finance initiative contracts made by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [93025]

  Mr. Straw
  I have no present plans to present a report to Parliament on the operation of all private finance initiative contracts made by my Department, but the current status of my Department's private finance initiative (PFI) contracts is summarised as follows:Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Casework Programme
  Development of the Information Technology system was delayed, but is now with IND for testing. The IND's reorganised caseworking operation was introduced prior to delivery of the Information Technology system. After an initial deterioration in service to the public, Siemens Business Services (SBS) and IND have co-operated to restore output broadly to previous levels.
  Secure Training Centres (STC)
  Medway STC opened in April 1998. There were problems in the early months, which were outlined in the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) Report published in January. A further inspection by SSI in April 1999 found that considerable improvements had been made to provide a more positive regime.
  Rainsbrook STC opened on 1 July 1999 and there have been no problems to date. Hassockfield STC is due to open in September 1999.
  United Kingdom Passport Agency (UKPA)
  There are two PFI contracts in operation in the UKPA. SBS are responsible for data capture, and Security Printing and Systems (SP & S) are responsible for the manufacture of passports.
  Roll out of services for all six Passport Agency offices was planned for early 1999. Because of difficulties encountered at the first two offices (Liverpool and Newport) to change over to the new system, further roll out has been postponed. Productivity on the new system has been less than that needed to meet demand; backlogs have built up; customer inquiries have increased; and the Agency's performance against a backdrop of high seasonal demand for passports has seriously declined.
  Service credits have been levied on both companies. The UKPA is working closely with SBS to improve productivity, which continues to rise as further system improvements are made. Both SBS and the UKPA have recruited additional staff to deal with backlogs.

  Prisons in England and Wales operating contracted out shops

  £

  Prisons with contracted out shops

  Formal tender

  Supplier

  Expected approximate savings

  Acklington

  Yes

  Aramark

  45,000

  Ashwell

  No

  Aramark

  25,000

  Belmarsh

  No

  Sutcliffe

  Not available

  Castington

  Yes

  Aramark

  15,000

  Coldingly

  Yes

  Aramark

  21,000

  Deerbolt

  Yes

  Aramark

  30,000

  Drake Hall

  Yes

  Eurest

  15,000

  Durham

  Yes

  Aramark

  53,000

  Foston

  Yes

  Eurest

  1None

  Frankland

  Yes

  Aramark

  72,000

  Full Sutton

  Yes

  Sutcliffe

  40,000

  Garth

  Yes

  Aramark

  17,500

  Guys Marsh

  Yes

  Aramark

  30,000

  Hatfield

  No

  Aramark

  Not available

  Holme House

  Yes

  Sutcliffe

  104,000

  266
  Gatwick Detention Facilities (Tinsley House)
  Under this project, accommodation is provided by the British Airports Authority and the operation is run by Wackenhut (UK) Ltd. No reductions in payment have been made on either contract and there have been no operational difficulties.
  Prisons
  There are currently three Design, Construct, Manage and Finance (DCMF) prisons operating: Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse, Her Majesty's Prison Parc, and Her Majesty's Prison Lowdham Grange.
  Despite some early teething troubles, in particular at Her Majesty's Prison Parc where an action plan to improve performance was implemented, all three prisons are now operating satisfactorily and provide much needed accommodation for the Prison Service. A Prison Service appointed controller provides permanent on site contract monitoring at each prison with contract management and performance audits being administered by Prison Service Headquarters centrally. Where performance does not meet the standards specified in the contracts, contractors incur financial penalties. Following performance improvements, the level of penalties imposed on contractors has decreased substantially.
  Contracts for three further DCMF prisons, Forest Bank, Ashfield and Onley have been signed, but they have not yet opened (Onley was signed on 22 July 1999).
  The contract for Coldingley prison industries workshop was terminated on 31 January 1999.
  Prison PABX System
  Delays were experienced during the installation phase of the contract, and this resulted in a reduction in payment. Since completion of the installations in October 1997, the systems have performed well and are providing a good service. The Prison Service holds regular meetings with the supplier to ensure that the quality of service is maintained.

  Prison Shops
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison service establishments have contracted out their shops(a) following competitive tendering, (b) without competitive tendering and (c) in total; if he will list the companies which operate each of the shops; what is the expected saving to the Prison Service from contracting out prison shops; and if he will make a statement. [92904]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table. I will write to the right hon. Member in respect of the four prisons for which information on the savings made is not immediately to hand.
  267

  Prisons in England and Wales operating contracted out shops

  £

  Prisons with contracted out shops

  Formal tender

  Supplier

  Expected approximate savings

  Kirklevington

  Yes

  Aramark

  Not available

  Leeds

  Yes

  Aramark

  200,000

  Lindholme

  Yes

  Aramark

  38,000

  Littlehey

  Yes

  Sutcliffe (temp. contract)

  12,000

  Long Lartin

  Yes

  Eurest

  Not available

  Northallerton

  Yes

  Eurest

  9,000

  Shepton Mallet

  No

  Aramark

  20,000

  Stocken

  Yes

  Aramark

  20,000

  Swinfen

  Yes

  Eurest

  25,000

  Wealstun

  Yes

  Primary Management

  49,100

  Wetherby

  Yes

  Primary Management

  8,000

  Whatton

  Yes

  Aramark

  23,200

  Winchester

  Yes

  Eurest

  29,600

  Woodhill

  Yes

  Aramark

  40,000

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Yes

  Aramark

  50,000

  Wymott

  Yes

  Aramark

  33,000

  Known total

  1,024,400

  1 Contract awarded to coincide with reopening of prison in 1997

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the accuracy of police stop and search statistics; and if he will make a statement. [92889]

  Mr. Boateng
  Police forces submit statistics on the number of recorded stops and searches under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) annually to the Home Office. These are published in 'Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System', a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The Government accept that there is likely to be a disparity between the number of stops and searches made by the police under the PACE and the number of stops and searches recorded by police officers. Home Office research 'Ethnic Monitoring in police forces: A beginning' (FitzGerald and Sibbitt 1997) noted variations in the recorded use of stop and search under PACE in different police areas, with the possibility that under-recording is higher in the provincial forces than in the Metropolitan Police Service.

  There is also likely to be a higher public perception of stops given that most people do not distinguish between voluntary non-recorded stops, and stops carried out under PACE which should be recorded.

  Edmonton Police Division stop and search, 1994–98

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total Searches (including unattended vehicles)

  4,419

  3,039

  2,088

  4,721

  5,237

  Percentage of people searched who were black

  18.4

  17.8

  25.0

  21.8

  22.7

  Percentage of people searched subsequently arrested

  12.9

  10.4

  12.5

  9.9

  12.8

  Enfield Police Division stop and search, 1994–98

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total Searches (including unattended vehicles)

  6,128

  7,546

  5,142

  3,835

  4,474

  Percentage of people searched who were black

  6.3

  7.5

  8.4

  10.1

  9.9

  Percentage of people searched subsequently arrested

  17.0

  16.3

  16.3

  13.7

  12.0

  268
  The Stephen Lawrence report recommended that a record be made of all stops and stops and searches, including "voluntary" stops. The Home Office is considering further this recommendation and has commissioned research to gather information on current practices within forces with a view to testing the practical implications of the Inquiry's recommendations. The Metropolitan Police Service has been running its own pilot projects to help develop a plan to manage the tactic fairly and effectively. The Home Office will work with the Metropolitan Police Service in testing the Stephen Lawrence Report's recommendations.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of stop and search have been recorded in(a) the constituency of Edmonton and (b) the borough of Enfield in each of the past five years; what proportion of those stopped and searched were (i) black and (ii) subsequently arrested. [93606]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has provided the following summary of information on stop and search for the years 1994–1998 for Edmonton and Enfield Police Divisions. The Divisions make up an area which equates to the London Borough of Enfield plus Cheshunt (Hertfordshire) to the North.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom police officers he is intending to send to Kosovo. [93034]

  Mr. Boateng
  We currently have a British Forensic Team of 16 persons already in Kosovo assisting in the investigation of war crimes. Seven British officers have transferred from the International Police Task Force in Bosnia to Kosovo. We are currently training a party of 12 officers to go and assist with the recruitment and training of a Kosovan police force and a further 27 officers are on standby to act as trainers.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans he has to assist police forces whose police officers are being deployed in Kosovo. [93035]

  Mr. Boateng
  Officers going to Kosovo have been selected from various forces around the country with the agreement of the relevant chief constables to ensure that no one force has the burden of supplying a large contingent of officers. The full costs of seconding officers are currently being met by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  EU Fire Safety Provisions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the letter issued in 1998 by Commissioner Flynn under Article 169 of the Treaty of Rome concerning the United Kingdom's implementation of the general fire safety provisions of the European Framework Directive together with his response to that letter. [92891]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Correspondence between the European Commission and member states, including the United Kingdom, on Article 226 (formerly 169) cases is regarded by both parties as confidential between them. The broad content of Commissioner Flynn's letter was set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 255. The Fire Precautions (Workplace) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 reflect the Government's response to the letter in that they amend the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 to the

  1999

  Belfast

  London

  Newport

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Glasgow

  January

  8

  2

  12

  16

  5

  11

  February

  14

  4

  20

  20

  11

  10

  March

  16

  6

  28

  25

  12

  16

  April

  21

  6

  36

  33

  15

  18

  May

  31

  5

  33

  46

  27

  26

  June

  36

  6

  39

  38

  35

  36

  July1

  19

  6

  39

  43

  35

  47

  1 Up to week ending 18 July 1999

  These figures need to be treated with caution because processing is often done in declared travel date order rather than the date received. The processing times reflect the Agency's priority to meet passport applicants' declared travel dates. July travel dates, apart from applications being made now, have been
  270
  necessary extent to address the Commission's concerns about our implementation of the general fire safety provisions of the directive.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone calls were made to the Passport Agency by members of the public; and how many of those calls received a courtesy message at(a) each office of the United Kingdom Passport Agency and (b) in total, in the weeks ended (i) 4 July and (ii) 11 July. [92774]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The information requested is given in the form of calls received on the United Kingdom Passport Agency's (UKPA) published telephone number (0870 5210410); and calls received by the new emergency call centre (0845 6004646), for customers who have already submitted an application and are travelling within one week.

  A breakdown of the telephone calls received on the 0870 5210410 number is as follows:

  week ending Friday, 2 July 1999—total of 225,297 calls received of which 135,877 received an explanatory message;and

  week ending Friday, 9 July 1999—total of 106,949 calls received of which 54,474 received an explanatory message.

  The UKPAs management information is recorded weekly from Saturday to the following Friday. These figures are collated centrally and cannot be broken down to an estimate for each office in any accurate way.

  The total number of telephone calls received on the 0845 6004646 emergency number, which became operational on Friday, 2 July 1999, was:

  week ending Sunday, 4 July 1999–66,189; and

  week ending Sunday, 11 July 999–69,709.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time for processing straightforward applications by the UK Passport Agency(a) per office and (b) in total, (i) on the last available date and (ii) in each of the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [92965]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested in the form of the average maximum processing time in working days for non-urgent applications is shown in the table:

  cleared, and the Agency is making considerable progress with August travellers. Applications in process represent less than three weeks work at current output levels, and with intake declining, processing times for non-urgent work should begin to fall over the next few weeks.

  Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Committee
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates when the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum is due to meet during 1999; and if he will make a statement on the programme of work of that committee. [92784]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: Meetings of the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) were held on 15 June, under the German Presidency, and on 26 July, under the Finnish Presidency. The Presidency has not notified dates of future meetings although none is scheduled for September, the latest month for which a calendar is available. The Presidency has, however, indicated its intention to make such dates available on its Presidency website.

  The programme of work of the SCIFA is to prepare dossiers, after initial consideration by the working groups, for discussion by the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council. Copies of the Finnish Presidency Work Programme in the area of JHA will be placed in the Library.

  I very much welcome the Finnish Presidency's pragmatic approach to its work programme and their aim to continue discussions on issues raised under previous Presidencies. I am also pleased to note the high priority being given to combating illegal immigration and to improving the effective operation of the Dublin Convention, both issues which are of considerable concern to the Government.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people are currently detained under Immigration Act powers in(a) detention centres, (b) Prison Service establishments and (c) other accommodation; [92892]

  (2) how many people are currently detained solely under Immigration Act powers who have been detained continuously for longer than three months. [92897]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The latest available information, relating to the snapshot of all persons detained solely under Immigration Act 1971 powers, by location, as at 31 May, is given in the table. The figures exclude persons detained under dual Immigration Act 1971 and other powers, for whom comprehensive data are not recorded centrally.

  Data relating to length of detention are not recorded centrally for all persons detained solely under Immigration Act 1971 powers. The information requested on the number of persons who had been detained continuously for longer than three months is, therefore, only available at disproportionate cost.

  Persons recorded as being in detention 1 in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 31 May 1999, by place of detention

  Location

  Total detainees

  Immigration detention centres 2

  Campsfield

  182

  Dover Harbour

  14

  272

  Persons recorded as being in detention 1 in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 31 May 1999, by place of detention

  Location

  Total detainees

  Harmondsworth

  91

  Heathrow's Queen's Building

  12

  Manchester Airport

  14

  Tinsley House

  142

  Other immigration detention centres

  1

  Prison establishments

  Aberdeen

  2

  Bedford

  2

  Belmarsh

  10

  Blackenhurst

  4

  Bristol

  2

  Brixton

  10

  Canterbury

  6

  Chelmsford

  2

  Cornton Vale

  2

  Dorchester

  2

  Elmley

  5

  Feltham

  2

  Haslar

  151

  High Down

  22

  Highpoint

  3

  Holloway

  16

  Holme House

  7

  Lancaster Farms

  2

  Leeds

  4

  Liverpool

  2

  Longriggend

  22

  Manchester

  9

  Norwich

  2

  Pentonville

  9

  Preston

  2

  Rochester

  181

  Winchester

  2

  Woodhill

  2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  10

  Other prison establishments

  11

  Total

  962

  1 Figures exclude persons detained in police cells (other than at Dover Harbour)

  2 Figures include the use of police cells at Dover Harbour

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the past 12 months for which records are available the recommended period, in respect of persons held under Immigration Act powers, of five days in policy custody was exceeded by(a) extending, (b) renewing and (c) transferring a detainee from one station to another. [93517]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 1996 specifies that an individual may be detained in a police station for a maximum of five nights with an additional two nights only where Removal Directions have been set. However, current policy is to detain an individual in a police station for no more than two nights with the provision of an extension with the authority of an Immigration Inspector. Data on those detained in police cells for more than five nights, ie where
  273
  Removal Directions are in place, cannot be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs. However, the number is believed to be very small.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of immigration detention in the past 12 months; how much of this is represented by(a) designated prisons, (b) other prisons, (c) police stations, (d) Immigration Service detention facilities and (e) airport holding facilities; and what proportion of the cost is represented by ex-convicts awaiting deportation, beyond the date on which they would otherwise have been released, under section 3(5) or (6). [93515]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The total cost of immigration detention in the last financial year is estimated to be £40,228,000, including overheads, of which £15,135,000 is for designated prisons,(a) costs for Immigration Act 1971 detainees in other prisons, (b) can only be provided at disproportionate cost; £1,360,000 is for detention in police stations, (c) £18,151,000 for Immigration Service detention facilities at Harmondsworth, Tinsley House and Campsfield House, (d) £5,582,000 for other detention facilities at ports and airports, and (e) the costs of detaining ex-convicts awaiting deportation, beyond the date on which they would normally be released cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner regarding the circumstances in which a picture of armed police officers making an arrest appeared on the front page of the Daily Mail on 22 July; and what charges have arisen from the incident. [93267]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that he understands that a member of the public took the photograph and passed it to the Daily Mail. No charges have yet arisen from the incident which was photographed.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the draft Freedom of Information Bill proposing the(a) repeal and (b) amendment of Clause 28(7) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. [93281]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received one representation referring to section 28(7) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in the course of the consultation on the draft Freedom of Information Bill. This response, from the Health and Safety Commission, recorded their desire for the removal of the restriction in section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, subject to certain minimum safeguards against prejudice to their enforcement and regulatory functions.

  It is intended that the Freedom of Information Bill will be used to repeal or amend many existing statutory prohibitions on disclosure, where appropriate.
  274
  All statutory prohibitions are currently being reviewed to see if they would be suitable candidates for repeal or amendment. Section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 has been considered as part of this review and the statutory prohibition on disclosure contained in it is a strong candidate for repeal or amendment under the draft Freedom of Information Bill.

  Extradition
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions his Department has issued consent certificates to remove the rule of specialty in respect of extradition proceedings where consent was granted to(a) the Irish Republic and (b) other countries which have extradition treaties with the United Kingdom; [92949]

  (2) if he will list the legal causes upon which consent certificates were granted in extradition proceedings on account of (a) the extradited person making known an outstanding offence not known to the requesting authority, (b) the requesting authority discovering an offence which was not known to them at the time of the initial extradition request and (c) any other reason. [92950]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: It is very rare to depart from the rule of specialty in respect of extradition proceedings. Formal certification to waive the rule is only required in relation to our extradition arrangements with Ireland, where in recent years just two such certificates have been issued.

  In one of these cases, the offence for which specialty was waived related to a suspected murder. In this case, the Irish authorities knew of the offence at the time of the request, but had insufficient information to include it with other lesser offences listed in the request for the individual's return. In the other case, the waiver certificate is currently subject to court proceedings, and so I cannot comment as the matter is sub judice.

  Figures relating to other countries are not recorded. Officials estimate that there have been three or four specialty waivers in the past three years, but exact numbers, and the reasons for them, could only be obtained with disproportionate cost.

  Cab Licences (St. George's Flag)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to advise cab-drivers and owners in the metropolitan area when re-applying for their licence of the possibility of refusal of licence in cases where the cab displays the St George's Flag. [93271]

  Kate Hoey
  The issuing of licences for London taxis is a matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He informs me that the Public Carriage Office advise cab-drivers and owners, when they first apply for a licence, that their vehicle must comply with the Metropolitan Conditions of Fitness. The Conditions of Fitness prohibit the display of national emblems. Licences must be renewed annually and the application form carries a reminder that Conditions of Fitness must be met.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the safety of(a) CS gas spray and (b) MIBK from the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire. [92318]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire has decided not to issue CS spray to officers in his force. He has corresponded with my officials about this decision and submitted a report to the relevant sub-committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers in 1998 setting out his concerns.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the length of time for which research on CS gas spray and MIBK should have continued before they were judged safe; and what timescales were suggested. [92319]

  Mr. Boateng
  A wide range of research has been conducted into the safety of CS which has not raised concerns in respect of its effects on human health. MIBK is an industrial solvent and has also been extensively researched for adverse health effects. I am not aware of any specific representations concerning the length of time for which particular research programmes should be conducted.

  Citizenship
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to restore the principle of ius soli for the acquisition of citizenship. [93654]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. It is our policy to restrict the acquisition of citizenship by birth in this country to children whose parents have real and substantial connections with the United Kingdom. Children born here with non-British citizen or non-settled parents can become British either through residence or when a parent becomes a British citizen or settled here.

  Public Footpaths (Crimes)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics or other information have been evaluated by(a) the Home Office and (b) police forces regarding (i) assaults or other crimes committed on public footpaths and (ii) cases where public footpaths have been used as a means of access to property where a burglary or other crime has been committed. [93809]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not collected centrally by the Home Office. The British Crime Survey collects information on offences against individuals by location, but does not hold the information specifically for public footpaths. Information collected by the police is a matter for the respective Chief Officers, although those forces with geographical information systems are more likely to have information at this level of detail.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93458]
  276
  Mr. Straw
  Yes. Targets are being set for the recruitment, promotion, and retention of ethnic minority staff directly employed by my Department, and in respect of services for which my Department has oversight, including the police, prison service, fire service, and probation service.

  'Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment', published by the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Department for Education and Employment and the Women's Unit in November 1998, has been circulated to all senior managers at Grade seven level and above within my Department to ensure that the effects of any policy changes on all sections of the population are considered at the earliest stage of policy development.

  Community Police Officers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that the number of community police officers in the Sutton and Cheam constituency is maintained and that those officers continue to be dedicated to their main duties. [93308]

  Kate Hoey
  This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He advises me that the number of community officers in Sutton and Cheam will be maintained and that redeployment of them under mutual aid arrangements is being kept to a minimum.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Metropolitan Police to supply new Kat neighbourhood watch reflective street signs and window stickers showing the meerkat logo to neighbourhood watch members in the constituency of Sutton and Cheam. [93310]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the new Meerkat neighbourhood watch window stickers have been distributed to all divisions.

  Since the launch of the sponsorship agreement between the Metropolitan Police and Yellow Pages in June 1999, 1,700 street signs have been erected in London, and a further 3,500 signs will be erected between now and the end of the year. It seems that Sutton's request for street signs was not received by the contractors. But arrangements to supply signs there are now in hand.

  Refugee Allocation Project
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many allocations have been made under the Refugee Allocation Project to(a) Camrex House, Sunderland and (b) the Balmoral Hotel Newcastle; what was the total cost of such allocations; and what was the average weekly cost of such allocations in each location. [93610]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Over the last 12 months, the Refugee Arrivals Project (RAP) has assisted 114 adults and eight families to secure accommodation in Camrex House, Sunderland, all of whom are in receipt of social security benefits, RAP do not assist placements in the Balmoral Hotel, Newcastle. Information on the cost of such allocations is not separately available.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of prosecutions for road traffic offences have involved people with non-United Kingdom driving licences in each of the last five years. [93339]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available.

  The statistics collected on motoring offences by the Home Office do not enable people with non-United Kingdom driving licences to be identified. Records kept by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority relate only to non-United Kingdom licence holders who are disqualified.

  Police Dogs
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give instructions to the police that, when called on to deal with demonstrations by supporters of hunting accompanied by dogs, they should be accompanied by police dogs. [93215]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. The use of police dogs is an operational matter for chief officers of police.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources he will make available to(a) police authorities, (b) fire authorities and (c) local authority emergency planning offices in England and Wales for the preparation, provision and annual funding needed to meet the new tasks announced in the Government paper of 21 July, Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons; and if he will make a statement. [93095]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No new tasks for the police, fire or local authorities were announced in the Government paper "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons".

  EC-Russian Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to implement in domestic law and practice the right of Russian companies to send key personnel to the United Kingdom as provided for in Articles 28 to 30 of the EC/Russian Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. [93302]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It has not been necessary to introduce specific measures and Russian companies wishing to take advantage of these provisions are expected to apply under the existing well-established work permit procedures.

  The European Community/Russian Partnership and Co-operation Agreement specifically allows the parties to continue to apply immigration and work permit controls. Under the provisions of the Agreement, key personnel are still required to obtain work permits and Russian nationals still require visas to enter the United Kingdom. The Agreement specifically provides by means of a joint declaration by the parties that the requirement of a visa does not nullify or impair its benefits.

  Chinese Nationals
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the regime of checks for Chinese nationals who wish(a) to extend their leave in the United Kingdom and (b) to obtain indefinite leave to remain. [93303]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The process by which the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) considers applications for further leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain varies by category rather than by nationality. The criteria to be applied by IND caseworkers are set out in the Immigration Rules.

  Police Force (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to recruit more black and minority ethnic people into the police force; and if he will make a statement. [93608]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 174 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), on 26 April 1999, Official Report, columns 17-18.

  Metropolitan Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made against the Metropolitan Police in each of the last five years; what proportion of those complaints either wholly or in part concerned accusations of police racism; and if he will make a statement. [93607]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has provided the following summary of information on the total number of complaints made against the Metropolitan Police and the proportion of those complaints that were of racially discriminatory behaviour, within the last five years:

  Total complaints1

  Percentage police racism complaints

  1994–95

  9,658

  2.97

  1995–96

  10,128

  2.98

  1996–97

  9,919

  3.11

  1997–98

  8,881

  2.88

  1998–99

  7,087

  3.47

  1 Total complaints include all allegations, not only the main allegation

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public interest immunity certificates or equivalent documents have been provided by Ministers or officials in his Department since 3 May 1997; and at what level each such document has been signed. [93534]
  279
  Mr. Straw
  Since 3 May 1997, I have signed 13 public interest immunity certificates. In addition, one certificate has been signed by a Minister of State at the Home Office.

  These figures do not include certificates which may, exceptionally, have been issued and considered by the Court without notice of their existence being given to the other parties in the case.

  Hunting
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the costs to the Metropolitan Police, in each of the last five years, of policing demonstrations about hunting. [93471]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner has provided the following information on costs to the Metropolitan Police for policing demonstrations about hunting:

  £

  Year

  Cost

  1994

  46,408

  1995

  Nil

  1996

  8,808

  1997

  97,786

  1998

  267,810

  Total

  420,812

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) pro-hunting and (b) anti-hunting demonstrations have been held in London since May 1997. [93472]

  Number of defendants proceeded against in magistrates courts for a variety of offences under the Immigration Act 1971 in England and Wales, 1998 1

  Offence description

  Number of defendants

  Non citizen failing to comply with requirements to report to a medical officer or to submit to a test or examination required by such an officer2

  —

  If by means which includes deception by him, he obtains or seeks to obtain leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom3

  2

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be:

  an illegal entrant4

  177

  an asylum claimant5

  4

  1 All data are provisional

  2 Sec 24(1)(d)

  3 Sec 24(1)(aa) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 sec 4

  4 Sec 25(1)(a)

  5 Sec 25(1)(b) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 sec 5

  Immigration Rules
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will repeal paragraph 297(e) and (f) of the Immigration rules. [93519]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no plans to do so.

  Carer Policy BDI 2/95
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reviewed the carer policy BDI 2/95. [93451]
  280
  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that between 1 May 1997 and 25 July 1999 there were ten major hunt demonstrations—seven were anti-hunting and three were pro-hunting.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the fund raising activity of local hunts and their contribution to local charities. [93478]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information about fund raising activities of hunts is not held centrally.

  Immigration Act Breaches (Prosecutions)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought, in the last 12 months for which records are available, for each of the following breaches of the Immigration Acts (i) failure to report to a medical officer (section 24(1)(d) Immigration Act 1971), (ii) failure to support and accommodate without recourse to pubic funds (section 78 Social Security Act 1986, with section 106 Social Security Administration Act 1992), (iii) obtaining leave to enter by deception (section 24(1)(aa) Immigration Act 1971), (iv) obtaining leave to remain by deception (section 24(1)(aa) Immigration Act 1971), (v) assisting the entry of another person as an illegal entrant (section 25(1)(a) Immigration Act 1971) and (vi) assisting the entry of another person as an asylum claimant (section 25(1)(b) Immigration Act 1971). [93333]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings database for 1998, is given in the table. Information on the number of defendants who fail to support and accommodate without recourse to public funds cannot be identified separately from other similar offences.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes. Details of the revised policy are set out in the Immigration Directorates' Instructions, a copy of which is in the Library, and is also available on the internet.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 1998,Official Report, column 427, on what criteria decisions to waive fines under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 are made. [93449]
  281
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The criteria for waiving charges are contained in Appendix A of the publication entitled "Charging Procedures. A Guide for Carriers", commonly known as the "Green Guide", a copy of which is in the Library. In addition, charges are normally waived in respect of passengers arriving without documents from stations with Approved Gate Check (AGC) Status. The criteria for AGC status are contained in section 7 of the "Green Guide". Charges are also waived in respect of inadequately documented passengers who are granted full refugee status in accordance with the 1951 United Nations Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees, as described in section 5 of the "Green Guide". Charges are also not imposed where a false document is produced unless the falsity of the document is reasonably apparent nor where a carrier is able to show that the required documents were produced to them when the passenger embarked for the United Kingdom.

  Elections (Ballot Papers)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many tendered ballot papers were issued in(a) the 1997 General Election, (b) the 1999 European Election and (c) the 1999 and 1998 local elections. [93216]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In Great Britain, lists of tendered votes issued at general elections are retained by the Clerk of the Crown and, unless ordered by the House of Commons or the High Court, are destroyed after 12 months. Lists compiled at the European Parliamentary elections are retained by the local returning officer for 12 months and lists compiled at local elections are retained by the proper officer of the authority for six months and then, unless directed by order, respectively, of the High Court, or a county court or election court, are destroyed. The lists of tendered votes for the 1997 and 1998 elections are thus no longer available but those for the 1999 elections are available locally for inspection.

  In Northern Ireland, where figures are kept centrally, 77 tendered votes were issued at the 1997 general election and 40 at the 1999 European Parliamentary election. No ordinary local elections were held there in 1998 or 1999.

  Hunting Ban
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussion he(a) has had (b) intends to have with animal welfare groups about the disposal of hounds used for hunting, following the introduction of a ban on hunting; [93488]

  (2) what discussions he (a) has had and (b) intends to have with associations representing those whose livelihoods depend on hunting; [93473]

  (3) if he will publish a list of the petitions submitted to his Department in each of the last two years; [93468]

  (4) what representations he has received since May 1997 about hunting. [93470]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Representations have been received from hon. Members, members of the public and various organisations which support or oppose hunting. These include two Parliamentary petitions between May and December 1997, two in 1998 and 30 in 1999.
  282
  No meetings have taken place between Home Office Ministers and either representative associations or animal welfare groups concerning the disposal of hounds. There are currently no plans for such meetings to be staged, nor have there been any such approaches for meetings.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his estimate of the number of hounds used for hunting; [93525]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of horses used for hunting in this country; and what is his assessment of the impact on these animals of a ban on hunting; [93485]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the extent to which a ban on hunting will comply with the right of peaceful assembly provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights; [93474]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effects on equine businesses of a ban on hunting; [93490]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the impact of a ban on hunting on the British horse racing industry; [93476]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the effects on the rural economy of a ban on hunting; [93491]

  (7) if legislation to criminalise hunting will include provision to allow the use of hounds or terriers to follow up wild mammals injured by firearms; [93479]

  (8) if he plans to establish a close season for fox control, following the introduction of a ban on hunting; [93482]

  (9) what measures he intends to take to deal with the problem of mange in foxes, following the introduction of a ban on hunting; [93477]

  (10) what measures he intends to take to encourage landowners to maintain the conservation activities currently undertaken by local hunts; [93467]

  (11) what measures he will take to ensure that there is sufficient support available to farmers for the control of pest populations following the introduction of a ban on hunting. [93486]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We are actively considering ways of taking forward the issue of hunting and assessing the effects of any ban. The right of peaceful assembly will be taken into account, along with any exceptions and wider implications.

  Various estimates of the number of horses and hounds used for hunting have been provided by organisations which support or oppose hunting.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Claimants (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims from residents living in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for(a) incapacity benefit, (b) income support and (c) disability living allowance were received in each calendar month of this year; how many were (i) agreed and (ii) refused; and if he will make a statement. [92105]
  283
  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Iain Coleman, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent question asking how many claims from residents living in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for (a) Incapacity Benefit (IB), (b) Income Support (IS) and (c) Disability Living Allowance (DLA) were received in each calendar month of this year; how many were (i) agreed and (ii) refused; and if he will make a statement.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency (BA) collects IS and IB claim statistics by BA district areas and DLA statistics by Disability Benefit Centre areas. These areas do not reflect constituency boundaries or Local Authority areas.
  The information that is available is provided in the attached annex.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit (IB) claims received/processed

  IB claims received

  IB claims awarded

  IB claims refused

  Ealing District

  January 1999

  470

  114

  316

  February 1999

  581

  161

  356

  March 1999

  593

  132

  377

  April 1999

  418

  —

  —

  May 1999

  426

  118

  290

  June 1999

  502

  126

  391

  Palace District

  January 1999

  440

  76

  271

  February 1999

  526

  61

  292

  March 1999

  552

  98

  297

  April 1999

  455

  —

  —

  May 1999

  423

  91

  266

  June 1999

  453

  151

  352

  Income Support (IS) claims received/processed

  IS claims received

  IS claims awarded

  IS claims refused

  Ealing District

  January 1999

  931

  736

  268

  February 1999

  1,138

  840

  342

  March 1999

  1,136

  780

  347

  April 1999

  1,118

  865

  300

  May 1999

  1,028

  775

  292

  June 1999

  1,091

  804

  268

  Palace District

  January 1999

  1,203

  776

  348

  February 1999

  1,252

  802

  384

  March 1999

  1,395

  972

  427

  April 1999

  1,188

  849

  310

  May 1999

  1,085

  772

  277

  June 1999

  1,154

  804

  272

  Notes:

  1. The Palace District comprises of the offices of Crystal Palace, Dulwich, Fulham, Kensington and Peckham.

  2. The Ealing District comprises of the offices of Ealing, Acton, Notting Hill and Southall.

  3. Figures for IB awards and refusals in April 1999 are not available because a system report was not received by DSS Analytical Services Division and it has not been possible to obtain a reprint.

  284

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claims received/processed

  DLA claims received

  DLA claims awarded

  DLA claims refused

  Sutton DBC

  January 1999

  3,227

  1,748

  1,849

  February 1999

  3,753

  1,707

  1,883

  March 1999

  4,751

  1,933

  2,164

  April 1999

  3,914

  1,930

  2,124

  May 1999

  3,613

  1,627

  1,823

  June 1999

  3,916

  1,828

  1,787

  Notes:

  1. Sutton DBC covers a large part of South East England, including the whole of Hammersmith and Fulham.

  2. Data relative to specific geographical areas is not routinely kept.

  3. As at 31 May 1998 there were 4,338 people resident in Hammersmith and Fulham in receipt of DLA. Figures for May 1999 are not yet available.

  4. The number of claims on which a decision is issued in a monthly period may not equate to the number of claims received. This is because a number of uncleared claims may have been carried forward form a previous statistical period. The information is provisional and may be subject to change.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if staff at the Benefits Agency aged 60 years or over are allowed to continue in employment on a year-to-year basis until the age of 65. [92203]

  Angela Eagle
  Employment within the Benefits Agency is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mohammed Sarwar, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if staff in the Benefits Agency aged 60 or over are allowed to continue in employment on a year to year basis until the age of 65.
  Retirement age in the Department of Social Security was restored to age 60 for all staff with effect from 31 July 1998. However, the policy provides for retention of staff for business reasons for periods of 12 months at a time until the age of 65 for administrative grades and until 62 for junior managers. Middle managers and above are required to retire at age 60.
  The availability of the facility for retention beyond age 60 is reviewed annually and is dependent upon the projected staffing requirements; staff are currently able to be retained until 31 July 2000.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 442, on pensioners and income support, if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made to date in increasing take-up of income support by pensioners, and on the timetable for implementation of further measures. [92537]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 19 July 1999,Official Report, columns 442-43. We will bring forward our plans as soon as possible.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage and number of(a) single pensioners, (b) pensioner couples and (c) all pensioner

  285
  households were dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income in the latest year for which figures are available. [93499]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioner units with at least 75 per cent. of income from State benefits, 1996–97

  Thousand

  Pensioner unit

  Percentage

  Number

  Single pensioners

  56

  2,450

  Pensioner couples

  36

  980

  All pensioner units

  49

  3,430

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000 pensioners, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  2. A pensioner couple is defined as a couple where the man is over State pension age. A Pensioner Unit is defined as a single person over State pension age or a pensioner couple.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1996–97.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the mean and (b) the median income for (i) single men aged over 65 to 74 years, (ii) single men aged 75 years and over, (iii) single women aged 65 to 74 years, (iv) single women aged 75 years and over, (v) pensioner couples aged 65 to 74 years and (vi) pensioner couples aged 75 years and over for (1) 1979 in the prices for the latest year for which figures are available and (2) the latest year for which prices are available. [93500]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioners average income by age

  Mean incomes

  Median incomes

  1979

  1996–97

  1979

  1996–97

  Single men

  Aged 65–74

  98

  148

  81

  116

  Aged 75 or over

  84

  134

  74

  114

  Single women

  Aged 65–74

  77

  121

  70

  106

  Aged 75 or over

  75

  126

  70

  108

  Couples

  Aged 65–74

  162

  259

  134

  208

  Aged 75 or over

  132

  226

  113

  179

  Notes:

  1. All incomes are expressed in £ per week at July 1996 prices.

  2. Couples are allocated to each age group according to the age of the head of the household.

  3. Income is defined as net income before housing costs.

  4. Some estimates, particularly those for single men, are based on small sample sizes, so should be treated with caution.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage and number of(a) single pension and (b) pensioner couples have a total income of at least £150 per week; and what percentage and number of pensioner couples have a total income of at least (i) £250 per week and (ii) £300 per week in the latest year for which figures are available. [93497]
  286
  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the tables.

  Pensioners with total income of at least £150 per week

  Single Pensioners

  Pensioner Couples

  Percentage

  24

  74

  Number (thousand)

  1,060

  2,000

  Pensioner couples with total income above selected thresholds

  Total weekly income of at least £250

  Total weekly income of at least £300

  Percentage

  34

  22

  Number (thousand)

  910

  599

  Notes:

  1. All incomes are expressed in £ per week at July 1996 prices.

  2. Income is defined as net income before housing costs.

  3. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10,000, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  4. Estimates for singles and couples are not directly comparable since incomes have not been adjusted to take account of the number of people in the pensioner unit.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey, 1996–97

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what date he expects the first individuals to receive the annual pensions statement proposed in the Green Paper on Pensions. [93065]

  Mr. Timms
  We will implement the Green Paper commitment to introduce combined pension forecasts in 2002. We intend to conduct pilot exercises before that date.

  On 22 July 1999, Official Report, column 573, I announced the membership of a Pension Forecasting Advisory Group to consider how our proposals for introducing combined forecasts might best be implemented. The group will also advise on what supporting information and facilities need to be provided to ensure that individuals make best use of the new information.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to prevent members of defined benefit occupational pension schemes from transferring into stakeholder pension schemes. [93066]

  Mr. Timms
  We would expect information provided to members or potential members of stakeholder pension schemes to indicate clearly that they should seek financial advice before making such a transfer.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the costs of(a) extending entitlement to Housing Benefit to cover the first (i) 12 weeks and (ii) 24 weeks of work and (b) placing Housing Benefit entitlement on the same time basis as Working Families Tax Credit. [93069]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to estimate the cost of extending entitlement to Housing Benefit for everyone starting work to cover the first 12-24 weeks of work, owing to insufficient information.
  287
  However, if it is assumed that the eligibility conditions for a Housing Benefit extended payment are applied, (eg receipt of Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance for at least 26 weeks before starting work) the cost of increasing the extended payment to cover the first (i) 12 weeks in work is £50 million and (ii) 24 weeks in work is £125 million, at 1999–2000 prices. Estimates assume that there are no behavioural changes.

  It is not possible to estimate the cost of placing Housing Benefit entitlement on the same time basis as Working Families Tax Credit due to insufficient information.

  Departmental Funding (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Senn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the programmes funded directly by his Department, relating to social exclusion, regeneration, community development, employment or education, currently operating in(a) the City of Leeds and (b) the Leeds Central parliamentary constituency, listing for each programme the amount of such funding for each of the last three years and the amount planned to be spent in each of the next three financial years. [92911]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not collected locally or centrally on the proportion of funding related to social exclusion. The vast majority of the Department's programme spending is dedicated to tackling poverty and social exclusion.

  Benefits Agency (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the procedural steps for assessing eligibility, reviewing, appealing and making payment of(a) severe disablement allowance, (b) maternity allowance, (c) industrial injuries disablement allowance, (d) reduced earnings allowance/retirement allowance, (e) attendance allowance and (f) disability working allowance; indicating which of the offices of his Department and his agencies in Scotland would handle each of these steps. [92356]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if he will list the procedural steps for assessing eligibility, reviewing, appealing and making payment of (a) Severe Disablement Allowance, (b) Maternity Allowance, (c) Industrial Injuries Disablement Allowance, (d) Reduced Earnings Allowance/Retirement Allowance, (e) Attendance Allowance and (f) Disability Working Allowance; indicating which of the offices of his Department and his agencies in Scotland would handle each of these steps.
  Applications advice and information for all of the above benefits can be obtained from each local office of the Benefits Agency in Scotland.
  The procedural steps on a claim including those for assessment, reviews, appeals and payments are set out in the following booklets, NI252 "Severe Disablement Allowance", NI17A "A Guide to Maternity Benefits", NI6 "Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit", HB5 "A guide to Non-Contributory Benefits for Disabled People" and HB4 "A Guide to Disability Working Allowance".
  288
  Copies of all of these documents are in the House library.
  All aspects of appeals are handled by the Independent Tribunal Service.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which Benefits Agency office would handle(a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal relating to the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) (A) Perth and (B) Glasgow and claiming incapacity benefit and (ii) (x) Perth and (y) Edinburgh and claiming family credit; [92392]

  (2) which Benefits Agency office would handle (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal relating to the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) (A) Perth and (B) Inverness and claiming jobseeker's allowance, (both income and contribution based) and (ii) (x) Perth and (y) Greenock and claiming disability living allowance. [92393]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of Benefit Agency offices is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent questions asking which Benefits Agency (BA) office would handle (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal relating to the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) (A) Perth and (B) Glasgow and claiming Incapacity Benefit (IB) and (ii) (A) Perth and (B) Edinburgh and claiming Family Credit (FC); and also, (a)—(f) above for a person living in (i) (A) Perth and (B) Inverness and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), (both income and contribution based) and (ii) (A) Perth and (B) Greenock and claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  For IB, four BA districts cover Glasgow, these are Glasgow North, Glasgow South, Glasgow East and Argyle and West. One district, Tayside, covers Perth.
  All offices in these districts provide benefit advice and information, and handle assessments, reviews, payment of benefits, recovery of overpayments. They also accept appeals which are sent to the Area Centralised Contributory Benefits Appeals Units in Motherwell and Glasgow, where appeals are prepared.
  For FC, East Edinburgh and Borders and Lothian West districts cover Edinburgh and Tayside district covers Perth.
  Advice, information and claim packs can be obtained from offices in these districts, which also accept appeals for onward transmission to the Family Credit Unit (FCU) in Preston. The FCU deals with all aspects of FC claims for the whole of Great Britain.
  For JSA, in Inverness advice and information can be obtained from Inverness Employment Services Jobcentre (ESJ) or Inverness BA office. Assessment of benefit, reviews and payment of JSA is carried out in the ESJ. Appeals are prepared in Elgin office and recovery of overpaid benefit is processed in Stornoway.
  In Perth, the principal point of contact for advice and information on JSA is Perth ESJ. Advice and information is also available in Perth BA Office where claims are assessed. Reviews and payments are processed in both the BA office and Perth ESJ. Appeals are prepared in Dundee office and recovery of overpaid benefit is processed in Perth.
  Information and advice on DLA can be obtained from the BA offices in Perth (Tayside district) and Greenock (Clyde Coast and Renfrew district). Claims are assessed in the Disability Benefit

  289
  Centres (DBCs) in Glasgow and Edinburgh which also issue payments, carry out reviews and process appeals, although these functions may be carried out at the Disability Benefit Unit (DBU) in Blackpool. Any overpaid benefit is recovered by the DBU.
  All aspects of benefit appeals are handled by the Independent Tribunal Service.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which Benefits Agency office would handle the(a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Peterhead, (ii) Stranraer and (iii) Glasgow and claiming incapacity benefit; [92380]

  (2) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Peterhead, (ii) Stranraer and (iii) Inverness and claiming jobseeker's allowance, both income based and contribution based; [92382]

  (3) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Banff and (ii) Paisley and claiming incapacity benefit; [92384]

  (4) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Elgin, (ii) Banff and (iii) Paisley and claiming jobseeker's allowance, both income based and contribution based; [92386]

  (5) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Elgin, (ii) Banff and (iii) Paisley and claiming disability living allowance; [92387]

  (6) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Peterhead, (ii) Stranraer and (iii) Edinburgh and claiming family credit; [92381]

  (7) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Peterhead, (ii) Stranraer and (iii) Greenock and claiming disability living allowance; [92383]

  (8) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery
  290
  of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Elgin, (ii) Banff and (iii) Paisley and claiming family credit. [92385]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent questions relating to procedural steps for Social Security benefits and indicating which officers and agencies would handle each of these steps. A copy of the questions is attached.
  The local offices and the services they provide for people claiming incapacity benefit are as follows;
  For Peterhead, Peterhead Benefits office provide (a) advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of overpaid benefit.
  For Stranraer, Stranraer Benefits office provide (a), Kilmarnock Benefits office provide (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
  There are four districts covering Glasgow. These are Glasgow North, Glasgow South, Glasgow East, Argyle and West. All offices in these districts provide (a)-(f).
  For Banff, Elgin Benefits office provide (a)-(f).
  For Paisley, Paisley Benefits office provide (a)-(f), with the exception of (d) which is provided by Johnstone Benefits office.
  For Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), advice and information can be obtained from Employment Services Jobcentres (ESJ) and local BA offices. Assessments of benefit, review and payment of JSA, lodgement of appeals and recovery of overpaid benefit is processed within the Employment Services and BA district office network as follows:
  Peterhead - Peterhead Benefit Office provide (a)-(f), with the exception of (d) provided by Aberdeen District Office.
  Stranraer - Stranraer Benefits office provide (a), (c), (d), (f), Stranraer ESJ (a), (b), (e).
  Inverness - Inverness District Office provide (a), Inverness ESJ (a), (b), (c), (e), Elgin Benefit Office (d), Stornoway Benefits office (f).
  Elgin - Elgin Benefit Office (a), (d), Elgin ESJ (a), (b), (c), (e), Stornoway Benefit Office (f).
  Banff - Banff ESJ (a), (b), (c), (e), Aberdeen District Office (d), Peterhead Benefit Office (f).
  Paisley - Paisley Benefit Office (a), (d), (f), Paisley ESJ (a), (b), (c), (e).
  Information and advice on Disability Living Allowance can be obtained from the BA offices in Elgin, Paisley, Peterhead, Stranraer and Greenock. Claims are assessed in the Disability Benefit Centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh which also issue payments, carry out reviews and process appeals, although these functions may be carried out at the Disability Benefit Unit (DBU) in Blackpool. Any overpaid benefit is recovered by the DBU.
  For Family Credit, advice information and claim packs can be obtained from BA offices in these areas. They will also accept appeals for onward transmission to the Family Credit Unit in Preston, which deals with all aspects of Family Credit claims for the whole of Great Britain.
  The Area Centralised Contributory Benefits Appeals Units in Motherwell and Glasgow prepare appeal submissions for Scotland. All aspects of appeals are handled by the Independent Tribunal Service.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which Benefits Agency office would handle the(a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of

  291
  over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Blairgowrie, (ii) Duns and (iii) Inverness and claiming jobseeker's allowance, both income based and contribution based; [92354]

  (2) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Blairgowrie, (ii) Duns and (iii) Glasgow and claiming incapacity benefit; [92352]

  (3) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Blairgowrie, (ii) Duns and (iii) Edinburgh and claiming family credit; [92353]

  (4) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Blairgowrie, (ii) Duns and (iii) Greenock and claiming disability living allowance. [92355]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Swinney, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent questions asking which Benefit Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefits.
  For Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), advice and information can be obtained from Employment Services Jobcentres (ESJ) and local Benefits Agency (BA) offices. Assessment of benefit, review and payment of JSA, lodgement of appeals and recovery of overpaid benefit is processed within the Employment Services and BA district network is set out in the annex.
  For Incapacity Benefit, the local offices and the services they provide for people are as follows;
  Blairgowrie-Blairgowrie Benefit Office provides (a), Perth Benefit Office provides (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f).
  Dunns-Galashiels Benefit Office provide (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f).
  Four districts cover Glasgow, these are Glasgow North, Glasgow South, Glasgow East and Argyle and West. All offices in these districts provide (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f).
  For Family Credit (FC), Tayside, East Edinburgh and Borders and Lothian West districts cover Blairgowrie, Dunns and Edinburgh. Advice, information and claim packs can be obtained from all BA offices in these districts, which also accept appeals for onward transmission to the Family Credit Unit in Preston, which deals with all aspects of FC claims for the whole of Great Britain.
  For Disability Living Allowance, information and advice can be obtained from BA offices in Tayside, East Edinburgh and Borders, Lothian West and Clyde Coast and Renfrew districts. Claims are assessed in the Disability Benefit Centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh which also issue payments, carry out reviews and process appeals although these functions may be carried out at the Disability Benefit Unit (DBU) in Blackpool. Any overpaid benefit is recovered by the DBU.
  The Area Contributory Benefits Appeals Units in Motherwell and Glasgow prepare appeal submissions for Scotland. All aspects of appeals are handled by the Independent Tribunal Service.
  I hope this is helpful.

  292

  Annex

  a

  b

  c

  d

  e

  f

  Blairgowrie Benefit Office

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blairgowrie ESJ

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  —

  Dundee Benefit Office

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Perth Benefit Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Eyemouth ESJ

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Galashiels Benefit Office

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Inverness Benefit Office

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness ESJ

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  —

  Elgin Benefit Office

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Stornaway Benefit Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which Benefits Agency office would handle the(a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Dundee, (ii) Arbroath and (iii) Glasgow and claiming Incapacity Benefit; [92348]

  (2) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to the claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Dundee, (ii) Arbroath and (iii) Edinburgh and claiming Family Credit; [92349]

  (3) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Dundee, (ii) Arbroath and (iii) Inverness and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, both income based and contribution based; [92350]

  (4) which Benefits Agency office would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefit for a person living in (i) Dundee, (ii) Arbroath and (iii) Greenock and claiming Disability Living Allowance. [92351]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent questions asking which Benefit Agency (BA) offices would handle the (a) provision of advice and information, (b) assessment of eligibility to claim, (c) review of the claim, (d) appeal of the claim, (e) payment of the benefit and (f) recovery of over-paid benefits.
  For Incapacity Benefit, four BA districts cover Glasgow, these are Glasgow North, Glasgow South, Glasgow East and Argyle and West. One district covers Tayside. All offices in these districts provide benefits advice and information, and handle assessments, review, payment of benefit and recovery of overpayments. They also accept appeals, which are sent to the Area Centralised Contributory Benefits Appeals Units in Motherwell and Glasgow, where all appeals for Scotland are prepared.
  For Family Credit (FC), East Edinburgh and Borders and Lothian West districts cover Edinburgh and Tayside district covers Dundee and Arbroath. Advice information and claim packs can be obtained from all offices in these districts, which also accept appeals for

  293
  onward transmission to the Family Credit Unit (FCU) in Preston. The FCU deals with all aspects of FC claims for the whole of Great Britain.
  For Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), advice and information can be obtained from Employment Service Jobcentres (ESJ) and local BA offices. Assessment of benefit, review and payment of JSA, appeals and recovery of overpaid benefits are processed within the Employment Services and BA district network (see appendix).
  For Disability Living Allowance (DLA), information and advice can be obtained from the BA offices in Tayside (Dundee & Arbroath) and Clyde Coast and Renfrew districts (Greenock).
  Claims are assessed in the Disability Benefit Centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which also issue payments, carry out reviews and process appeals, although these functions may be carried out at the Disability Benefit Unit (DBU) in Blackpool. Any overpaid benefit is recovered by the DBU.
  After the initial preparation by the BA, all aspects of benefit appeals are handled by the Independent Tribunal Service.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Appendix

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  Dundee Benefit Office

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Dundee ESJs

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  —

  Perth Benefit Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Arbroath Benefit Office

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath ESJ

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  —

  Inverness Benefit Office

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Elgin Benefit Office

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Stornaway Benefit Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Inverness ESJ

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  —

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the procedure for determining industrial deafness; and if he will make a statement. [93206]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are advised on matters relating to the Industrial Injuries Benefit Scheme, which includes provision for occupational deafness, by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The Council's sub-group, the Occupational Deafness Working Group is currently examining all the criteria for awarding benefit and when their work is concluded the Council will report to us. The timing of the Council's report is a matter for them.

  Weather station

  Postcode districts

  BA districts affected

  Period of trigger (s)

  Aviemore

  AB31, AB33, AB34, AB36–37, PH18–26

  Grampian & Shetland

  13/11/98–19/11/98

  Highlands & Islands

  06/01/99–12/01/99

  Tayside

  07/02/99–13/02/99

  Braemar

  AB35

  Grampian & Shetland

  13/11/98–19/11/98

  12/01/99–18/01/99

  07/02/99–13/02/99

  Lerwick

  ZE1–3

  Grampian & Shetland

  05/02/99–11/02/99

  Loch Glascarnoch

  IV3–4, IV6, IV23–24

  Highlands & Islands

  06/01/99–12/01/99

  07/02/99–13/02/99

  Tulloch Bridge

  PA33, PA35–36, PA38–40, PH8–11, PH15–17, PH30–35, PH37

  Argyll & West

  06/01/99–12/01/99

  Highlands & Islands Tayside

  04/02/99–10/02/99

  Income Support (Scotland)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of people aged over 60 years who receive Income Support live in Scotland. [93501]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Income Support claimants in Scotland aged over 60-years-old, February 1999

  Claimants

  Number of cases

  As percentage of over 60-years-old Income Support population in Great Britain

  Claimants aged over 60-years-old

  158,000

  10

  Claimants and/or partner aged over 60-years-old

  160,000

  10

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Estimates are based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Income Support claimants and may be subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. Cases are allocated to the Scotland Government Office Region by matching postcodes against the 1999 version 1 of the Postcode Directory.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1999.

  Cold Weather Payments Directory.(Scotland)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of cold weather payments paid in Scotland in 1998–99. [93502]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of cold weather payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Eddie O'Hara, dated 27 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if he will provide a breakdown of cold weather payments paid in Scotland in 1998–99.
  During the 1998–99 winter in Scotland there were 11 occasions when cold weather payments were triggered. This resulted in the issue of 11,293 payments, totalling £95,990.50. Details are provided in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate has been made of the cost of not implementing the proposed change to SERPS from April 2000 in each of the next three years. [93286]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  The estimated gross SERPS costs

  £ million

  Year

  Estimated gross costs

  2000–01

  60

  2001–02

  170

  2002–03

  280

  Notes:

  1. Costs are supplied by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. No allowance has been made for income related benefit offsets.

  3. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million and are at 1998–99 rates.

  4. Costs include SERPS pension paid to widows and widowers above State pension age and to widows below State pension age.

  5. The estimates are based on current legislation.

  6. Real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. has been assumed.

  Comparison between the values of capital limits if uprated by different indices 1

  £

  Income Support April 1988

  Housing Benefit April 1988

  Council Tax Benefit April 1990 2

  Benefit and date of introduction

  Lower

  Higher

  Lower

  Higher

  Lower

  Higher

  Rate of capital limits at date of introduction

  3,000

  6,000

  3,000

  6,000

  3,000

  16,000

  Rate if uprated by prices since introduction3

  4,627

  9,255

  4,627

  9,255

  4,201

  22,406

  Rate if uprated by higher of prices and earnings since introduction

  5,611

  11,221

  5,611

  11,221

  4,701

  25,071

  Rate of capital limits at April 1990

  3,000

  8,000

  3,000

  16,000

  3,000

  16,000

  Rate if uprated by prices since April 1990

  4,201

  11,203

  4,201

  22,406

  4,201

  22,406

  Rate if uprated by higher of prices and earnings since April 1990

  4,701

  12,536

  4,701

  25,071

  4,701

  25,071

  1 The ROSSI index is used to uprate Income Related Benefits. Figures have been rounded to the nearest pound.

  2 In April 1990, Community Charge Benefit was introduced in England and Wales. In April 1993, this was replaced by Council Tax Benefit.

  3 For Income Related Benefits (IRBs), the percentage used to uprate benefits in April 1994 was 3.9 per cent. not 3.5 per cent. as shown in the Annual Abstract of Statistics, to take account of VAT on fuel.

  War Pensions
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current position in relation to the war pensions case of Mr. Kenneth Winter of Langford, Ref YX953640C; and if he will make a statement. [93545]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the War Pensions Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Mr. Gordon Hextall. I have asked him to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Sir Nicholas Lyell, dated 26 July 1999.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the current position in relation to the war pension case of Mr. Kenneth Winter of 98 Church Street, Langford.
  Mr. Winter has an outstanding appeal against our 50 per cent assessment of his service related disablement for the period 22 December 1994 to 5 August 1996. All relevant papers are now with the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal (PAT) office. The PAT is completely separate from the WPA and is administered by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The PAT office has been unable to give us a specific date for the hearing but anticipates that the appeal will be heard during September 1999. They will send full details to Mr. Winter within the next two weeks.

  296
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate has been made of the number of people likely to be affected by the proposed change to SERPS from April 2000 in each of the next three years. [93287]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written answer the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Hitchen (Mr. Denham) gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 8 December 1998,Official Report, columns 174-75.

  Benefits (Capital Limits)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the upper and lower capital limit would be for(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit if they had been uprated by (i) prices since introduction, (ii) prices since 1990, (iii) the higher of prices or earnings since introduction and (iv) the higher of prices and earnings since 1990. [93498]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  If Mr. Winter has any further queries about the appeal hearing date, he may wish to contact the PAT office direct. Their telephone number is 0171 936 7033.
  I hope this is helpful and if you need any further information, I will be happy to assist.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average time taken to process appeals in respect of claims for war disablement pension; [92967]

  (2) what action he has taken in response to the findings and recommendations of the Final report of the Review of the Decision Making and Appeals Process in the War Pensions Agency; [92960]

  (3) what is the average time taken to process a claim for war disablement pension. [92961]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the War Pensions Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Mr. Gordon Hextall. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 26 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions relating to war pensions. You asked about the average time taken to process War Disablement

  297
  Pension (WDP) claims and appeals and what action was being taken in response to the findings and recommendations of the Final Report of the Review of the Decision Making and Appeals Process in the War Pensions Agency (WPA).
  The latest annual figures available (April 1998 to March 1999) show that the average time taken to process a claim to WDP was 111 days, whilst the average time taken to process an appeal was 278 days.
  The WPA is committee to reducing the processing times and this was why I commissioned the review of the Decision Making and Appeals Process. Once the report as received, I appointed a Programme Manager and established a programme team, working under PRINCE project management discipline in line with the recommendations about implementation. The team is testing the feasibility, implications, timing and costs of implementing the recommendations. They are specifying and proposing in greater detail what is required to take forward the changes necessary to improve the service we provide. As the Senior Accountable Official, I am chairing a Steering Group which includes the DSS Policy Manager and the Chief Medical Adviser. A meeting has also been arranged with the Presidents of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal (PAT) in August at which the recommendations, particularly those which involve the Lord Chancellors Department, will be discussed.
  Although it is necessary to test their feasibility, it is clear that some of the recommendations are relatively straightforward and there are some "quick wins" which can be achieved. For example, improvements to the process involving more telephone contact can be made quickly and easily. These improvements are to be piloted in Autumn this year. Some changes, which are IT related, will need more careful consideration, including the funding and business case aspects. Others, in particular those involving matters of policy, will need much wider consultation with stakeholders and interested parties to assess the impact and to canvass opinion.
  I hope this is helpful and if you need any further information, I will be happy to assist.

  Benefits (New Year)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that vulnerable people will receive their benefits over the New Year, with particular reference to people with disabilities and those receiving direct and manual payments; and if he will make a statement. [93483]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 27 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what action he is taking to ensure that vulnerable people will receive their benefits over the New Year with particular reference to people with disabilities and those receiving direct and manual payments.

  Beneficiaries of income support as at February 1999

  Number of Beneficiaries

  Area

  Adults (aged 16 and over)

  Children (aged 15 and under)

  Adults as a percentage of 16 years and over population

  Children as percentage of 15 years and under population

  Edmonton Constituency

  10.5

  7.1

  1—

  1—

  Enfield LA

  24.6

  14.8

  12

  26

  Greater London

  667.6

  393.6

  12

  27

  Great Britain

  4,424.9

  2,196.3

  10

  19

  298

  Each year the Benefit Agency (BA) brings forward the production of order books, Girocheques and Automated Credit Transfers (payment directly to bank accounts) so that people receiving direct and manual payments of benefits can have their money in advance for holiday periods when Banks and Post Offices are closed. These arrangements will again be made for people in receipt of all BA benefits, including disability benefits, for the forthcoming Christmas and New Year period.
  Throughout the year, the BA has continuity planning arrangements in place which could involve manual payments being implemented where problems such as postal disruption are anticipated. In the most vulnerable cases, such payments could be issued to the customer in the office the same day. The BA will also consider sending a visiting officer to those who are unable to attend the office.
  Over the Christmas and New Year period BA local offices will be open on 24, 29 and 30 December, and 4 January (except in Scotland, where offices return to normal working hours on 5 January). Working hours will be advertised in the local office.
  The BA also provides an out of hours service (OOHS) to help customers who find themselves in particular need outside normal office hours. On weekdays this service operates until at least 20.00 hours. At weekends and on statutory holidays, it will operate for at least six hours daily, normally between 9.00 and 20.00 hours. Contact with the OOHS is normally made through the social services or police who liaise with a central emergency officer through a telephone message service. The officer then considers the individual person's needs in consultation with outside agencies.
  In addition, the BA has been aware for some time of the issues which my arise as a result of the Year 2000 date change. A full programme of work was established in 1996. Most of the major mainframe systems (the benefit payment computer systems) hold their dates in a way which is largely unaffected by the Year 2000 problem. Nevertheless, a full regime of checking has taken place and all benefit payment systems are now full year 2000 compliant.
  Interfaces with external computer systems, including the systems which pay benefits directly to bank accounts (BACS), have been rigorously tested, or plans are in place to do so. An intensive testing process is also under way on our major benefit paying systems to provide additional assurances. For example, BA has recently concluded a business confidence review of Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support that did not identify any risks of material disruption to payment of benefits.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of(a) adults and (b) children in families were in receipt of income support and jobseeker's allowance in (i) Edmonton, (ii) Enfield, (iii) Greater London and (iv) the UK, in the last year for which figures are available. [93589]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  299

  Beneficiaries of Jobseeker's Allowance as at February 1999

  Number of Beneficiaries

  Area

  Adults (aged 16 and over)

  Children (aged 15 and under)

  Adults as a percentage of 16 year and over population

  Children as percentage of 15 years and under population

  Edmonton Constituency

  4.5

  1.5

  1—

  1—

  Enfield LA

  10.4

  2.7

  5

  5

  Greater London

  266.8

  53.8

  5

  4

  Great Britain

  1,699.4

  326.1

  4

  3

  1 Not available

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and displayed as thousands. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. Estimates are based on a 5 per cent, sample of all Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance claimants and will therefore be subject to a degree of sampling error eg the true population value for an estimate of 2,000 could lie within the range of approximately 1,500 to 2,500.

  3. Children are defined as dependants aged 15 years old and less.

  4. Adults refer to all adult beneficiaries of Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance i.e. Claimants, partners and dependants aged 16 years old and over.

  5. Cases are allocated to the Local Authority Districts by matching postcodes against the 1999 version 1 of the Postcode Directory.

  6. Cases were allocated to Edmonton Constituency by matching postcodes against the 1999 version 1 of the Postcode Directory and as such represent Constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  7. Estimates for Jobseeker's Allowance include income-based, contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance and cases where nil benefit is in payment.

  8. Population estimates used in the percentage calculation were taken from the Office for National Statistics mid year estimates for 1997.

  9. It has not been possible to provide an estimate of the percentage of the population in the Edmonton constituency area who are beneficiaries of either Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance. Instead, data has been provided for Enfield Local Authority.

  10. Estimates for the United Kingdom can not be provided as requested, as social security in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but Great Britain totals have been supplied.

  Source:

  1 Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1999

  2 Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1999

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to introduce the benefit run-on for lone parents starting work; what effect this will have on the housing benefit and council tax benefit extended payments scheme; and if he will make a statement. [93901]

  Angela Eagle
  The lone parent's benefit run-on will give extra help, and financial security, to lone parents during the transition from welfare to work. It will allow lone parents who have been getting Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance for at least six months to be paid IS for their first two weeks in work, provided that work is expected to last at least five weeks. We expect more than 100,000 lone parents to benefit from the run-on in a full year (about 5,000 at a point in time), at a cost of between £15 million and £25 million.

  We also intend to make consequential changes to the Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) extended payment schemes. At present, these schemes give four extra weeks HB and/or CTB to a number of groups—including lone parents—moving from income-related benefits to work, provided they claim it. Lone parents getting the IS benefit run-on will automatically retain entitlement to maximum HB/CTB during the run-on period, and will then receive extended payments for the next two weeks without the need for a separate claim. This should ensure that they continue to receive maximum HB/CTB for the first four weeks of work.

  The benefit run-on complements other aspects of welfare-to-work policies, in particular the New Deal for lone parents. It is a positive response to concerns that the abrupt withdrawal of what has been a regular income,
  300
  the gap between starting work and receiving wages and the wait for in-work benefits can combine to form a barrier to making the move into work. These concerns can be particularly acute for lone parents, who often have to meet child care costs in advance.

  We are also taking this opportunity to broaden the scope of the HB/CTB extended payments scheme to include sick and disabled people moving from income-related benefits into work. This will benefit an estimated 22,000 people a year at an annual cost of £3 million.

  Draft regulations have been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee and consultation with representatives of Local Authority Associations is under way. Following this, we plan to lay the regulations during September to bring the scheme into place in October to coincide with the introduction of Working Families Tax Credit.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report on Tower Hamlets. [93448]

  Mr. Timms
  I published the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's inspection of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets on Thursday 22 July 1999.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the local authorities for which Benefit Fraud Inspectorate inspections have been completed and reports remain to be published. [93315]

  Mr. Timms
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is currently undertaking 27 inspections. These inspections are all at different stages. Of these, 15 have been completed to at least draft report stage.
  301
  These inspections are in the following local authorities:

  Oxford

  Bournemouth

  Lichfield

  Sandwell

  Swansea

  West Wiltshire

  Powys

  Wigan

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Norwich

  York

  Carlisle

  Calderdale

  Rotherham

  Ellesmere Port.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints and representations have been received by(a) his office and (b) the Benefits Agency arising from the new NIRS2 computer system; and if he will make a statement. [93196]

  Mr. Timms
  To date there have been 110 parliamentary questions arising from the implementation of the new National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2). Between 1 June 1998 and 31 March 1999 the Secretary of State for Social Security received 87 parliamentary questions. Since 1 April 1999 a further 23 have been received of which 11 were transferred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  There have been 240 letters specifically relating to NIRS2 of which 85 were received by Ministers, 73 by the Benefits Agency and 82 by the former Contributions Agency.

  Between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 1999 752 letters were received with queries about the rates of Retirement Pension, 366 were addressed to Ministers and 386 to the Benefits Agency. Some of these will relate to the implementation of NIRS2.

  Information about the numbers of complaints, received at local benefit offices, arising from the NIRS2 computer system, is not available. However, the Benefits Agency has completed over 13,600 clerical calculations of Retirement Pension and Widows Benefits.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have not received their full pension at retirement date due to failure of the new NIRS2 computer system; and if he will make a statement. [93197]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 22 July 1999,Official Report, columns 575-76.

  It is estimated that there were up to 285,000 pensioners affected by the NIRS2 problems who therefore potentially may have been underpaid at retirement date.

  Contingency arrangements were put in place to minimise the effect on customers claiming Incapacity Benefit, Maternity Benefit, Jobseeker's Allowance, Retirement Pension and Widows Benefit. These arrangements included
  302
  making emergency payments to people claiming Retirement Pension and Widows Benefits where information was not available, interim payments of Jobseeker's Allowance and payment of some Incapacity Benefit claims based on information provided by the customer. Parliament was kept informed of the arrangements.

  In order to provide adequate protection for the public purse, those who receive payments under emergency procedures are required to sign an undertaking to repay benefit where subsequent inquiries show that the amount due was less than the amount paid. This procedure has been followed in the case of the payments made as a result of the NIRS2 problems and recovery of any overpayments will be pursued in accordance with laid down procedures. Early figures from the Benefits Agency's work on reviewing affected cases indicates that overpayments have occurred in only a very small proportion of those examined. In addition, I have instructed the Benefits Agency to ensure that cases are dealt with as sensitively as possible and with full regard to the individual's circumstances.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of any disability benefit are(a) HIV positive and (b) AIDS patients in the current year; and what were the equivalent figures for the each of the past three years. [93542]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The number of people of working age in receipt of one or more of Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Benefit or Disability Living Allowance, with either HIV or AIDS recorded as the main disabling condition

  Date

  Number

  August 1995

  5,300

  August 1996

  6,000

  August 1997

  6,500

  August 1998

  6,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude a small number of cases not recorded on the computer system.

  2. The statistics do not include cases where a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS is not recorded as the main disabling condition.

  3. Information on people either below working age or over retirement age is not included.

  Source:

  Cross Benefit Analysis of Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. statistical samples.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are made to take account of ME sufferers in estimating capacity to work in the All Work Test for invalidity benefit; what changes will be made on the introduction of the new test; and if he will make a statement. [93550]

  Mr. Bayley
  The All Work Test is an objective test of the effects of illness or disability on functional capacity, which assesses whether a person reaches the level of incapacity at which they are not required to work, or seek work, as a condition for receiving social security benefits.
  303
  Full account is taken of factors such as pain, fatigue and the ability to repeat an activity reliably and safely. Doctors and decision makers are required to look at what a person is able to do over a period of time, not just at the time of a medical examination.

  ME, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or post viral fatigue disease, is a complex and widely variable condition and each case needs to be assessed on individual findings. The Department's Chief Medical Adviser issues guidance to examining doctors and ensures that guidance and training is reviewed in the light of the latest developments in the understanding of ME.

  The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill replaces the All Work Test with the Personal Capability Assessment. The criteria for entitlement to benefit, and the way in which entitlement decisions are reached, will not change but the new assessment will also provide information on what individuals are able to do despite their illness or disability and medical advice on practical measures which might help them return to work. For conditions such as ME, this will include information about, for example, the ability to sustain activities and the effects of stress and of fluctuation in the condition.

  European Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the nature of the cases of alleged misconduct which led to investigation by the European Commission, listed in his letter to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 29 April, indicating the nature of the delays in those cases pending action. [91839]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Chairman of Advantage West Midlands; and what matters were discussed. [92542]

  Mr. Wills
  RDA Chairs including Alex Stephenson, Chairman of Advantage West Midlands, met with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), in his former capacity as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in November 1998 when they discussed the Competitiveness White Paper, "Inward Investment, Innovation and Business Support".

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what population figure is being used for the purpose of assessing post-1999 European funding for the West Midlands; and how the basis for this figure differs from that submitted by the Development Agency. [92545]

  Mr. Wills
  The UK's overall population coverage under Objective 2 is defined by the safety net at 13.7 million. This figure is for the whole UK, there are no pre-determined 304
  population figures for the regions. No decisions have been made yet on which areas will be eligible for Objective 2 funding for 2000 to 2006.

  The basis for assessing the West Midlands will be the relevant population figures required to conform with Article 4 of the European Structural Funds Regulations.

  All areas will be considered for inclusion on the basis of need against the criteria under Article 4 of the Structural Funds Regulations published on 26 June 1999.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what formula is used to calculate the relevant population figures for post-1999 European structural funding; [92544]

  (2) what basis is used for establishing population figures relevant to post-1999 European structural funding. [92546]

  Mr. Wills
  The populations ceilings for Objective 1 and 2 are governed by Article 3 and 4 in the European Structural Funds Regulations. It is the responsibility of the European Commission to calculate the population ceilings at member state level.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the actual population and (b) the notional population figures used for the purpose of allocating European structural funds for each region in England. [92543]

  Mr. Wills
  The UK's overall population coverage under Objective 2 is defined by the safety net which limits the reduction in coverage to one third of existing Objective 2 and 5b population. This amounts to 13.7 million total population based on figures provided by the European Commission.

  This population total is for the whole UK. There is no pre-set population figure for regions.

  Type Approval Certificates
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Type Approval certificates for(a) MPT 1305 and (b) MPT 1383 are still valid. [93187]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: Type approval certificates issued under MPT 1305 are valid. However, there have been no Type Approval certificates issued under MPT 1383.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Non-technical Variant Approval certificates have been issued citing necessary compliance with MPT 1383. [93190]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: There have been no Type Approval certificates issued citing compliance with MPT 1383 and hence no Non-technical Variant Approval certificates have been issued to this Standard by the Radiocommunications Agency.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Radiocommunications Agency has issued Type Approval certificates with a specification of MPT 1383; and if this is a recognised standard in(a) the European Union and (b) elsewhere. [93188]
  305
  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The Radiocommunications Agency has not issued any Type Approval certificates under specification MPT 1383. MPT 1383 was written with the intention that it was to become a UK specific Type Approval specification for Short Range Business Radio equipment. However, when it became clear that efforts were being made to harmonise a similar European service (subsequently launched as Private Mobile Radio 446) work ceased on the necessary notification procedure for MPT 1383 to be adopted as a recognised national standard. It was, therefore, never adopted as a Type Approval standard and remains uncompleted. MPT 1383 would only be used for national approvals if it was to be adopted.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Radiocommunications Agency library issues copies of Type Approval certificate MPT 1318 for inspection. [93189]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The Radiocommunications Agency only issues Type Approval certificates to the applicant and a copy is sent to the respective test house that carried out the technical analysis.

  However, the Agency can inform third parties whether a particular product has been type approved. It is at the discretion of the applicant to provide copies of the type approval certificate to interested parties.

  Safeguards Office
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff are employed in the UK Safeguards Office; what are the qualifications of each staff member; and what staff have been seconded to the Safeguards Office from(a) other Government Departments and (b) outside bodies. [93282]

  Dr. Howells
  There are five technical posts and three administrative/support posts within the UK Safeguards Office. One technical post is currently vacant. Of the 4 technical staff members currently in post, two have first class honours degrees in Chemistry, one has a 2:1 class honours degree in Chemistry and a D. Phil. and one a 2:1 class honours degree in Applied Chemistry and a PhD. No staff have been seconded to the Safeguards Office from other Government Departments or outside bodies.

  ECGD
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for a review of ECGD's status. [93796]

  Mr. Byers
  ECGD will shortly be commencing a Review of its Status in accordance with "Next Steps" principles. This will allow us to take a fundamental look at ECGD's functions in order to establish a clear Mission Statement to define ECGD's role over the next few years.

  The Terms of Reference for the Mission and Status Review are:
  "To review the aims and objectives, role and status of ECGD and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry."

  306
  The Review should take account of the relationship of ECGD's activities to HMG's wider objectives and of the need to balance the benefits of ECGD's support for UK exporters and investors against the risks to the taxpayer. The Review should consider international practice in the provision of export credit and investment insurance both in the public and private sectors.

  It should also take into account the results of other concurrent reviews which may have a bearing on ECGD's future activities, namely the Export Finance Review, announced on 11 February 1998, Official Report, columns 218-19, the Reinsurance Scheme Review, announced 27 April 1999, Official Report, column 84 and the Risk Management Review, announced 26 May 1999, Official Report, columns 198-99.

  The Review should also include a period of public consultation to seek the views of exporters, investors, lenders, private sector credit insurers and their representative bodies and other interested parties.

  The Status element of the Review should be conducted in accordance with established principles for "Next Steps" reviews, taking account of any proposed change to ECGD's Mission Statement, to consider how its services can best be delivered and whether any change in the Status of ECGD would be required.

  ECGD will be writing to all customers seeking their views and I very much look forward to receiving ideas and suggestions from all sections of the exporting community and, indeed, from others who have an interest in developing the role of ECGD and strengthening the partnership between Government and industry.

  Utility Regulation
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement setting out the significant changes in the Government's proposals for the reform of utility regulation made since publication of the White Paper in July 1998. [93797]

  Mr. Battle
  Since July 1998, the Government have been working on the detail of its proposals for the reform of utility regulation. This further work has resulted in the modification of some of the proposals.

  First, the Government originally concluded that, for the energy and telecommunications sectors, individual regulators should be replaced with full-time executive boards composed of a chairman and two others. In the light of further analysis, the Government have decided that Ministers should be able to appoint any number of board members, who may be full or part-time, and executive or non-executive, so that the size and composition of each regulatory board meets the requirements of each office, and can change, over time, in response to developments. For the water sector, where the demands and pressures on the regulator are somewhat different from the other sectors, the Government now intend to retain the existing provision for an individual regulator. However, the Government intend to introduce a provision requiring the individual regulator to be supported by an advisory panel appointed by Ministers.

  Second, the Government originally concluded that they would introduce legislation to extend to all regulators powers of the type held by the gas regulator to impose

  307
  monetary penalties for breach of overall and individual service standards. Those powers related only to current and likely future breaches of licence conditions and other relevant requirements. They would not, as currently drafted, allow the imposition of penalties in relation to breaches, however serious, which were discontinued by the company when an enforcement notice was issued, or which ceased before enforcement action could be taken. This significantly weakens the effectiveness of monetary penalties as an enforcement mechanism. The Government now intend, therefore, to give regulators powers to impose penalties for past as well as for continuing breaches of licence conditions and other statutory requirements (but not including breaches committed before the legislation to introduce the powers is enacted). These powers will not extend to likely future breaches. Similar powers have recently been proposed for the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Scottish Power plc's application to build a new combined heat and power gas-fired power station at the Sappi paper mill. [93795]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Scottish Power plc for construction of a 60 MW gas-fired Combined Heat and Power station at the Sappi paper mill at Feniscowles, near Blackburn, Lancashire. The station has also today been given clearance as a gas-fired station under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 and planning permission has been deemed to be granted, subject to 52 planning conditions agreed with the Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and Lancashire County Council. The decisions have been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letters are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made on the introduction of Limited Liability Partnerships legislation. [93794]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are fully committed to introduction of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill as soon as possible. I am aware that the professional business community are keen to see progress on this, and I can assure them that the Bill will be introduced as soon as the Parliamentary timetable permits. To assist business, and to enable them to see the Bill as we expect it to come before the House, we will publish it in draft for a second time shortly, alongside revised draft regulations, which are being published to show changes made as a result of consultation last September.

  Riot Control Equipment
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply on 19 April 1999,Official Report, column 456, what measures have been instigated
  308
  by his Department to ensure that they provide accurate information about the export of tear gas and other not control equipment. [93522]

  Dr. Howells
  As noted in my earlier answer, the export of tear gas is controlled under a variety of entries in the legislation, depending whether it is bulk tear gas or tear gas incorporated in any of a range of possible devices. The term not control equipment could describe a wide range of items and, as noted in the answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 76, to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), several of the entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order (the so-called Military List) might be capable of playing some role in not control.

  In her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Hint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870-71, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) explained that, because of the problems that had been identified with the Export Control Organisation's databases, all information relying on data derived from those databases and given in response to Parliamentary Questions or in correspondence should be read in conjunction with a caveat set out in her answer.

  However, the information on export licensing decisions between 2 May and 31 December 1997 set out in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, which includes a summary description of all military equipment licensed for export during this period as well as the ratings of the goods concerned, is not subject to the caveat set out in my hon. Friend's answer of 30 October 1997, notwithstanding that it relied on data obtained from the Export Control Organisation's databases. On the contrary, as stated in the Annual Report, the information
  "may be treated as definitive subject to the constraint that there is always a risk of human error in the compilation of such a large body of data".

  Furthermore, as noted in my hon. Friend's answer of 30 October 1997, among the steps taken to improve the situation she described was the decision to develop a new database for recording information about standard individual export licences. This database became operational on 1 March 1999 and will be used to supply information for future Reports. Because the database allows for information to be accepted and transferred electronically, it will be easier for exporters to submit their licence applications and it will greatly enhance the integrity of the data, although human error can never be eliminated altogether.

  Finally, I should note that the information on physical exports of military equipment from the UK included in the Annual Report was in part supplied by HM Customs and Excise and in part based on information provided for the UK's contribution to the UN Arms Register; the Export Control Organisation does not compile records of licensed exports.

  Handcuffs
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if export licences are required for handcuffs. [93523]
  309
  Dr. Howells
  The export to any destination of leg-irons, gangchains and shackles, specially designed for restraining human beings, excluding handcuffs the maximum overall dimension of which when locked does not exceed 240mm, are controlled under entry PL5001 in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.

  In accordance with their policy requirements, as determined by them, applications for a licence to export handcuffs controlled under this entry are circulated to the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for advice in light of the Foreign Secretary's announcement on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 65-66.

  Overseas Arms Production Agreements
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has with UK arms companies prior to the establishment of licensed production agreements between UK companies and arms manufacturers overseas. [93521]

  Dr. Howells
  Production equipment and technology, components and sub-assemblies whose export from the UK is subject to control are set out under a range of headings in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended, and the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996, as amended, and Council Decision 94/942/CFSP, as amended (which has effect through Council Regulation (EC) 3381/94). While a valid export licence is needed for the export of controlled goods or technology, exporters are not required to obtain one before they conclude an agreement for production overseas.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on 12 January 1999, Official Report, column 150.

  North-West (Assistance)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is regarding regional selective assistance in the areas of highest unemployment in the North-West. [92861]

  Mr. Wills
  Regional selective assistance is available for eligible projects in both the development and intermediate areas of the North-West region. Support for projects will in future reflect the priorities in RDA regional economic strategies.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the members of the North West Industrial Development Advisory Committee in January 1992 and the dates of their appointment. [92860]

  Mr. Wills
  The members of the North West Development Board in January 1992 and the dates of their appointment are as follows:

  Members

  Date of appointment

  Mr. J. Dwek

  1 January 1983

  Mr. J. B. Ashworth

  23 January 1988

  Mr. A. Manning

  15 September 1987

  Mr. D. Weir

  1 January 1988

  Mr. I. W. Wooley

  1 January 1988

  310

  Members

  Date of appointment

  Mr. E. Baxendale

  16 March 1988

  Mr. B. Lawson

  1 January 1989

  Mr. E. J. Billington

  1 January 1990

  Mr. D. L. Davies

  1 January 1990

  Mr. G. N. Elliott

  1 January 1990

  Mr. E. P. Foden

  1 January 1992

  Mr. I. C. Sellars

  1 January 1992

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the members of the North West Regional Industrial Development Board. [92859]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave previously on 14 July 1999,Official Report, columns 211-12.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the workings of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in relation to the management by civil servants and the treatment by regional development advisory committees of applications for regional selective assistance. [92807]

  Mr. Wills
  I have no plans to review the workings of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in this respect.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 14 July 1999,Official Report, columns 212-13, what the circumstances were on the occasion when a decision taken by the North West Industrial Development Board was amended by the Secretary of State under the Industrial Development Act 1982. [92862]

  Mr. Wills
  In the case in question, the Board gave their support to a recommendation from officials regarding the amount of grant that should be offered. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State subsequently decided a higher offer was necessary to secure the project.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 14 July 1999,Official Report, column 212-13, if he will make it his Department's practice to continue contacts and routinely record data and subsequent developments in the case of companies where rejection of applications for regional selective assistance have led to the cancellation of proposed investment projects. [92806]

  Mr. Wills
  I have no such plans. This is not always practicable and would increase the costs of administering the scheme.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if members of industrial development advisory committees are permitted to speak to hon. Members prior to the consideration of applications for regional selective assistance. [92858]

  Mr. Wills
  There are no restrictions on members of the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the Regional Industrial Development Boards which would prohibit them from speaking to hon. Members. As an application for regional selective assistance is a commercially confidential matter, it would be inappropriate for board members to comment on particular company applications.

  Road Fuel Taxes
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his oral statement of 22 July 1999,Official Report, columns 1342-44, if he will give details of the arrangements which the European Commission has for publishing international comparisons of pump prices for diesel and petrol and the means by which UK consumers can access such information. [93475]

  Mr. Battle
  Prices of motor spirits and diesel are published by the European Commission in their weekly Oil Bulletin. "The Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics", to be published by the Department of Trade and Industry on 29 July 1999, will also provide this information for the first time. A copy will be available in the Library of the House.

  International Price Comparisons
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the 100 products which will be the subject of international price comparison, and the date upon which such comparisons will commence. [93370]

  Dr. Howells
  The list of products which the DTI's research into international price differences will examine will be finalised with the successful contractor. A draft list of the types of product that will be included is as follows.

  The commissioning process for the research will have to comply with EC procurement regulations, and we are therefore unable to contract the research until the middle of October 1999 at the earliest. Results will be made available at the end of January 2000.

  Draft list of items for collection in a comparison of international prices.

  Based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey July 1997-June 1998

  FES category/suggested item for collection

  Food

  Fresh milk:

  Fresh milk

  UHT milk

  Fresh fruit:

  Fresh loose apples

  Fresh loose oranges

  Fresh vegetables and salad:

  Fresh loose tomatoes

  Fresh loose carrots

  Poultry (uncooked):

  Whole frozen chicken

  Boneless fresh chicken breasts

  Bread:

  White loaf

  Bread rolls

  Sweets and chocolates:

  Chocolate bar

  Chewing gum

  Cakes, buns, currant bread, fruit pies, pastries and scones etc.:

  Fruit pie/tart

  Croissants

  Cold meats, ready to eat meats:

  Garlic sausage

  Cheese:

  Edam

  312

  Beef and veal (uncooked):

  Steak

  Pickles, sauces, flavourings, colourings etc.:

  Mayonnaise

  Biscuits, shortbread, wafers, chocolate biscuits etc.:

  Choc chip cookies

  Fruit juices, squashes:

  Orange juice

  Fizzy drinks:

  Lemonade

  Yoghurt and milk based desserts:

  Fruit yoghurt

  Potato crisps and savoury snacks:

  Potato crisps

  Breakfast cereals:

  Cornflakes

  Bacon and ham (uncooked):

  Ham joint

  Fish (uncooked) and shellfish:

  Trout

  Meat—ready meals:

  Frozen lasagne

  Pizzas, quiches, vegetarian pies:

  Frozen pizza

  Potatoes:

  Fresh loose potatoes

  Pork (uncooked):

  Pork chops

  Coffee:

  Espresso ground coffee

  Clothing

  Women's outerwear:

  T-shirt

  Blouse

  Skirt:

  Trousers

  Men's outerwear:

  Jeans

  T-shirt

  Shirt

  Women's footwear:

  Court shoes

  Women's underwear and hosiery:

  Tights

  Men's footwear:

  Boots

  Girls' outerwear:

  Dress

  Children's footwear:

  Trainers

  Boys' outerwear:

  Track suit

  Babies outerwear:

  Babygro

  Household

  Furniture:

  Single bed

  Kitchen chair

  Table lamp

  Soft floor coverings, carpets, mats:

  Doormat

  Wool carpet (per sq metre)

  313

  Major electrical appliances e.g. cookers, fridges, vacuum cleaners, showers etc.:

  Cooker

  Fridge

  Fancy decorative goods, mirrors:

  Mirror

  Curtains, cushions, towels etc.:

  Towel (per sq metre)

  Paint, wallpaper, plaster, wood:

  Paint

  Doors, electrical and other fittings:

  Light bulb

  Detergents, washing-up liquid, washing powder:

  Washing powder

  Disinfectants, polishes, other cleaning materials:

  Bleach

  Kitchen equipment, tableware and utensils:

  Kitchen scales

  China, glassware (not mirrors), pottery, cutlery, silverware, thermometers, clocks:

  Dinner plates

  Small electrical equipment, e.g. hair dryers, calculators, shavers, irons:

  Clock radio

  Washing machines, spin dryers:

  Washing machine

  Other household hardware and appliances:

  Electric drill

  Bedspreads, blankets, duvets, pillows, sheets (excluding beds and mattresses):

  Fitted cotton sheets

  Leisure

  Newspapers:

  Sunday broadsheet

  Daily tabloid

  Horticultural goods, plants and flowers:

  Trowel

  Packet flower seeds

  Toys and hobbies:

  Pre-recorded video

  Hammer

  Greetings cards, stationery and paper goods:

  Birthday card

  Packet envelopes

  Pet food:

  Dog food

  Personal computers, printers, calculators:

  Printer

  Books, maps, diaries:

  Road atlas

  Photography and camcordersl

  35mm camera film

  Records, CDs, audio cassettes—hire and purchase:

  CD (specified)

  Magazines and periodicals:

  Women's magazine

  Sports and camping equipment:

  Tennis racquet

  Audio equipment, CD players:

  Personal stereo

  Personal goods

  Cosmetics and related accessories—after shave, sun lotion etc.:

  Sun lotion

  314

  Toiletries—cotton wool, toothpaste, tissues, shaving soap etc.:

  Soap

  Personal effects—jewellery, watches, personal silverware etc.:

  Wristwatch

  Hair products—shampoo, colour rinses:

  Shampoo

  Toilet paper:

  Toilet paper

  Baby toiletries and disposables:

  Disposable nappies

  Services

  Cinema admissions:

  Cinema ticket

  Hire of self-drive cars and vans:

  One week's car hire.

  Helplines
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when and where he expects the pilot telephone helplines for consumers to be established; what is the estimated cost; and what restrictions will be placed upon national access to it. [93342]

  Dr. Howells
  We are discussing these issues with our partners in Trading Standards, Citizen Advice and others, and expect to take decisions on these matters later this year.

  Arms Exports (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current ECGD exposure on(a) exports to Indonesia and (b) defence-related exports. [93292]

  Mr. Wilson
  ECGD's estimate of its exposure on Indonesia currently stands at £1,642 million of which £691 million is in respect of defence-related business.

  Of ECGD's total future amounts at risk of £16,897 million, defence-related business accounts for £3,857 million.

  Market Research
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the funding which his Department has given to(a) the Defence Manufacturers Association, (b) the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers and (c) other defence, police and security industry bodies to produce market research reports. [93504]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1997 the Department has paid the Defence Manufacturers Association £49,631 under the Sector Challenge scheme towards the costs of setting up the Export Opportunities (Defence and Security) Service, which includes provision of market reports. It runs this service jointly with its sister trade association, the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers. Since 1997 the Department has also paid around £43,000 towards the Society of British Aerospace Companies for their Business Winning Service, which includes market research work for the civil and defence aerospace industry.

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what practical research projects he has commissioned into solar energy; what discussions he has had with his counterparts in (i) Japan and (ii) Germany on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [92277]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has had a solar energy R&D programme for a number of years, as part of the New and Renewable Energy Programme. The budget for the photovoltaics (PV) element has doubled from £0.5 million to £1 million over the past 2 years.

  The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has also run a significant photovoltaics R&D programme, with a budget of £1 million per annum for the past four years. PV is now included in the EPSRC's new £3.5 million per annum programme on Renewable and New Energy Technologies.

  In addition, the Foresight Scolar Programme, which aims to put PV systems onto 100 schools and colleges across the country by 2000, is receiving funding from Government for £1 million of the total £2.5 million costs.

  In my speech at the Manchester DTI/EPSRC PV Conference on 17 February, I announced three major new PV initiatives:

  a) a call for proposals for the development of PV components and systems, with the aim of enhancing the competitiveness of UK companies;

  b) a field trial for at least 100 homes across the country to test a variety of actual PV installations under UK conditions;

  c) development of a scheme to demonstrate the use of PV in large-scale commercial building applications.

  The total value of these three initiatives is expected to be £15 million, with £5 million coming from the DTI. In the case of the demonstration scheme the final go-ahead will have to await the outcome of the Renewables Review.

  The subject of solar energy has not arisen in recent discussions with my counterparts in Japan and Germany, but our embassies in those and other countries keep my officials regularly updated on their programmes in this area.

  Consumer White Paper
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with Yellow Pages over the proposals in the Consumer White Paper. [93366]

  Dr. Howells
  Officials met with Yellow Pages as part of the consultations that led to the White Paper.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if The Times industrial correspondent was briefed by Government sources on the Consumer White Paper prior to his oral statement on 22 July 1999, Official Report, columns 1342-44; [93326]

  (2) which newspapers were briefed prior to his oral statement on 22 July 1999, Official Report, columns 1342-44, on the publication of the Consumer White Paper. [93235]

  Dr. Howells
  Members of the press were invited to a briefing at 12.00 pm Tuesday 22 July. As is normal practice, they were locked in until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke in the House.
  316
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the codes of practice which he regards as unsatisfactory and which his Consumer White Paper refer to as little more than sales devices. [93369]

  Dr. Howells
  No. There is currently a wide spectrum of codes ranging from the comprehensive and effective, through those which are well intentioned but do not work as well as they could, to those which exist as adjuncts to seemingly legitimate logos but have no practical effect. The Director General of Fair Trading has no power to disapprove codes at present, merely to encourage the preparation and dissemination of consumer codes. The Consumer White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" (Cm 4410) proposes to give the OFT a power to give a seal of approval to codes that put the core principles into effect so that consumers, including those with poor literacy skills or who do not speak English, can see at a glance which codes are satisfactory; and that OFT will publicise decisions to approve or reject codes.

  Consumer Legislation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the consumer legislation he intends to review. [93368]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government intend to mount a rolling programme to review all consumer protection legislation. This process began with the publication of a consultation document on weights and measures law on 22 July 1999.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what increase or decrease in the amount of energy used per annum in providing street lighting nationally has occurred since(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d)1995. [93347]

  Mr. Battle
  Total electricity supplied for use in public lighting in the United Kingdom and the percentage changes in the quantity used are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Consumption GWh

  Percentage change

  1980

  2,252

  1980 to 1997: +19

  1985

  2,335

  1985 to 1997: +15

  1990

  2,588

  1990 to 1997: +4

  1995

  2,443

  1995 to 1997: +10

  1997

  2,679

  —

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1998

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much energy in kilowatts was consumed in the provision of street lighting in the past financial year in(a) built-up areas and (b) outside built-up areas. [93348]

  Mr. Battle
  In 1997 total electricity supplied for use in public lighting in the United Kingdom amounted to 2,679 GW hours. Figures are not available for built up areas separately.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what export licences his Department has issued for HMX explosives since September 1998; and how many applications are pending; [93425]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 May 1999, Official Report, column 200, what is the stated end use as indicated on Form A, part 1: Export Licence Application Section D7 of each of the licences, granted or pending, for the export of RDX to (a) China, and (b) the USA. [93317]

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the export licences granted for the export of armoured vehicles, spare parts, components and weapons to Singapore since 1988, where the end use destination was(a) Indonesia and (b) another country; [93509]

  (2) if he will list the export licences granted for the export of armoured vehicles, spare parts, components and weapons to Singapore and Malaysia since 1988; [93508]

  (3) if he will list the export licences granted for the export of armoured vehicles, spare parts, components or weapons to Sierra Leone since 1988; [93507]

  (4) if he will list the export licences granted for the export of armoured vehicles, spare parts, components or weapons to Malaysia since 1988, where the end use destination was for Indonesia. [93506]

  Dr. Howells
  I will write to the hon. Members as soon as possible, and place a copy of that Letter in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the countries visited by himself and his predecessors since 1 May 1997. [92803]

  Mr. Byers
  The countries visited are listed as follows:

  Australia

  Belgium

  China

  France

  Hong Kong SAR

  India

  Italy

  Japan

  Pakistan

  Russia

  Singapore

  South Africa

  Spain

  Switzerland

  USA.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to visit(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Slovenia and (e) Estonia. [92689]

  Mr. Byers
  I recognise the importance of these countries and hope to visit them as soon as possible.

  Milk Marque
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the former MMC's conclusion that the reform of the milk selling system could not produce a competitive market for milk. [93331]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 455-56 that reform of the milk sales system was essential if the raw milk market was to function as effectively and fairly as possible. Both Milk Marque and the processors have indicated that they are in favour of reform of the selling system. Both sides have a common interest in devising a system which enjoys the confidence of all.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of Milk Marque's application to extend its operations into processing. [93329]

  Dr. Howells
  The MMC 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. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concluded that, while Milk Marque remained a monopoly supplier of raw milk to the processing sector, it should not be allowed to extend its milk processing activities in this way. The Secretary of State therefore asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek undertakings from Milk Marque that it would not take any further steps towards making or carrying out any agreement to acquire or build a processing plant without the prior agreement of the Director General, as the MMC recommended.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effect of the Competition Act 1998 on his proposals for Milk Marque. [93249]

  Dr. Howells
  Milk Marque will be subject to the Competition Act 1998 when it comes fully into force on 1 March 2000. It will continue to be under an obligation to comply with any remedies resulting from the monopoly investigation into milk.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what period, following the rejection of the former MMC's recommendation that Milk Marque be broken up, the Government plans that the interim measures will apply. [93330]

  Dr. Howells
  The interim measures will apply until a satisfactory long term solution has been agreed to the adverse effects of the existing way milk is sold by Milk Marque.

  Oftel Inquiry Lines
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to ensure that members of the public are able to reach Oftel on their inquiry lines. [93057]

  Mr. Wills
  As is the case for any organisation, public or private, it is for Oftel itself to ensure that it can be reached by members of the public. In recent months there has been a large increase in the number of consumers
  319
  telephoning Oftel with complaints and queries. Five additional staff were recruited in June and an action plan has been put in place to improve the service.

  Temporary Employment
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about conditions of employment for workers on temporary employment contracts; what measures he proposes to introduce to improve the legal rights for workers on temporary employment contracts; and if he will make a statement. [93200]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Department receives frequent correspondence from members of the public regarding different aspects of conditions of employment for temporary workers.

  The Employment Relations Bill, currently before Parliament, will abolish provisions which currently allow employees working under specified fixed term contracts to waive their right to claim unfair dismissal at the end of the term. The Government will implement the recently adopted European Directive on Fixed-Term Work, which will ensure decent conditions for most classes of temporary worker. The deadline for implementing this Directive is July 2001.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what improvements in conditions his Department has introduced for workers on temporary employment contracts since May 1997. [93199]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Temporary workers will benefit in the same way as those on indefinite contracts from the range of improved employment conditions we have introduced. The Working Time Regulations 1998 provide protection for workers from long working hours and the right to rest and paid leave; the qualifying period for general unfair dismissal claims has recently been reduced from two years to one; and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which took effect on 1 April, sets minimum wage rates for workers aged 18 or over. We are also consulting on updated regulations to protect the interests of those finding work through employment agencies. Proposals in the Employment Relations Bill, now in Parliament, will ensure that employees working under fixed term contracts cannot waive their right to claim unfair dismissal at the end of the term.

  CARAD Programme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further extension he proposes to the CARAD programme. [93198]

  Mr. Battle
  The DTI Expenditure Plans Report (March 1999) confirmed CARAD funding for 1999–2000 at £20 million. A similar amount was also indicated for the following two years although the Secretary of State will continue to review the balance of funding across the whole range of DTI programmes.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of exports and imports in respect of defence and security equipment and services between the UK and Indonesia in each year since 320
  1995; and if he will classify such exports and imports under the headings of the International Trade statistics classification. [92232]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: Information on exports of military equipment during 1997 was included in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 25 March 1999. A survey of the relevant Tariff Codes was given in Appendix C of the Report. Information for 1998 will be included in the Government's next Annual Report which is currently being prepared.

  Figures for UK imports and exports of services prior to 1997 could only be provided at disproportionate cost, and the international trade classification does not cover services.

  Long-term Illness (Vale of Glamorgan)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the percentage of the population experiencing limiting long-term illness in the Peterston Super Ely, Dinas Powys and Wemvoe Wards in the Vale of Glamorgan. [92791]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: This is a devolved matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Power Stations (Blyth)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on National Power's plans to close its power stations at Blyth in Northumberland. [93247]

  Mr. Battle
  This is a matter for the company and the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of National Power's power stations at Blyth, on the continued need for new power lines running south through Yorkshire. [93246]

  Mr. Battle
  Development consents were granted for these lines in 1998 following exhaustive public inquiries and there is no statutory basis for now reviewing those consents. No reassessment of the situation has therefore been made by my Department.

  Power Lines (Vale of York)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many trees will be felled in the Vale of York in order to facilitate construction of the Lackenby to Shipton power lines; [93245]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the requirements placed on the National Grid Company to disclose information on the number of trees to be felled in order to construct pylons in the Vale of York. [93244]

  Mr. Battle
  There are a number of planning conditions which the National Grid Company has to fulfil before it can commence work on the Lackenby to Picton to Shipton overhead line. Implementation of these is a matter for discussion between the company and the local planning
  321
  authorities. In the event of disagreement it falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to determine if the company has complied with the particular condition.

  Mergers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being considered to ensure that, under proposals to transfer decisions on mergers from Ministers to independent competition authorities, those responsible will be accountable to Parliament and the electorate. [93362]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends to publish a consultation document shortly to initiate a fundamental debate on the regulation of mergers, inviting views on all sides.

  Multi-fibre Agreement
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on the Multi-fibre Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [93367]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's policy is that, in accordance with the commitments that the Community entered into in the GATT Uruguay Round, quota restrictions maintained by members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on imports of textile and clothing products originating in other members of the WTO shall be phased out over a 10-year period ending on 31 December 2004.

  Internet Consumer Gateway
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which companies or organisations will be providing and updating the proposed Internet Consumer Gateway; and what is the estimated annual running cost. [93365]

  Dr. Howells
  The Consumer Gateway was launched at the same time as the "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" White Paper. It links sources of consumer advice and information, and as such the estimated running costs of maintaining and operating the current site are minimal. My officials will be updating and improving the Gateway, taking note of any feedback we receive from users.

  US Imports (Tariffs)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take into account tariffs on imports from the United States of America when determining the reasons for higher prices in the United Kingdom. [93364]

  Dr. Howells
  There are many reasons why prices differ between the UK and the USA, including tariffs on goods entering the UK. If the results of our research suggest that prices in the UK reflect anti-competitive behaviour, I shall refer the matter to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  EU Car Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many motor cars were purchased from 322
  countries of the European Union other than the United Kingdom by citizens of the UK for their personal use in 1998. [92006]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Rover-BMW
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department first submitted the proposal for Government financing of Rover-BMW to the Competition Commissioner. [89970]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [91997]

  Mr. Byers
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Belize (Banking Regulations)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what occasions since 1993 his Department has received written or oral approaches from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on matters relating to banking regulations in Belize. [92073]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the programmes funded directly by his Department, relating to social exclusion, regeneration, community development, employment or education, currently operating in(a) the City of Leeds and (b) the Leeds Central parliamentary constituency, listing for each programme the amount of such funding for each of the last three years and the amount planned to be spent in each of the next three financial years. [92910]

  Mr. Wills
  The information requested is not held by my Department centrally. The Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber (GOYH) has provided the following details. Information at a constituency level is not available.

  Funding for core services of the Business Link in Leeds and the Local Competitiveness Challenge amounted to:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  947,810

  1998–99

  985,627

  1999–2000

  1,200,722

  323
  National budgets for 2000–01 will not be known until late 1999 and therefore negotiation for Business Link budgets will not begin before January-March 2000.

  Pump priming funding of £97,500 has been awarded to Business Link Leeds under the Information Society Initiative (ISI) programme for Business Local Support Centres, designed to encourage and support SMEs in the use of IT. BL Leeds has had a number of successful ERDF bids for projects to increase provision, cohesion and quality of service to the micro and small business and start up client groups, £445,575 has been awarded in the last three years.

  SMART awards totalling £448,337 were given to Leeds based companies between 1997 and the present and it is projected that at least the same amount will be awarded for 1999–02.

  There are 17 "IT for All" Centres in Leeds. IT for All is a DTI funded national programme designed to promote the wider use of IT among the general public.

  There is no direct funding by DTI to individual centres.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the results of the Business Link network's ComplY2K scheme offering computer millennium compliance tests to small businesses; and if he will make a statement. [92907]

  Mr. Wills
  ComplY2K is a risk assessment diagnostic tool offered by the National Computing Centre to enable businesses to address their millennium bug problems. It is one of a number of tools available for this task and some BLs are using it as part of their response to addressing Y2K issues with their client base. My Department has not made any specific assessment of the use of this particular package. However, Business Links continue to work closely with Action 2000 to ensure that they are providing appropriate Y2K support services. Action 2000 continue to monitor the national picture of the state of readiness of UK companies.

  ComplY2K and other tools like it, when applied to an individual company, deliver a report which identifies areas of high risk and offers an action plan for addressing them. Some Business Links have developed their own packages and all have some structured approach or toolkit to engage their client base. These have been offered along with the DfEE's highly successful Bug Buster training programme. Business Links will assist with some action areas identified by these tools, perhaps project manage the process, and signpost to local suppliers who can address other specific items identified in the report.

  Inward Investment (North-East)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate has been made of the value of inward investment projects into the area covered by the Government Office for the North-East in the last year for which figures are available. [93434]
  324
  Mr. Wills
  The figure given is based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of their decision to invest in the UK. It is based on the companies' best estimate, at the time, of the capital expenditure involved.

  There is no requirement to notify the Department of inward investments, so the figure includes only those projects where the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Estimated value of investment: £646,824,000.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs have been(a) created and (b) safeguarded by new inward investment projects in the area covered by the Government Office for the North East in the last year for which figures are available. [93433]

  Mr. Wills
  The figures given below are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of their decision to invest in the UK. It is based on the companies' best estimate, at the time, of the capital expenditure involved.

  There is no requirement to notify the Department of inward investments, so the figure includes only those projects where the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Year

  Number of projects

  Number of new jobs

  Number of safeguarded new jobs

  April 1998—March 1999

  35

  2,304

  6,953

  Genetically Modified Cotton
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure importers of cotton are able to determine whether cotton has been genetically modified. [93150]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: Under the "gmo" Directive (Directive 90/220/EEC) and the "novel foods" Regulation (Regulation (EC) 258-97), genetically modified cotton plants may not be cultivated in the EU, and products derived from such plants that enter the human or animal food chains may not be imported into the EU.

  Raw cotton, cotton textiles and made-up cotton textiles derived from genetically modified cotton plants fall outside the scope of that legislation. In these circumstances it is for importers wishing to establish whether or not such products are derived from genetically modified cotton plants to do so in the course of their commercial dealings with the exporter.

  Civil Servants' Expenses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a list of the travel and subsistence expenses rates payable to senior civil servants in his Department. [92857]
  325
  Mr. Byers
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Defence Export Credits
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will extend the commitment not to provide defence-related export credits to poor highly indebted countries to cover those(a) at risk of conflict and (b) engaged in post-conflict reconstruction. [93294]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 1997 the Chancellor announced a five-point plan to resolve the debt problems of poor countries and set them on a path to sustainable growth. This included an undertaking that export credits for poor, highly indebted countries would support only productive expenditure. This policy does not extend beyond the, so called, Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs).

  Spanish Spent Reactor Fuel
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) outstanding contracts and (b) contracts under negotiation for the import of irradiated spent research reactor fuel from Spanish reactors. [93613]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand that BNFL have no contracts either outstanding or under negotiation for reprocessing Spanish research reactor fuel. On 5 June 1998,Official Report, column 385, I announced that UKAEA would not accept any new contracts for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel at Dounreay, so there are no contracts under negotiation with Spain or any other country. Nor does UKAEA have any outstanding contracts with Spain.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many public interest immunity certificates or equivalent documents have been provided by Ministers or officials in his Department since 3 May 1997; and at what level each such certificate or other document has been signed. [93532]

  Mr. Byers
  I will write to the right hon. and learned Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Domestic Animal Skins
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) domestic dog and (b) domestic cat skins have been (i) imported to and (ii) exported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [93618]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is not available because the system of classification used to record trade does not separately identify domestic dog and cat skins.

  Textphones
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer on 20 July 1999,Official Report, column 470, concerning textphones, what assessment he has made of the signage and accessibility of the public textphone network. [93313]
  326
  Mr. Wills
  The signage and accessibility of BT public textphones is a matter for the company itself and Oftel. Many of the public textphones currently installed are at sites owned by organisations such as Railtrack or the British Airports Authority, who control signage.

  Generally, BT use a recognised, distinct, yellow and black textphone sign on public textphones themselves, which marks them out among a bank of conventional payphones. BT has also produced leaflets, available from the RNID and other interested bodies, giving public textphone locations.

  Multinationals
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the definition of a multinational corporation used by his Department. [92557]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Appointments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will make a statement. [92564]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to proceed with the proposed public private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [93540]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government issued a consultation paper in October 1998 outlining our preferred option for a public private partnership (PPP) for NATS as set out in our White Paper on the future of transport. We are grateful to those organisations and individuals who responded to our consultation. Their views have been taken into consideration as part of the policy development process for this PPP.

  NATS' operational strengths, and their safety record, are among the best in the world but they need a wider range of management skills, and access to capital, to meet the challenges of the future, in particular the ever-increasing rise in traffic. The Government want to build on NATS' strengths, bring in new management skills such as project management expertise, improve aviation safety, secure long-term investment of £1 billion over 10 years, including completion of Swanwick and the New Scottish Centre, and retain public accountability in a strategic industry.
  327
  We have a number of principal objectives for the PPP. These are:
  to maintain and build upon the excellent record of aviation safety in the UK, which was reflected in the Select Committee's recent report;
  to ensure that NATS has adequate funding for investment and to provide it with the commercial freedom to develop its business within a robust framework of economic regulation; and
  to maintain effective civil/military joint working of the national air traffic system for the benefit of all users and to accommodate national needs in crisis, war and emergency.

  The Government are also keen to ensure that best value is obtained for the taxpayer, that NATS' employees should have the opportunity to acquire an interest in the undertaking in which they are employed and to which they have contributed so much, and to preserve the pension rights of both existing and retired employees.

  The Government have concluded that NATS should be separated from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which will then become the independent, separate safety regulator of air traffic services. This separation will ensure that safety regulation and service provision are undertaken in separate organisations, as the Select Committee has recommended over many years. This will help to maintain and build on some of the most stringent safety standards in the world.

  We intend to effect this new and innovative PPP through the introduction of a strategic partner who will acquire a controlling interest in NATS. The company will then become a New Partnership Company, structured to create a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors and involve the employees, airlines, and other stakeholders in a new Stakeholder Council. Subject to legislation, the PPP could be put in place by the end of the year 2000. Full details of our conclusions thus far are contained in the Government's report on the response to the public consultation, a copy of which has today been placed in the Library of the House.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the controls on the marketing of genetically modified crops provided for in Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are applied in the absence of a marketing consent issued thereunder. [85951]

  Mr. Meacher
  The commercial growing of genetically modified (GM) crops requires specific consents to be issued at the Community level under Directive 90/220/EEC. All member states have an input into this decision-making process. Once an approval has been issued, it may be used throughout the Community, provided any specific conditions on use, or on types of environment and geographical areas for release are complied with.

  The controls on the marketing of GM crops in the UK provided for in Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would apply to a consent issued by another member state in the same way as they would to a consent issued by the UK Competent Authority.
  328
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the RSPB's recommendations on the plantation of genetically modified crops. [87937]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 July 1999]: My Department takes very seriously the concerns of The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds regarding the commercial planing of genetically modified crops and has actively sought the advice and involvement of RSPB scientists to take forward recent initiatives to address biodiversity issues.

  The RSPB have raised the concern that herbicide tolerant crops will lead to a rise in the use of broad-spectrum herbicides on fields, and that this in turn could decrease biodiversity in the fields and reduce food available to birds. My Department is spending £3.3 million on the 'farm-scale evaluation' research programme to study the effect of the management of GM crops on the abundance and diversity of farmland wildlife. This research programme began earlier this year and will last at least until 2002. The research is being overseen by a scientific steering committee that will ensure the research is scientifically robust. A scientist from the RSPB is present on this committee.

  The RSPB have also raised the concern that the introduction of insect resistant crops could have an unacceptable impact on biodiversity. Again my Department takes these concerns very seriously. In October last year I announced that the industry had agreed not to introduce insect resistant GM crops into commercial agriculture in Britain for three years. Research is in place to ensure that risks posed by these crops to the environment are thoroughly investigated.

  The RSPB note the possibility of GM crops cross-pollinating with wild relatives. Each application for the release of genetically modified crop is supported by a risk assessment, which is evaluated by Government experts and independent scientists on the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). ACRE consider in detail the potential for each GM crop to cross-pollinate with wild relatives and a GM crop will be granted consent only if ACRE are satisfied that the risks presented are negligible.

  The RSPB hold a wider concern that the introduction of genetically modified crops could lead to landscape changes and/or changes in crop rotations. This potential wider impact of the commercial use of GM crops has been discussed in the recently published paper "The Commercial use of GM crops in the UK: the potential wider impact on farmland wildlife", published by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). Following publication of this report the remit of ACRE has been widened with the setting up of a sub-group to discuss and advise on the issues raised. This includes representatives of English Nature and the RSPB. The sub-group will review the risk assessment of GMOs to include a greater consideration of the wider biodiversity impacts which have been made possible via the revision of directive 90/220/EEC on the release to the environment of genetically modified organisms.

  We agree with concerns expressed about the wider impacts on wildlife of the large scale introduction of GM crops. Until GM crops are planted on a larger scale, it is

  329
  difficult to assess accurately all the effects which they may have on biodiversity. This process must be managed carefully. The Government have therefore reached agreement with the industry on a voluntary code of practice which will strictly limit the first farm-scale plantings and ensure that we are able to monitor any effects on the environment and, in particular, on populations of farmland wildlife and only if no damage has been found to the environment. Full-scale commercial planting will not take place until the results have been carefully assessed. If these results show that particular genetically modified crops harm the environment, we have the powers to withdraw their approvals for commercial planting and we will use them.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 367, (1) if he will ensure that no further consents are issued which allow the products of a genetically modified crop trial to enter the food chain; and if he will take steps to establish the fate of the products of genetically modified crop trials where consents were given for them to enter the food chain; [91251]

  (2) which company or companies were given consents to use the products of genetically modified crop trials as animal feed in (a) August 1994 and March 1997 in respect of genetically modified oil seed rape and (b) April 1996 in respect of genetically modified maize; what were the locations of these trials; and what information concerning these trials and the consents given to use their products as animal feed was made available to hon. Members and the public, prior to the crops being grown. [91252]

  Mr. Meacher
  No genetically modified (GM) crops are currently being grown for food, feed or processing in the United Kingdom. Any future applications for material of a GM Crop trial to be used as food or feed would be subject to a scientific assessment of risk carried out on a case-by-case basis.

  The two consents in respect of GM oil seed rape mentioned in my earlier reply had approval for the meal from the trial crop to be used as feed, but the material was not in fact used in this way and did not therefore enter the feed chain. Both consents were issued to Plant Genetic Systems NV and the trials took place at NIAB, Cambridge in 1994–95 and at Inkwell, Bedfordshire in 1997–98.

  The GM maize referred to in my earlier answer has Europe-wide approval under Part C of Council Directive 90/220/EEC for agricultural use leading to animal consumption. The consent for the trial was issued to Sharpes International Seeds Ltd. covering six sites: Boothby Graffoe, Lincolnshire; NIAB, Cambridgeshire, Dartington, Devon; CWS/Gainseed, Cheshire; NIAB, Winchester, Hampshire; and Great Dunmow, Essex. Of these, only material from the site in Cheshire was ensiled to use as animal feed.

  All information on releases of GM crops, apart from that considered commercially confidential as set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 5 May 1999, Official Report, column 390, is available to the public on request.
  330

  Roadworks Management
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to consult on proposals to improve roadworks management standards. [91498]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In last year's Integrated Transport White Paper a commitment was made to consult on options for an incentive system, with penalties, to minimise disruption to road users, and to encourage improved co-ordination of street works. This commitment was re-affirmed by the then Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), during the debate on roads policy on 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 1333, and the Government will be going to consultation soon.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, stating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [91684]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 636.

  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that their policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, my Department is working closely with the Women's Unit to develop good practices for carrying out gender impact appraisal.

  In May 1998, my Department relaunched its policy appraisal for equal treatment initiative. We are continuing to make use of consultations, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the impact of policy on women.

  In parallel, we are developing a gender audit checklist to help transport operators and planners better understand and meet women's public transport requirements. The checklist is currently being finalised. Similarly, in housing, the Department (in association with the Women's Unit and the Department of Health) have commissioned a comprehensive package of research on 'Accommodation and Support for Households Experiencing Domestic Violence'. This study will examine a range of women's experiences of the accommodation and support provided in response to their needs, including those women who are assisted under the homeless legislation.

  River Thames (Commuters and Freight)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the more effective use of the River Thames for commuters and freight. [92474]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to realising the potential of the River Thames as a transport artery. Our Thames 2000 initiative aims to revitalise passenger transport on the River through a programme of new piers and services and the establishment of London River Services Ltd. as the River arm of London Transport. We are also looking to maintain
  331
  and increase use of the River for transporting freight, including through planning policies and the award of freight facilities grants.

  In connection with these and other initiatives, my Department is in regular contact with a wide range of people and organisations who wish to see fuller use of the Thames for passenger and freight transport.

  Hastings
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the Access to Hastings Study announced by his Department in July 1998; what the terms of reference are for(a) the study and (b) the steering group for the study; if the proposed steering group will have an agreed constitution or rules of operation; if the steering group will have autonomy in controlling the study, and what reserve powers his Department will have; if his Department will have a power of veto over the steering group's decisions; and what timetable is envisaged for completion of the report and his Department's decision upon it. [92294]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Progress is being made on the "Access to Hastings Multi Modal Study". There have now been two Steering Group meetings and there will be a third meeting in August.

  Draft terms of reference for the Study have not yet been formally agreed, the main aims of the terms of reference are to develop a sustainable and integrated strategy for the Hastings area to promote competitiveness and the achievement of regeneration objectives. The Study should recommend a plan and measures to address problems associated with the A21 and the A259 trunk roads. A multi modal approach will inform all stages of the Study to provide a strategy promoting a safe, efficient, accessible and sustainable transport system and to protect both the built and natural environment.

  The Steering Group will operate in a manner that is consistent with the multi modal studies methodology. The Steering Group owns the multi modal Study and will steer and oversee the development, progress and satisfactory completion of the Access to Hastings Study. The Steering group will advise on consultants' recommendations which, subject to views of SERPLAN, will then be submitted to Ministers. We anticipate that the Study will be let to consultants in the Autumn of this year and will take 12-15 months to complete.

  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what legal obstacles there are to visits by himself or his ministerial colleagues to Hastings to examine the adequacy of its roads infrastructure; [92293]

  (2) if he or one of his ministerial colleagues responsible for roads will visit Hastings to examine the adequacy of its road infrastructure. [92292]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Pending the taking of final statutory decisions on the three A259 schemes near Hastings, that were the subject of the 1995–96 public inquiry, Ministers have to maintain a position of impartiality. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for myself or any ministerial colleagues to visit Hastings.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 June 1999,Official Report, column 440, on what dates special advisers from his Department travelled to the United States of America on official business; and how many meetings each special adviser held with members and officials of the United States Government during each visit to the United States of America, indicating (a) the date and location of each meeting, (b) the names of the special advisers and members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting and (c) the name of the United States departments to which they belong. [92252]

  Mr. Prescott
  Special advisers accompanied Ministers to the USA on official business on four occasions between 2 May 1997 and 31 March 1999. All Ministerial travel was accounted for in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 17 June 1999,Official Report, columns 196-97.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total cash value of council house sales has been since the date of the enactment of the Housing Act 1980. [92920]

  Ms Armstrong
  Between April 1980 and December 1998, total capital receipts to local authorities in England arising from the sale of council homes for owner-occupation were estimated at £24.0 billion. The majority of the 1.560 million sales in this period were under the Right-to-Buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980, which came into effect in October 1980.

  In the same period, it is estimated that local authorities had capital receipts of some £3 billion from over 310,000 other dwellings sales and transfers, including Large Scale Voluntary Transfers of housing stock, principally to Registered Social Landlords.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed fare structure for Croydon Tramlink; and what is the proposed fare for a single journey from New Addington to Croydon Town Centre. [93185]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for London Transport and Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. I understand that the fare structure for Croydon Tramlink has not yet been decided.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the passenger projections for Croydon Tramlink for the years 2000–02. [93184]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a commercial matter for Tramtrack Croydon Ltd., the private sector consortium which holds the concession to build, operate and maintain Croydon Tramlink.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, in respect of processes regulated under the Integrated Pollution Control Regulations, the number of(a) substantial air pollution incidents, (b) prosecutions resulting from air pollution incidents, (c) prohibition notices and (d) enforcement notices issued to prevent the risk of air pollution incidents in each Environment Agency region in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [92922]

  Mr. Meale
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter, together with any attachments, in the Library.

  Transport Initiative Bids
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bids were received for each transport initiative launched since 1 May 1997 under which specific grants were allocated; and if he will list for each initiative, by financial year, those applications which were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful, giving in each case the amount applied for and the amount allocated. [93147]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives details, where available, of numbers of applications for specific grants and the grant allocation for successful bids in the year in question.

  Transport grant

  Freight grants1

  Rural transport partnership fund2

  Rural bus subsidy grant

  Rural bus challenge

  1997–98

  Applications received

  19

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Successful:

  Number

  19

  —

  —

  —

  Allocation (£ million)

  15

  —

  —

  —

  Unsuccessful:

  Number

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Allocation (£ million)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  Applications received

  34

  23

  3—

  214

  Successful:

  Number

  34

  23

  —

  46

  Allocation (£ million)

  21

  3

  33

  11

  Unsuccessful:

  Number

  0

  0

  —

  168

  Allocation (£ million)

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1999–2000

  Applications received

  5

  14

  3—

  4—

  successful:

  Number

  5

  14

  —

  —

  Allocation (£ million)

  5

  2

  33

  —

  Unsuccessful:

  Number

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Allocation (£ million)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Freight grants scheme commenced prior to May 1997, but has since been relaunched. Expenditure figures represent estimated scheme costs relating to grant approvals in the years in question

  2 Administered by the Countryside Agency on DETR's behalf. Allocations shown cover costs over three years

  3 Grant allocation determined on basis of rural population in 73 local authority areas

  4 No data shown for 1999–2000 as closing date for 1999 applications is 1 October 1999. Figure of £27 million for unsuccessful bids represents total sum applied for.

  DVLA
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what circumstances DVLA release information concerning the ownership of vehicles to persons other than those with specific authorisation in law. [93077]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: DVLA records vehicle keeper information, not vehicle ownership. The Secretary of State has powers, which are delegated to DVLA, to disclose vehicle keeper information to the police, local authorities, and to anyone who can demonstrate "reasonable cause". The term is not defined in law and each request is considered on merit.

  Most requests originate from insurance companies to investigate claims or, for example, to trace a driver who has failed to stop following an accident.

  Memorials
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations he has held with the Confederation of Burial Authorities concerning the future of memorials; and if he will make a statement. [93270]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 26 May 1999,Official Report, column 171.

  Government Office for the North East
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff are currently employed by the Government Office for the North East. [93436]

  Mr. Meale
  Government Office for the North East (GO-NE) has a complement of 257 staff in the current year. As at 1 July 1999, there are 250.7 staff in post employed by GO-NE.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the administrative costs of the Government Office for the North East in 1998–99. [93435]

  Mr. Meale
  The Administrative Costs of the Government Office for the North East in 1998–99 were £8.651 million.

  New Deal (Injuries)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many injuries to participants on the New Deal programme have been reported to the HSE, broken down by categories, under the reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. [93440]

  Mr. Meale
  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 do not require employers to differentiate between participants on the New Deal programme and other employees when making a report to the HSE under these regulations. The information is therefore not available.

  Motorway Noise
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to assist residents who suffer from excessive noise from motorways; and if he will make a statement. [93277]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the responsibility for the measuring and monitoring of noise levels at properties where motorways have been built. [93203]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There is no requirement for noise levels to be monitored after a road has been built. But within six months of the final offers of noise insulation under the legislation applying to new or substantially altered roads, residents living within 300 metres of such a road who had not been offered insulation have an opportunity to appeal for the assessment to be reviewed. In such cases, it is not general practice to undertake noise measurements, but to calculate the statistical level of noise required by the Regulations from the flow of traffic and other relevant factors.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has carried out to identify high and unreasonable noise levels in properties where motorways were built before 1988; and if he will make a statement. [93276]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following our announcement on 22 March 1999,Official Report, columns 50-51, of a ring-fenced budget for the Highways Agency to undertake noise mitigation measures in the most serious and pressing cases on existing roads, a large number of locations where concern has been expressed about noise have been assessed against the stated criteria. Detailed studies are now required to determine the feasibility of providing measures at locations meeting the criteria where there are no plans to provide a quieter road surface as part of routine maintenance operations.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to assist people living near motorways on which there has been a significant increase in the volume of traffic above that forecast when the motorway was built. [93207]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government announced its proposals for dealing with the problem of noise arising from those roads for which the Secretary of State has responsibility, which include the majority of motorways, in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". We announced the annual budget which was being ring-fenced for the provision of noise mitigation measures on 22 March 1999,Official Report, columns 50-51, together with the criteria which would target the most serious and pressing cases, including locations affected by unexpectedly high levels of traffic growth.

  Genetically Modified Seeds
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures are in place to prevent the escape into the environment of GM seeds while in transit; [93148]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the environmental impact resulting from the escape into the environment while in transit of GM seeds. [93177]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Health and Safety Executive, Basingstoke
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons improvement and prohibition notices or other material has been placed in the public viewing room of the HSE offices in Basingstoke since 1993. [93274]

  Mr. Meale
  Under the requirements of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988 HSE maintains at its field offices, including the one at Basingstoke, public registers of information on improvement and prohibition notices having public safety or environmental implications. These registers have been kept since 1 April 1989 and notices remain on the public register for at least three years. Information on other notices is available on request.

  HSE offices also keep public registers of hazardous sites such as sites licensed under the Explosives Act 1875 or those subject to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987, the Fire Certificate Special Premises Regulations 1976.

  Public access to other information held by HSE is made on request under the requirements of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" or the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  EU Landfill Directive
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made on implementing the EU Landfill Directive; and when he plans to inform the waste industry of the terms of the legislation to implement the Directive. [93619]

  Mr. Meale
  The EC Landfill Directive entered into force on 16 July 1999, and member states have two years to introduce the provisions necessary to comply with the Directive.

  Work on implementation is progressing well; a consultation paper on the formal mechanisms for implementing the biodegradable municipal waste targets in Article 5 of the Directive will be published later in the summer, with the results being reflected in the final version of the Waste Strategy. The Government's proposals for implementing the other requirements of the Directive will be the subject of further consultations early next year.
  337
  Final decisions relating to the legislation required to implement the Directive will be made in light of these consultation exercises.

  Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the fourth consultation paper on the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations will be issued. [93620]

  Mr. Meale
  We expect to issue this consultation paper during the week beginning 9 August with a deadline for comment of 8 October.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations will come into force; and what period industry will have to prepare for the new regime. [93621]

  Mr. Meale
  The regulations are needed to transpose Directive 96/61 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, which must be achieved by 31 October. Industry has been extensively consulted already and existing plant will have up to eight years before it is brought within the new regime.

  Injurious Substances Regulations
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Environment Protection (Destruction of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and other Injurious Substances) Regulations will be published. [93638]

  Mr. Meale
  We are about to consult the Injurious or Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee, set up under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. When we have received and considered the advice of that committee, we shall publish the necessary notice in the London Gazette under section 140(6) of that Act, and make the regulations publicly available.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy not to grant approval for any GM plant under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 as amended, where such plants contain antibiotic marker genes. [93208]

  Mr. Meacher
  Any application to release a genetically modified (GM) plant containing an antibiotic marker gene would be subject to a scientific assessment of risk carried out case-by-case on the basis of an environmental risk assessment. No consent would be given if the antibiotic marker gene in question would be harmful to human health or the environment.

  The UK was instrumental in ensuring that the political agreement reached at the June Environment Council provided for the identification and phasing out of antibiotic marker genes which are harmful to human health and the environment.

  National Countryside Access Forum
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list 338
  those who attended the first meeting of the National Countryside Access Forum; and what arrangements are being made for industry and the trade unions to be represented in the forum. [93297]

  Mr. Meacher
  The National Countryside Access Forum has been established, at the Government's request, by the Countryside Agency. Those attending the first meeting on 21 July, as members of the Forum, were:

  Professor Ian Mercer, Secretary General of the Association of National Park Authorities;

  Mr. Hywel Davies, Chief Executive of the British Horse Society;

  Mr. Iain McMorrin, Chair of the Access and Conservation Committee of the British Mountaineering Council;

  Ms Kate Parminter, Director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England;

  Sir Edward Greenwell, Vice Chair of the Executive Committee of the Country Landowners' Association;

  Ms Pam Ashton, Chair of Campaigns and Policy Committee of the Cyclists Touring Club;

  Mr. Peter Davidson, of Hertfordshire County Council representing the Local Government Association;

  Air Commodore Simon Bostock, Moorland Association;

  Mr. Tim Bennett, Deputy President of the National Farmers' Union;

  Mr. Jo Burgon, Coast and Countryside Adviser for the National Trust;

  Mr. Jerry Pearlman, Honorary Solicitor for the Ramblers' Association;

  Mr. Gwyn Williams, Head of Species and Habitat Policy for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds;

  Ms Pamela Warhurst, Deputy Chair of the Countryside Agency, chaired the meeting.

  Business and trade union interests will be represented on the Forum by independent members who will be appointed by the Countryside Agency in August.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plans exist under which the M4 bus lane restriction may be lifted in the event of an accident causing a blockage to one or both of the other lanes of the eastbound carriageway. [93588]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The design of the M4 bus lane included the formulation of contingency plans for dealing with accidents and incidents on the section of motorway including the bus lane. These were agreed with and are operated by the police. The police opened the bus lane to all vehicles for a short time on the morning of 23 July, following an accident that closed the two other lanes.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the extra expenditure for London Underground in 2000. [93539]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The additional resources announced on 15 July 1999,Official Report, columns 600-11, for London Transport in 2000–01 will mean that investment in the core Underground network should be in excess of £500 million, including investment under the PFI. London Transport announced

  339
  details of this investment programme that the additional resources would help deliver on 22 July. I am arranging for London Transport's detailed breakdown to be placed in the Library of the House. This investment will lead to improvements across the network.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the membership of the task force set up to monitor improvements to London Underground; when it will first meet and how often; how long it has been established; what penalties the task force will be able to impose for performance failures by London Transport; and if he will publish the terms of reference for the task force. [93541]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As already announced the task force will be led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport and its terms of reference are to monitor improvements to London Underground. Its membership will include representation from DETR, the Government Office for London, the Treasury, and London Transport. The first meeting will take place later in the summer, and the task force will meet regularly thereafter.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish details of the planned maintenance programme for London Underground per line over the next 12 months and details of line closures over the next 12 months. [93536]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Details of the planned Underground maintenance programme are a matter for London Underground.

  For details of the temporary line closures London Underground are planning over the next 12 months, I refer to my reply of 2 July 1999, Official Report, column 291, to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

  Aviation
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the daughter document on aviation. [93537]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In last year's integrated transport White Paper (Cm 3950) we announced that we would prepare a White Paper on UK airports policy, and that we would commission a series of preparatory studies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the North of England, the Midlands and South West England. The then Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), announced on 11 March 1999,Official Report, columns 360-61, a wide-ranging study of airport issues in the South East and East of England. He stated that we expect the studies to take around two years, and that the Government envisages that the results will be incorporated in the airports White Paper. We intend to make a further announcement about this in due course.

  London Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish overload statistics for LATCC for each of the last 36 months. [93538]
  340
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The details as recorded by the Civil Aviation Authorities Safety Regulation Group are:

  Date

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  January

  —

  0

  4

  1

  February

  —

  1

  3

  5

  March

  —

  0

  8

  4

  April

  —

  0

  3

  3

  May

  —

  3

  5

  8

  June

  —

  3

  2

  5

  July

  1

  1

  9

  18

  August

  3

  1

  3

  —

  September

  0

  3

  8

  —

  October

  2

  2

  6

  —

  November

  2

  0

  3

  —

  December

  2

  0

  2

  —

  1 To 25 June

  Overload reports record that more aircraft, in the controller's subjective opinion, are entering a sector than expected. There is rarely a loss of separation between aircraft during a reported overload, with only four occasions where a loss of separation was associated with an overload event since 1996.

  Despite a reduction in the number of airproxes recorded in 1998, there was a noticeable increase in the number of overloads reported by controllers at London Air Traffic Control Centre. This was partly due to management encouraging staff to report such incidents so remedial action can be taken. All reports of overload incidents are investigated thoroughly by the Civil Aviation Authority and, wherever possible, action is taken to ensure that the lessons learned are implemented.

  VDU Users (Eye Tests)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's estimate of the total number of employees that are entitled to an eye test provided by their employer under the Health and Safety (Display Screens Equipment) Regulations 1992. [93311]

  Mr. Meale
  A survey was conducted in 1995 on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive to evaluate the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992. The researchers estimated that about 5.5 million employees in Great Britain were entitled under the Regulations to an eye and eyesight test, to be provided by their employer at the employee's request.

  Government Offices Transfers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) to what extent changes in costs of mileage allowances arising from the transfer of Government offices are treated as a factor in the taking of decisions on such transfers; [93230]

  (2) what powers he has to ensure full evaluations take place of the cost implications of the movement of offices by the North West Regional Development Agency. [93231]

  Mr. Meale
  Under the terms of their Financial Memorandum the Regional Development Agencies are responsible for decisions about their location.
  341
  They are required to carry out a full evaluation of the costs and benefits of any material changes in their accommodation requirements. That evaluation should take account of any significant effect on mileage allowances paid to staff alongside other factors.

  North West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the experience and qualifications of Dr. Joan Firth are to carry out the role of independent assessor in the appointment of the Board of the North West Regional Development Agency. [93232]

  Mr. Meale
  Dr. Joan Firth, a former Grade 3, Deputy Director of Finance, in the Department of Health, was acting chair of Bradford NHS Trust at the time she acted as independent assessor in the appointment of the Board of the North West Regional Development Agency. She had had recent experience of appointing NHS Board Members in the North East.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if officers of the North West Regional Development Agency have discussed with board member the merit of projects and bids supported by that Agency where a board member has had what subsequently turned out to be a conflict of interest. [93446]

  Mr. Meale
  There is no record of any such discussions taking place.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many premises are owned by the North West Regional Development Agency on the Lakeland Business Park at Cockermouth; what is the total rent received per annum; and what is the total square footage. [93224]

  Mr. Meale
  There are seven premises (blocks) which are sub-divided into units and let to the list of tenants which is given in another answer to my hon. Friend today at columns 342-44.

  Area (sq. ft.)

  Rent (principal) (£)

  Block 1

  5,135

  NWDA

  Block 2

  4,459

  20,025

  Block 3

  5,630

  22,750

  Block 4

  4,816

  19,521

  Block 5

  4,769

  20,111

  Block 6

  4,885

  9,616

  Block 7

  7,946

  51,451

  Total

  37,640

  143,474

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, in the consideration of business by the North West Regional Development Agency, members of the board decided for themselves whether a conflict of interest exists. [93444]

  Mr. Meale
  In accordance with the North West Development Regional Agency Standing Orders, Board Members determine if they have an interest in any particular matter and declare it accordingly.
  342
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the North West Regional Development Agency is supporting commercial developments in the North West of England which are in any way linked to the business interests of members of the North West Development Agency; and what is the value in pounds sterling of the support being provided in each case. [93442]

  Mr. Meale
  The North West Regional Development Agency inherited from English Partnerships a project under which Westmorland Motorway Services Limited are receiving a grant of £947,920 towards the Hills of the North Project.

  Mr. John Dunning is the member with business interest linked to this project.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, in the consideration of the SRB bids, any members of the board of the North West Regional Development Agency were required or offered to stand aside on the basis of conflict of interest. [93443]

  Mr. Meale
  When the North West Regional Development Board was discussing the proposed SRB bids, Members with an interest in any particular bid left the meeting prior to it being discussed. Each Board meeting agenda contains a reminder to this effect.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the register of interests applicable in the case of the North West Regional Development Agency. [93228]

  Mr. Meale
  The Register of Members Interests is available for inspection at the Headquarters in Warrington and will be published in the North West Regional Development Agency's Annual Report.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many visits overseas have been made by officers of the North West Regional Development Agency since the establishment of the Agency; to which countries; and at what cost to the taxpayer. [93227]

  Mr. Meale
  Since 1 April 1999 there have been 10 overseas visits made by officers of the North West Regional Development Agency. The countries visited were: Belgium, Japan, Ireland, Austria, Germany, France, U.S.A. The cost of these visits totals £4,381.50.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will permit access by hon. Members to the data held by the Government Office of the North-West relating to nomination to the Board of the North West Regional Development Agency; [93229]

  (2) if he will list the persons Dr. Joan Firth interviewed for possible appointment to the Board of the North West Regional Development Agency. [93233]

  Mr. Meale
  Details of the appointees to the North West Regional Development Agency were made public in the press notice at the time of their appointment, in line with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments', in line with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidelines. However, under exemption 8b (Public Employments,
  343
  Public Appointments and Honours) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, details of the other candidates cannot be released for reasons of confidentiality. This also applies to the details of those nominated by outside bodies.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many visits overseas have been made by board members of the North West Regional Development Agency since the establishment of the Agency; to which countries; and at what cost to the taxpayer. [93226]

  Mr. Meale
  The Chairman of the Board has made two overseas visits. They were to Japan (cost £3,573) and Brussels (£639).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what dates since the appointment of officers to the Shadow North West Regional Development Agency and since the formal establishment of the North West Regional Development Agency, officers of the Agency have met members of Cumbria Tourist Board. [93445]

  Mr. Meale
  Since the North West Regional Development Agency was established in December 1998 there have been no formal meetings between officers of the Agency and members of the Cumbria Tourist Board in their capacity as members of the Board.

  English Partnerships, Cockermouth
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what special circumstances arose in the case of the English Partnerships offices in Cockermouth which distinguish them from other offices in the department where valuations have been published in the last 10 years. [93234]

  Mr. Meale
  The North West Regional Development Agency, in keeping with its predecessor English Partnerships, does not publish valuations of individual properties. This information is commercial in confidence.

  Lakeland Business Park
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the tenants of all premises on the Lakeland Business Park at Cockermouth. [93225]

  Mr. Meale
  Tenants of the premises on the Lakeland Business Park at Cockermouth are:

  North West Regional Development Agency

  Cumbria Inward Investment Agency

  NFU Mutual Insurance Society Ltd.

  CH Jeffries (Risk Management) Ltd.

  North East Foster Care Associates Ltd.

  Cumbria Training and Enterprise Council Ltd.

  R. Day and G. Cummins (T/A Day Cummins)

  L. Canfield (T/A One 2 One Beauty Salon)

  GUS Home Shopping Ltd.

  United Friendly Insurance plc

  Countryside Alliance

  Cumbria Tourist Board (T/A WC Tourist Information)

  344

  White Young Green Consulting Ltd.

  Barker Shepley Ltd.

  Servicegain Ltd.

  North Cumbria Health Authority

  Tarmac Construction Ltd. (T/A Crown House)

  Alan Nichol (T/A Alan Nichol Agencies)

  Rannerdale Ltd.

  Kinlock Engineering Ltd.

  Sales Direct Ltd.

  Tagga Ltd.

  G. Beattie (T/A Alpha Design Arch. Services).

  Shipping
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which occasions since 1993 his Department has received written or oral approaches from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on matters relating to shipping since 1993. [93241]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) tabled one written Parliamentary Question on shipping, in September 1993.

  Motorway Services
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking in response to complaints about prices and standards of service at motorway service areas. [93360]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 127.

  Belmont Stables, Mill Hill
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Inspector completed his report into Belmont Stables, Mill Hill; and when he expects to announce his decision. [93223]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State received the Inspector's report in June and expects to announce his decision shortly.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for Scottish representation on the proposed strategic rail authority. [91624]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A Scottish representative will be appointed as member of the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Thames Water
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to prevent Thames Water from requiring domestic water customers who have received planning permission for home extensions since 1990 to have a water meter; and if he will make a statement. [93544]
  345
  Mr. Meale
  I understand that, in response to pressure, Thames Water have today announced a change of policy on this issue. They will no longer impose meters in these circumstances.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the budget of the Energy, Environment and Waste Directorate is allocated specifically to the promotion of energy-efficient street lighting on main trunk roads and motorways. [93359]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Energy, Environment and Waste Directorate funds a number of programmes aimed at improving energy efficiency, including the efficiency of lighting. In particular the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme has supported a research and development project aimed at developing new energy control equipment for street lighting.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much has been spent by local authorities on the maintenance of existing street lighting outside built-up areas in the past financial year; [93349]

  (2) how much has been spent by local authorities on the maintenance of existing street lighting in built-up areas in the past financial year; [93350]

  (3) how much has been spent by local authorities in providing new and additional street lighting outside built-up areas in the past financial year; [93353]

  (4) What statistics his Department collects on the (a) installation and (b) maintenance of street lighting carried out by local authorities each year. [93343]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what were the values of the contracts awarded to each manufacturer who has supplied street lighting equipment to his Department and local authorities in the past financial year; [93344]

  (2) if he will list the manufacturers who have supplied street lighting equipment to his Department and local authorities in the past financial year. [93345]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency, the executive agency responsible for trunk roads in England, does not award contracts directly to manufacturers of lighting equipment.

  On new schemes, street lighting is installed by sub contracts working to a main contractor.

  On existing roads, street lighting is installed and maintained by our managing agents. We do not keep, centrally, records of their expenditure.

  Information on local authorities contracts is not kept centrally.
  346
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much his Department has spent on the new and additional street lighting outside built-up areas in the past financial year; [93354]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on the maintenance of existing street lighting outside built-up areas in the past financial year; [93351]

  (3) how much his Department has spent on the maintenance of existing street lighting in built-up areas in the past financial year; [93352]

  (4) how much his Department has spent on new and additional lighting of motorways outside built-up areas in the past financial year. [93355]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list Government initiatives currently underway to correct existing poorly designed and installed street lighting in rural and urban streets. [93356]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency are to issue advice on the renovation of street lighting schemes and although written for trunk roads and motorways it will be equally applicable to local authority roads. Some central Government funding is available to local authorities, for new street lighting schemes under the Private Finance Initiative. Where local authorities apply for this funding, proposals should be appraised in line with the Department's "New Approach to Appraisal" to ensure that the benefits and costs (including the environmental and safety benefits) are presented in a consistent way.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to promote the use of energy-efficient street lighting to local authorities. [93346]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department funds a number of programmes aimed at improving energy efficiency, including the efficiency of lighting. In particular the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme has supported a research and development project aimed at developing new energy efficient control equipment for street lighting. Some central Government funding is also available, to local authorities, for new street lighting schemes under the Private Finance Initiative. Where local authorities apply for this funding, proposals should be appraised in line with the Department's "New Approach to Appraisal" to ensure that the benefits and costs (including running costs) are presented in a consistent way.

  Lighting Guidelines
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence he has that local planning authorities, lighting professionals and members of the public follow the guidelines published in 1997 by his Department and the Countryside Commission in the report, Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice. [93357]
  347
  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has not undertaken specific research on this subject. The Department receives correspondence on the general issue of the effects of lighting but is not aware of concerns that the guidance is not being followed.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the report Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice, jointly published by his Department and the Countryside Commission in 1997, is made accessible to local authorities, professionals and members of the general public. [93358]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On publication, copies were sent to a wide range of bodies, including local planning authorities in England, relevant local authority organisations and other professional bodies including RICS and the RTPI. Local authorities may make copies available to people in their area. The report continues to be available for purchase from the Stationery Office.

  Non-UK Driving Licences
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the rules and restrictions governing the use of non-UK driving licences in the United Kingdom. [93338]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Licences issued by members of the European Economic Area (the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), other than those restricted to use within the member state issuing them, are subject to indefinite mutual recognition. The holder may use such a licence in the UK subject to the driving licence regulations but otherwise without restriction. There is no requirement to exchange the licence, except where there is a material change in entitlement.

  Licences to drive vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes (cars and small vans) issued by the countries or territories which have been designated by order for recognition may be used for up to one year. After that the holder must exchange the licence for a British equivalent in order to continue driving. Countries designated for this purpose are: Australia, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Republic of Cyprus, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, Kenya, Malta, New Zealand, Singapore, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, Zimbabwe.

  Holders of licences to drive larger vehicles from designated countries may only use such licences to drive vehicles which have been temporarily imported, but they must pass a British driving test for the category of licence if they wish to drive such vehicles permanently in the UK. This restriction on the driving of larger vehicles (whether lorry or passenger carrying) also applies to licences issued by non-designated countries.

  Licences to drive vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes issued by non-designated countries may be used in the UK for up to one year continuously. The holder of such a licence who has been driving in the UK continuously for one year must obtain a British licence by taking a driving test in order to continue driving beyond that period.

  Urban Task Force
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce his decisions on implementing the recommendations contained in the Urban Task Force report; and if he will make a statement. [93300]

  Mr. Meale
  The Urban Task Force's recommendations, set out in its report "Towards an Urban Renaissance", published on 29 June 1999, are currently being considered by Government. The Urban White Paper will provide the main vehicle for the Government's response.

  It may be appropriate to address some individual recommendations on a different timescale. On 30 June 1999, Liverpool Vision was launched as a pilot for the Task Force's recommendation on the creation of Urban Regeneration Companies. East Manchester have been invited to submit a proposal to be a further pilot for the recommendation.

  Capital Receipts (Property)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of capital receipts have been spent on(a) building new properties and (b) renovating existing properties since the capital receipts initiative was introduced. [93299]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest information is for 1997–98 and in that year local authorities spent 7.2 per cent. of their allocation of the Capital Receipts Initiative on building new dwellings and 92.1 per cent. on renovating or repairing existing dwellings. The small balance of expenditure was spent on non-housing items.

  Urban and Rural White Papers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish White Papers on urban and rural policy; and if he will make a statement. [93306]

  Mr. Meale
  My right hon. Friend will publish the Urban and Rural White Papers when work has been completed. We expect this will be within the next 12 months.

  Housing Policy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Green Paper on housing policy announced in the last Budget; and if he will make a statement. [93307]

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Green Paper on Housing Policy; and if he will make a statement. [93546]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to publish a Housing Policy Green Paper later this year. The Green Paper will set out our policy options for delivering our objectives in housing to ensure that everyone is offered the opportunity of a decent home and to promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses he has received to the consultation paper, "Licensing Houses in Multiple Occupation-England";
  349
  when he expects to announce his decisions on the proposed new licensing scheme; whether those decisions will be included in the Green Paper on housing policy; when he plans to consult on the standards applicable to the licensing scheme; and if he will make a statement. [93305]

  Mr. Raynsford
  475 consultation responses have been received to date. We are carefully analysing them and will announce our conclusions as soon as we are able to do so. The Government are currently considering the issues which should be included for consultation in the Green Paper. I cannot yet say when we will be in a position to consult on HMO standards.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent from the Single Regeneration Budget on(a) building new social housing, (b) renovating existing social housing and (c) private sector renovation schemes; and how much matching funding from other sources has been put into SRB schemes to be spent on (i) building new social housing, (ii) renovating existing social housing and (iii) private sector renovation schemes in each Regional Development Agency area for each year since the SRB was introduced. [93298]

  Mr. Meale
  The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) currently funds over 500 (Rounds 1-4) regeneration schemes managed by local partnerships. A large number of these are likely to have multiple objectives, and cover a wide range of activities depending on local regeneration needs and priorities. It is not possible to break down expenditure to say how much has benefited one objective, therefore no information is available on the amount spent on building new social housing or on renovating social or private sector housing.

  There is no specific matching funding requirement for SRB bids but partnerships are encouraged to maximise the leverage of private sector investment and funding from other public spending programmes. In the four Rounds to 31 March 1999, it is estimated that the total lifetime SRB allocation of £3.4 billion will lever in around £7.6 million of private sector investment over the same period.

  Sussex Downs
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings he has had with elected representatives, council officials and community groups from within the Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority area on the future management of the Sussex Downs. [93252]

  Mr. Meacher
  Ministers in this Department have met with a number of individuals and groups about the future management of the Sussex Downs. Those we have met include my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper); the Leader and Chief Whip of Brighton and Hove Council; and groups which are members of the South Downs Campaign, such as Friends of the Earth, which have a presence in Brighton and Hove.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie the delay in announcing proposals for the future of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. [93256]
  350
  Mr. Meacher
  Ministers are considering as a whole the various issues dealt with in the former Countryside Commission's advice on the future management of our areas of protected countryside. There are a number of considerations, including those relating to the planning system, financial provision, local government responsibilities and the possibility of legislation. We want to ensure the right solutions for the South Downs, for the New Forest and for AONBs generally.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will be in a position to make a firm announcement on the future of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. [93251]

  Mr. Meacher
  I expect an announcement to be made later this year, as part of the Government's response to the advice on the future management of protected countryside which was produced by the former Countryside Commission. In the meantime, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board has a clear commitment of Government funding until March 2001.

  Government Office of the South East
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions following the inauguration of the South Eastern Development Agency, what the role of the Government Office of the South East will be. [93253]

  Mr. Meale
  In common with the other regional Government Offices, GOSE manages programmes on behalf of DFEE, DTI and DETR, supports and facilitates effective linkages between partners and programmes, and informs the development of Departments' policies from a regional perspective. GOSE will work closely with SEEDA, as it does with other regional partners.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are currently employed by the Government Office of the South East; and how many were employed in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1997. [93255]

  Mr. Meale
  There are currently 247.1 full-time equivalent funded posts in the Government Office for the South East. In 1998 there were 235.1 full-time equivalent funded posts, and in 1997 there were 227 full-time equivalent funded posts.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the estimated out-turn is of the Government Office of the South East for the current financial year. [93254]

  Mr. Meale
  At this stage of the Financial Year there is no reason to believe that the out-turn will not be the same as the budget of £501,861,000.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the expenditure of English Partnerships in Greater London in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [93590]
  351
  Mr. Meale
  Expenditure by English Partnerships within Greater London over the last five years is set out in the following table. The vast majority of this has been targeted at designated assisted areas.

  Total expenditure

  £000

  1994–95

  13,582

  1995–96

  20,888

  1996–971

  43,331

  1997–981

  65,162

  1998–992

  127,113

  Total

  270,076

  1 Includes expenditure on the Greenwich Peninsula.

  2 Includes expenditure on the Royal Docks inherited from the London Docklands Development Corporation on 1 April 1998.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the expenditure of English Partnerships in(a) the Objective 2 Area in Lee Valley, (b) Park Royal and (c) other assisted areas in Greater London in each year since their inception; and if he will make a statement. [93591]

  Mr. Meale
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Child Safety (Cars)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that children are carried safely in cars. [93600]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The surveys of seat belt/child restraint wearing carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory on my Department's behalf, show that wearing rates by all passengers in the front are as high as 94 per cent. Since the Department's rear seat belt wearing advertising campaign in the Summer of 1998, which was repeated at Easter 1999, seat belt wearing rates have been climbing and for children in the rear of vehicles now stands at 91 per cent. as at April 1999. The campaign is continuing with a version of the advert presently running in cinemas and on local radio stations. We also promote the use of child restraints in my Department's leaflet "Seat Belts and Child Restraints", copies of which were placed in the Library of the House.

  Trans-Pennine Rail Communications
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further steps he is taking to improve trans-Pennine rail communications. [93599]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the terms of their franchise agreement Northern Spirit, which operates Trans-Pennine services, are planning to increase services on the route from May 2000 to at least four trains per hour for twelve hours a day Mondays to Saturdays. This commitment is subject to Railtrack approval.

  The Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) has been established to bring strategic focus to the railways and will be placed on a statutory basis if the Railways Bill attains Royal Assent.
  352
  The SSRA will be given the power to penalise train operators financially for poor performance much faster than at present and we have also announced that we are willing to re-negotiate some franchises in return for guarantees of better services for passengers.

  Remand Provisions (Housing Act 1996)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed timetable for bringing into force the commencement order for the remand provisions associated with section 155(2)(b) of and Schedule 15 to the Housing Act 1996. [91639]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 381. My Department is discussing with the Lord Chancellor's Department the best way forward on these provisions, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as we have reached our decision.

  Narrowboats
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the charging of council tax on residential moorings for narrowboats; what estimate he has made of the number of such individual moorings in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [92524]

  Mr. Meale
  A mooring occupied by a boat which is somebody's sole or main residence is deemed to be a "dwelling" for council tax purposes and will therefore attract a council tax liability in the same way as other domestic types of property. The amount of council tax payable in respect of a mooring occupied by a boat will depend primarily on the valuation band to which the dwelling is assigned. We do not hold information on the number of moorings occupied by boats which are somebody's sole or main residence.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive the report from Lord Donaldson on the review of future proposals of the Coastguard Service; and if he will make a statement. [93340]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has now received Lord Donaldson's advice and is considering it.

  Fox Control
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what alternative methods of fox control he recommends to replace that provided by hunting. [93489]

  Mr. Meacher
  The fox is not a protected species and may be killed or taken by owners and occupiers of land using any method, for example, shooting or trapping, which is not prohibited by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Planning Inspectorate's Report
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Planning Inspectorate's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99. [93697]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Planning Inspectorate's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99 was published yesterday. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Overall, the Inspectorate met seven out of 10 targets set for its work in England. Handling times for hearing and inquiry cases, although much improved, missed the target. For inquiries, this is partly due to an increase in refusals by parties of dates offered by the Inspectorate. It is important that all parties co-operate and observe the deadlines set to enable the Inspectorate to deliver further improvements in performance.

  The unit cost for written representation cases has increased. This is mainly due to a programme of investment in IT—upgrading PCs, and developing systems to improve performance and customer service. The Inspectorate continues to meet its efficiency target.

  The Inspectorate has also maintained the programme of development plan inquiries to a high standard, helping to create greater certainty for all involved in the planning process as more areas are covered by up to date development plans.

  The Inspectorate's quality target was met and exceeded, with reduced numbers of justified complaints against decisions issued. Surveys continued to show that its decisions are widely respected. It has also produced an

  Regional chamber

  Regional Development Agency

  North West Regional Assembly

  North West Development Agency

  North East Regional Assembly

  One North East

  Regional Chamber for Yorkshire and Humberside

  Yorkshire Forward

  West Midlands Regional Chamber

  Advantage West Midlands

  East Midlands Regional Assembly

  East Midlands Development Agency

  East of England Regional Assembly

  East of England Development Agency

  South West Regional Chamber Agency

  South West of England Regional Development

  South East England Regional Assembly

  South East England Development Agency

  Shipping Industry
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish his response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Twelfth report of Session 1998–99 into the Future of the UK Shipping Industry (HC 172); and if he will make a statement. [93700]

  Mr. Prescott
  We welcome the Committee's report which generally supported our policy paper "British Shipping: Charting a new course" which is designed to initiate the action required to reverse the decline in the UK's shipping industry. We are today publishing our formal response which has been laid before the House.

  Greater London Assembly
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 130, what progress has been made with preparations for the London Mayor and Assembly since that answer. [93702]
  354
  outstanding financial performance during the year. The Inspectorate is very much involved in initiatives to develop the Government's proposals for the modernisation of the planning system. In the climate of a rapidly changing environment it is always ready to take on new areas of work in dispute resolution.

  Regional Chambers
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in designating regional chambers. [93698]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am pleased to announce that we have today issued a direction to Yorkshire Forward—the development agency for the Yorkshire and the Humber region—designating the Regional Chamber for Yorkshire and Humberside as its regional chamber.

  Regional chambers provide a mechanism through which the Regional Development Agencies can take account of regional views and account for their activities. We expect that each RDA will have regard to the chamber's view in preparing its strategy, consult the chamber on its corporate plan and give an account of its performance to the chamber. Working together through the regional chambers local authorities, business and other partners can provide a focused voice for their region.

  There is now a designated regional chamber in each of the English regions outside London. This marks the completion of another stage of the Government's regional agenda. The full list of regional chambers (some of which call themselves regional assemblies) and development agencies is as follows:

  Mr. Raynsford
  Good progress continues to be made. The Head of Transition, Dr. Robert Chilton, is assembling a team of people with backgrounds in local government, the civil service, other parts of the public sector, and the private sector. They are developing plans to ensure that the Mayor and Assembly can get off to a good start, with suitable administrative and financial support in place. The team moved into their temporary accommodation in Romney House, Westminster last week. I hope to issue shortly a consultation document about the initial organisation of the Greater London Authority.

  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for a publicity campaign leading up to the elections for the Mayor and Assembly in London. [93799]

  Mr. Raynsford
  At the proposed elections on 4 May 2000, for the first Mayor and Assembly for London, the people of London will be facing a different and more complicated ballot than normal. For the first time, they will have a first and second choice when voting for the
  355
  Mayor. They will also vote for a constituency Assembly Member and for a party in the pan-London ballot which is the basis for electing the 'top-up' Assembly Members. The Government have decided therefore to run an information campaign to ensure that eligible Londoners know how the voting system will work at these very important elections for the future of their city.

  As the Greater London Authority is a new form of governance, there will also be information available about the duties and responsibilities of the new Mayor and Assembly. This will be an information campaign and will in no way compete with any political campaigns candidates may run.

  No expenditure will be committed on the campaign until the Greater London Authority Bill receives Royal Assent.

  Trans-European Transport Networks
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the United Kingdom's share of the funds available in 1999 for priority projects and other schemes under the European Community's Financing Programme for Trans-European Transport Networks. [93704]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Two priority projects in the United Kingdom will receive some £27.8 million. £19.3 million will go towards the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and £8.5 million towards the West Coast Main Line. The UK will also receive over £4 million for other schemes, including £2.16 million for four projects to improve ground transport access to Birmingham, Manchester, London Luton and London City airports, and £1.6 million for a development study of satellite-based aviation and marine navigation systems.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the agreement between the Secretary of State and London and Continental Railways to build the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, known as the Development Agreement, will be made publicly available. [93800]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Development Agreement between the Secretary of State and London and Continental Railways as signed in 1996 was revised this year by two supplemental agreements known as the 2nd and 3rd Supplemental Agreements to the Development Agreement. Annexed to the 2nd Supplemental Agreement is a print of the entire revised text. I have arranged for both Supplemental Agreements to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Airport Transport Forums
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the final guidance on the setting up of airport transport forums, announced in the New Deal for Transport White Paper, will be published; and if he will make a statement. [93801]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Guidance on the setting up of Airport Transport Forums and the preparation of Airport Surface Access Strategies was published today, and copies have been placed in the House Libraries.
  356
  The Government's White Paper on the Future of Transport "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" (Cm 3950) stated that all airports in England with scheduled services should establish Airport Transport Forums and prepare Airport Surface Access Strategies to feed into Local Transport Plans.

  On 31 March, we published draft guidance on what was required, and invited a wide range of interested parties, including airports, local authorities, planning bodies, transport providers etc. to comment. Responses to the consultation draft of this guidance were overwhelming supportive of the setting up of Airport Transport Forums and the preparation of Airport Surface Access Strategies. The guidance requires those airports which have 1,000 or more scheduled and charter passenger air transport movements per annum to set up Forums. It has been agreed that the requirement to set up Forums, and the guidance, will apply to Wales as well as to England. Separate guidance will be published in respect of Scotland.

  A separate good practice guide, with illustrations of surface access improvements which meet the principles set out in the guidance and have already been implemented successfully at airports, is being prepared jointly with the Airport Operators Association and will be published later this Summer.

  Electoral Review
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will confirm the arrangements he intends to follow to implement the periodic electoral review recommendations of the Local government Commission for England; and if he will make a statement. [93804]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have now considered the responses to the consultation, which I announced on 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 244, on proposals for implementing periodic electoral reviews (PERs).

  Our intention remains to implement the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for England as soon as practicable on a normal election date for councils. Our consultation has shown that there is no consensus on holding additional elections to implement PERs, and we have concluded that it would not be desirable to do so.

  Accordingly, we intend to implement the Commission's recommendations as follows. For district councils that hold whole council elections and where final recommendations are received by July 2002, implementation is to be on the normal election day in May 2003. For district councils that elect by thirds, where final recommendations have already been received, implementation is to be on the normal election day in May 2000; where final recommendations are received between August 1999 and 2001, implementation is to be on the normal election day in May 2002; and where final recommendations are received no later than July 2002 on the normal election day in May 2003.

  The Commission's recommendations for a county council are to be implemented only after recommendations have been made and implemented for all the district councils in a county area. Subject to this, where final recommendations for county councils are received no later than July 2000, they are to be implemented on the

  357
  normal election day in May 2001; Subsequent final recommendations are to be implemented on the normal election day in 2005.

  I am asking the Local Government Commission to consider their programme of PERs having regard to our intended approach to implementation and with a view to ensuring that all councils in England will have updated electoral arrangements in place by 2005.

  Galvanised Steel Wall Ties
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he is now in a position to report on the further research his Department commissioned on galvanised steel wall ties. [93805]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The then Energy Efficiency Minister announced on 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 374, that as part of my Department's ongoing programme of research into rain penetration of cavity walls, she had asked for precautionary checks to be carried out on the condition of galvanised steel wire wall ties in a sample of houses with cavity walls filled with insulation. This followed the preliminary results of research at the BRE which indicated that there was a possibility that the life expectancy of green coloured galvanised steel wire wall ties might be shortened when used in conjunction with urea formaldehyde from cavity fill.

  These checks have now been completed along with further experimental research and an independent review of the findings.

  In the houses examined, there was no premature deterioration of galvanised ties with or without the green identification film in contact with urea formaldehyde foam cavity insulation.

  The further experimental research was carried out on galvanised ties with and without the green identification film. The research comprised accelerated corrosion tests and chemical interactive tests with urea formaldehyde foam. Neither of these experiments indicated any discernible loss of galvanising.

  With these results to hand and with the benefit of an independent review undertaken by consultants WS Atkins, BRE re-examined their earlier experimental findings. They have concluded that the accelerated corrosion observed under the experimental conditions could have been caused by vapour from the urea formaldehyde which under certain conditions of very high humidity can lead to very high rates of corrosion of galvanising. The conditions under which this could happen were present in the preliminary experimental research, but were unlikely to occur in houses.

  The work concludes that there is no evidence that urea formaldehyde foam cavity wall insulation shortens the lifetime of galvanised wall ties.

  Copies of these results have been placed in the House Library.

  Recycling (Packaging)
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further 358
  advice he has had from the Advisory Committee on Packaging on progress towards meeting targets for increased recycling and recovery of packaging. [93821]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am grateful to the Committee for further advice, which among other things, seeks a more rigorous approach to implementation through introduction of quarterly compliance reporting and forward planning for increasing recycling and recovery of packaging waste. I shall be including these proposals in the consultation paper on inter sectoral share out and other matters which I hope to publish very shortly. Copies of both documents will be placed in the Library.

  Green Ministers' Report
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Green Ministers' Report. [93822]

  Mr. Meacher
  "Greening Government: the first annual report of Green Minsters" will be published tomorrow. The report provides a comprehensive account of what Green Ministers have been doing—and will do in future—to promote sustainable development, to integrate the environment into policies and to green their Departments' operations. The Report introduces targets, action plans and strategies across the wide range of activities of Green Ministers: waste, energy, water, transport, training and awareness raising, integrating the environment into policy and involving associate bodies. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Housing Stock (Debts)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is his policy on resolving problems relating to overhanging debt and early debt repayment premiums relating to the Housing Stock Transfer Programme; [93093]

  (2) when he expects to publish the consultation paper on overhanging debt and early debt repayment premiums affecting the Housing Stock Transfer Programme; [93092]

  (3) what the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy is on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Region's proposal for dealing with the problem of overhanging debt and early debt repayment premiums relating to the transfer of housing stock by Burnley Borough Council. [93091]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We aim to issue shortly a consultation paper setting out options for tackling the problem of overhanging debt which arises where the receipt from a housing transfer is insufficient to cover the authority's attributable housing debt.

  London Transport
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the Government's performance targets for(a) London Underground and (b) London Buses have been met in the last two years. [91528]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This level of performance reflects an investment backlog of around £1.2 billion on the Underground, and increased traffic congestion on the roads. This is one of the reasons we have decided to
  359
  allocate an additional £517 million of resources to London Transport, in addition to the £365 million of extra resources announced last year. This will enable them to deliver real improvements to passengers over the next two years.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93461]

  Mr. Meale
  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that their policies are relevant to the lives that people live today, my Department is working with the Women's Unit, Home Office and DfEE to develop good practices for ensuring that our policies meet the changing needs of all members of society.

  "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment", published by the Cabinet Office, Home Office, DfEE and the Women's Unit in November 1998 has been circulated to staff within my Department to ensure that the effects of any policy changes on all sections of the population are considered at the earliest stage of policy development.

  Road Lane Experiments
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many experiments the Highways Agency plans to undertake with(a) high-occupancy vehicle lanes, (b) bus and taxi lanes and (c) no-car lanes. [93372]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Four priority lane pilot schemes have been implemented to date. All are bus lanes. The Highways Agency is investigating where giving priority to certain types of traffic would be beneficial in tackling congestion in the context of the integrated transport policy. All such proposals will be monitored to ensure that the scheme objectives are realised.

  Monitoring of the M4 bus lane and its associated speed limits have shown increased traffic capacity of the elevated section and improved journey times for all road users. Average savings to buses, coaches and taxis in the morning and evening periods are over 3 minutes. Other vehicles benefiting by average savings of 1 minute and 2½ in the morning and evening peaks respectively.

  Rail Operators (Pricing Policy)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will carry out an investigation into the pricing policies of rail operators in respect of(a) the solar eclipse and (b) the millennium holiday. [93701]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Plans for the millennium holiday have not yet been finalised but for the solar eclipse First Great Western (FGW) and other operators are planning to run more services to Cornwall. There are capacity constraints which limit the number of additional services which can be accommodated. Wales and West are planning to strengthen the services they run normally by adding extra vehicles.
  360
  Demand for transport to see the eclipse and over the millennium holiday may be such that there will not be spare capacity. Train operators may therefore feel themselves unable to offer discounted tickets that are normally used to fill otherwise empty seats. Regulated tickets, including Saver tickets, will be available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1999,Official Report, columns 192-93, on genetically modified foods, if the feeding studies on animals over the period 1994 to 1996 used crops treated with Round-up; and if he will make a statement. [92106]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following an extensive compositional analysis of Monsanto's genetically modified soya beans, the ACNFP concluded that treatment with glyphosate did not alter the composition of the soya beans themselves. The only difference seen when the GM soya beans are treated with glyphosate is a slightly greater level of the metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid. The toxicity of glyphosate and its metabolites have been studied as part of the approval process for glyphosate and shown to be of low toxicity to humans. The ACNFP was thus satisfied that the safety of Monsanto's GM soya beans had been fully characterised and that the sacrifice of further animals in additional feeding studies using glyphosate treated soya beans was therefore unnecessary.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the effects of broad-spectrum herbicides applied to growing genetically modified crops; and how many research projects commissioned in the United Kingdom by his Department are currently under way to investigate the potential risks of genetically modified organisms. [92706]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF has received numerous representations from individuals and organisations concerning the use of broad-spectrum herbicides in the cultivation of genetically modified crops. Views have varied from those who support the technology for the potential benefits it can bring to those who express concern over the possible environmental or human health effects of the use of pesticides on such crops.

  At present there are 29 MAFF-Commissioned projects (costing £1.7 million in 1999–2000) investigating food safety issues and possible risks to the environment arising from the introduction of genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent reports he has received from the United States Department of Agriculture on(a) the yields of genetically modified crops grown in the United States and (b) the number of cases of spray drift damage to adjoining non-genetically modified crops. [92633]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received no such reports from the US Department of Agriculture.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans SCIMAC has to review their guidelines for separation distances between GM and non-GM crops; and if he will make a statement. [92395]
  361
  Mr. Rooker
  I understand that SCIMAC expect to review all the documentation describing their stewardship programme for the introduction of GM crops, including separation distances, at least once a year. Changes to the guidelines could also be made at any other time if information becomes available which would significantly affect the advice given.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, indicating when they were disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [90673]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: (a) The following non-departmental public bodies have been disbanded since 1 May 1997:

  Body

  Date disbanded

  Nine advisory Regional Panels

  28 May 1997

  Consultative panel on Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis

  17 August 1998

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee

  30 March 1999

  (b) None

  (c) Nine of the MAFF non-departmental public bodies have had their functions transferred to:

  (i) another non-departmental public body

  (ii) a democratically elected body

  (d) None of the MAFF non-departmental public bodies have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role.

  (e) Details of all other non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 are listed in "Public Bodies 1997", which is available to Members in the Libraries of the House.

  The Potato Industry Development Council (known as the British Potato Council) was established on 1 July 1997. The Council is funded by a levy on the industry.

  The Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs was set up, and the full list of members announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 13 July 1999, Official Report, column 176. The first meeting will be held in September.

  My right hon. Friend is currently responsible for 33 non-departmental public bodies, of which three are multiple bodies.

  The Government are committed to keeping the number of non-departmental public bodies to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective. Many of the new non-departmental public bodies established since 1 May 1997 are essential in helping the Government deliver their Manifesto commitments.
  362

  Agricultural Attaché
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that each British embassy in each EU member country has an agricultural attaché [92433]

  Mr. Rooker
  All British Embassies in EU countries have Officers responsible for Agricultural matters. In four of these, Bonn, Paris, Rome and Madrid, the Officers are seconded from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the other 10, the Officers are members of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, covering other EU issues as well as agriculture. The UK Permanent Representative to the European Union in Brussels also has five MAFF officers covering agriculture.

  Officials in my Department, in liaison with the territorial departments, ensure that Officers are kept up to date on all aspects of UK agricultural policy, through day-to-day contact and regular briefing meetings in London.

  Agricultural Exports
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the EU Commission to allow the export of(a) breeding cattle, (b) bovine semen, (c) bovine embryos and (d) breeding sheep. [92399]

  Mr. Rooker
  The export of bovine semen and breeding sheep from the UK is permitted.

  We have not yet made any formal proposals to the Commission on lifting the export ban on embryos and breeding cattle. Up to now we have been concentrating our efforts on the Date-based Export Scheme which enables the resumption of British beef exports. Further relaxations in the export ban covering live cattle and embryos are steps foreseen in the Florence agreement. We need now to consider carefully, in the light of the views of the Government's scientific advisers, and in consultation with interested parties when to open negotiations on these.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has had with the Treasury regarding an exemption for protected horticulture from the proposed climate change levy. [92299]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF officials have discussed the Climate Change Levy with the Treasury. MAFF and Treasury Ministers are aware of the concerns being expressed by the horticultural industry about the impact the Climate Change Levy might have on sectoral competitiveness.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he plans to end the system of quarantine for animals arriving in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [91995]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the means by which he will introduce pet passports. [91996]
  363
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answers 21 July 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Minister announced the Government's plans to reform the rabies quarantine rules on 26 March 1999, Official Report, columns 649-60. The new arrangements will be brought into operation by April 2001, with a pilot scheme as soon as possible (and in any event by April 2000). We will give more details in the near future.

  Pigmeat Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to promote the use of United Kingdom produced pigmeat products by Government Departments, local authorities and other related agencies. [92625]

  Mr. Rooker
  To promote the benefits of British pig production practices, my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to his Cabinet colleagues in Departments with public procurement responsibilities. In these letters, the guarantees that British pigmeat can offer were underlined and attention was also drawn to the good story which the industry has to tell in respect of its efforts on quality assured and welfare friendly production practices. The responses received indicate that quality assured and welfare friendly production practices play a full part in the tender specifications laid down by public procurement bodies.

  We believe that the most effective way to achieve change in the practices of reluctant authorities is for contact to be made at the local level, both by the industry and by local MPs. On those occasions where contact has been made, it seems to have had an effect and we hope this will continue. Indeed, to help it along, my right hon. Friend has decided to write to all MPs actively encouraging them to make contact with public authorities in their constituencies and discuss the procurement policies in respect of pork and pork products.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the British pig industry. [92705]

  Mr. Rooker
  Although market prices in the UK were static for a period in the late spring/early summer, there has been a recent modest price increase and I hope this continues. None the less, the Government are fully aware of the difficulties still facing the pig industry and will continue to do all they can to help while recognising that pigs are traded in a relatively free market with limited opportunity for direct Government involvement. I believe that the new MLC British Pig Executive and the imminent formation of the National Pig Association are important steps in bringing the industry together and will help it build a bright future.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from representatives of the pigmeat industry on the cost to individual producers of offal disposal; and if he will make a statement. [92541]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a number of representations from the pig industry on the cost of offal disposal, both from individuals and from representative organisations. Also, this issue has been raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister by the Chairman of the MLC.
  364

  Beef
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if cattle which meet the requirements for export can also be sold on the domestic market. [92343]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Yes.

  Dairy Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy firms went out of business in the last year; and what assessment he has made of the causes of those firms ceasing to trade. [92624]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information in the form requested is not available. The information available relates to the number of main holdings in the United Kingdom with dairy cows at the June agriculture census, which were estimated to be 36,300 at June 1997 and 35,300 at June 1998. Results from the June 1999 census are not yet available. Holdings can continue with the same activities even though they change ownership and conversely can change their activities while continuing in the same farming business.

  Farmers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers there were in business(a) 10 years ago and (b) at the latest available date. [92717]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information available relates to agriculture holdings rather than farm businesses; some businesses operate more than one holding. The 1988 June agriculture census recorded 247,300 agriculture holdings in the United Kingdom. The equivalent figure for 1998, the latest available, was 237,900.

  Fish-eating Birds
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the results of his research studies into the effect of fish-eating birds on fisheries will be published. [92626]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 29 June 1999,Official Report, column 92.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92655]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. The last time I used a train in the course of my official duties was on 23 July when visiting Pig Farmers in Yorkshire.

  Pet Travel Scheme
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what vaccines will be used in the new pet travel scheme and what laboratories will be able to
  365
  undertake testing; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the arrangements that are being put in place for the introduction of the pilot schemes next year. [93042]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pet cats and dogs taking part in the forthcoming Pet Travel Scheme must be vaccinated against rabies using an inactivated vaccine approved for the purpose by the authorities of the country in which the animal has been resident. There are two such vaccines currently authorised for use in the UK: Nobivac and Rabisin.

  Details of the laboratories that may carry out blood tests for the Pet Travel Scheme will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on managing the changeover from the present quarantine regulations to the new pet travel scheme. [93043]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received representations from a number of individuals and from organisations representing pet owners and the owners of quarantine premises. A Pet Travel Scheme Advisory Group has been set up. This includes representatives from the quarantine industry and others with a direct interest in the Pet Travel Scheme. The Group provides the Government with advice on the Pet Travel Scheme, including managing the changeover from the present arrangements.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to introduce the new arrangements under which(a) he will nominate the certifying local veterinary inspectors to individual consignments of live farm animals destined for export and (b) he will pay the inspectors and recover the costs for this service through charges on the exporter; and if he will make a statement. [93041]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are currently considering the responses to the consultation exercise. We will announce our decision in due course.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of the performance assessments of official veterinary surgeons and their inspection teams. [88281]

  Mr. Rooker
  Performance appraisals are conducted for all Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) staff, whilst contract appraisals are carried out for those Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) and inspection staff contracted to the MHS.

  Both types of appraisal are considered confidential and may contain commercial information relating to the workings of a particular plant. It would therefore be inappropriate for details of these assessments to be published.

  GM Foods
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the(a) volume and (b) value of (i) GM soya and (ii) GM maize imported into the United Kingdom from the United States for each of the last three years. [93076]
  366
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: Total imports of maize and soya beans from the USA for each of the past three years were as follows:

  Maize (unmilled)

  Soya beans

  Value

  Value

  Tonnes

  (£ million)

  Tonnes

  (£ million)

  1996

  12,971

  3.5

  409,762

  77.9

  1997

  7,206

  2.9

  474,226

  86.2

  1998

  7,634

  2.5

  459,804

  71.0

  Trade statistics do not enable us to differentiate between GM and non-GM material.

  Genetically Free Products
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions(a) he has had with European Environment Ministers, and (b) his officials have had with Commission officials on the definition of genetically free products for labelling purposes. [93192]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: No such discussions have taken place with European Environment Ministers on this subject but European Commission officials have recently informed officials here that a Commission proposal on the labelling of GM free claims is planned for the autumn. This proposal will be widely circulated for comment when it is received.

  Regulatory Capture
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the allegations of regulatory capture of US Food and Drugs Administration and the implication thereof for the forthcoming WTO discussions in Seattle. [93071]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: None.

  Mouse-breeding Facilities
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department's mouse-breeding facilities conform to the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [93074]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: Yes. The Department's mouse-breeding facilities do comply with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons his Department has mouse-breeding facilities. [93075]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: My Department has mouse-breeding facilities to generate mice for use in research projects approved under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Milk Marque
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposals for Milk Marque on the access of Milk Marque's members to CAP support measures. [93248]
  367
  Mr. Rooker
  I would not expect there to be a significant impact in the foreseeable future on access to CAP support measures resulting from the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Belize
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on which occasions since 1993 his Department has received written or oral approaches from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on matters relating to fruit production in Belize since 1993. [93240]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested needs to be researched. I will write to my hon. Friend during the first week of August.

  Bees (Genetically Modified Crops)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issues guidance to bee-keepers about protection from contact with genetically modified material in cases where they wish to label their produce as organic and non-genetically modified; and if he will make a statement. [93201]

  Mr. Rooker
  Existing UK rules on organic honey production require that hives are not placed within four miles of conventionally farmed land, private gardens, or areas subject to inorganic pollution. Following the recent agreement on Community livestock standards, including rules on honey production, the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) will be reexamining existing UK standards to determine the changes that will need to be made. This is likely to include the issue of controls on possible GM contamination.

  In the meantime, beekeepers are advised to contact the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for details and location of experimental GM sites so that they may relocate their hives should they so wish.

  Hunting
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision he will make for veterinary supervision and carcase disposal in accordance with European directives, following the introduction of a ban on hunting. [93487]

  Mr. Rooker
  European Community legislation on the disposal of animal carcases is already implemented in Great Britain by the Animal By-Products Order 1999, which is primarily enforced by local authorities. There are no plans to amend the Order in connection with a ban on hunting.

  Rabies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of a ban on hunting on the risk of an outbreak of rabies in this country; and what arrangements he has made to review quarantine regulations governing the importation of animals. [93484]
  368
  Mr. Rooker
  A ban on hunting would have no impact on the risk of an outbreak of rabies occurring in this country.

  On 26 March 1999, Official Report, columns 649-60, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced that he is going to change the law to allow dogs, cats and some other species coming from European Union and certain other qualifying countries to enter the UK without quarantine, provided that they meet certain conditions. The new arrangements will be brought into operation by April 2001, with a pilot scheme as soon as possible, and in any event by April 2000.

  Beef Imports (Specified Risk Materials)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there have been any recent cases of spinal cord discovered in imported beef. [93826]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Since the beginning of June, a number of imported beef forequarters containing small sections of spinal cord have been discovered by Meat Hygiene Service and State Veterinary Service staff at a cutting plant in Great Britain. These forequarters all originated from slaughterhouses in the Republic of Ireland and have been destroyed.

  In response to the Chief Veterinary Officer's request for urgent action by the authorities in the Republic of Ireland, the veterinary authorities there have undertaken to penalise the veterinary inspectors responsible for certifying the beef. They have also told the Irish Meat Association that any failure by a member company to implement the specified risk material (SRM) controls will result in the withdrawal of the Supplementary certification for export to the UK. Their unannounced inspections will also be stepped up. Meat Hygiene Service staff at licensed cutting plants and local authorities are being asked to pay particular attention to beef carcases imported from the Republic of Ireland.

  Since March 1996, the State Veterinary Service's audit has found no spinal cord specified risk material in beef derived from animals slaughtered in Great Britain. The results of these audits are published in the monthly BSE Enforcement Bulletin.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the countries visited by himself and his predecessor since 1 May 1997; [92804]

  (2) when he intends to visit (a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Slovenia and (e) Estonia. [92690]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 June 1999,Official Report, columns 196-97.

  I plan to visit a number of the candidate countries this autumn.
  369

  Cattle Health Scheme
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Waveney of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 193, on the Cattle Health Scheme, if he will provide an update on the future of the Cattle Health Scheme. [93926]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under new animal health trade rules agreed during the last UK Presidency of the EU Council, a case requesting designation of Great Britain as officially EBL-Free was submitted to the EU Commission in May. The Standing Veterinary Committee voted in favour of a Commission Decision granting the status to Great Britain on 2 July. It came into effect on 1 July. The Decision also retained EBL-Free status for Northern Ireland. From 1 July 1999 all herds in GB are to be regarded as officially EBL-Free unless the presence of the disease is suspected in a particular herd.

  RSC performance data (%) for Financial Year 1998–99 1

  Scheme

  Total

  Arable Area Payments Scheme

  Main payments

  99

  Oilseeds

  Advanced payments

  99

  Final payments

  99

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  Advance payments (1998)

  99

  Balance payments (1997)

  99

  CID applications issued (1998)

  99

  Premium paid CIDs issued (1998)

  99

  Stickler Cow Premium Scheme

  Balance payments 1997

  99

  Advance payments 1998

  98

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  Claims 1998

  99

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  Claims marketing year 1998

  99

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  Applications

  84

  Claims

  96

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas Conservation Plan

  Applications

  73

  Claims

  84

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  Applications

  84

  Claims (1998)

  98

  Injurious Weeds

  Complaints

  99

  New Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme

  Applications (1998)

  92

  Claims

  99

  Protection of Badgers Act 1992

  Licence applications

  98

  Strychnine Permits

  Applications

  99

  Agricultural Wage Inspections

  Complaints

  95

  Wildlife and Countryside Act

  Licence applications

  98

  Correspondence

  Answered within 10 working days

  97

  Complaints

  Numbers receiving response within 10 working days

  87

  1 Unless otherwise specified

  Notes:

  1. The relatively high failure rate for the FWPS Applications was due to the diversion of staff resources in two of the RSCs to higher priority work.

  2. The relatively poor performance for the ESA Schemes was primarily caused by uneven workloads, staff turnover and the introduction of a new computer system.

  3. The 87 per cent, response rate to complaints to the RSCs is explained by the fact that often cases require referral to HQ or the National Scheme Management Centres and thus take some time to resolve. It must be stressed however that in all cases where the 10 day target was not met a holding letter was issued to the complainant.

  General Notes:

  (i) The total percentage has been calculated by setting the entire number of applications or claims cleared within the target time, against the total number received. Applications and claims not cleared due to reasons beyond our control (incorrect information supplied by applicant, etc.) are not included as failures to meet target.

  (ii) The Farm Conservation Grant Schemes 1989 and 1991 Applications and Claims and Pilot NSA Claims have been omitted from the table since these schemes are now closed.

  (iii) During the year 16 formal complaints were made to MAFF's central Complaints Adjudicator, of which two were referred elsewhere and three are still outstanding. Of the cases dealt with, six were determined in the complainants favour and five were not upheld.

  370
  The Cattle Health Scheme attests herds as being individually free of EBL, so may not be needed now that GB freedom is achieved. Officials are writing to all members of the Scheme and to the cattle industry to consult them on the future of the Scheme. The formal acknowledgement of our EBL-Free status from the EU is good news for farmers and will reduce bureaucracy. We will of course maintain controls on cattle imports in accordance with EU rules.

  "Commitment to Service"
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in meeting the service delivery targets set out in the paper, "Commitment to Service". [93892]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The table sets out the performance achieved by the Regional Service Centres during 1998–99 against the targets published in the Charter document "Commitment to Service", second edition.
  371

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be consulting the farming industry on his proposals to implement the discretionary aspects of the reformed Common Agricultural Policy. [93602]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The reform of the CAP decided at the Berlin European Council introduced a number of policy areas where member states were given discretion as to whether and/or how they would be applied. In the information notes I circulated to the farming industry and other interested parties following that agreement I undertook to consult widely on the Government's plans would be set in the context of an overall strategy for agriculture which takes into account the need for a competitive, flexible and environmentally friendly industry, which is responsive to consumer wishes and which contributes to the social and economic strengths of rural areas.

  I intend accordingly to write to interested parties including farming industry representatives in the coming weeks setting out my ideas for such a strategy and how the discretionary aspects of the reformed CAP should be applied in this country to help set a new direction for the industry. My Department will also be conducting a series of regional consultants. Members of Parliament will be sent a copy of the consultation documents individually. We will consider responses carefully and announce final decisions during the Autumn.

  Comparable action is being taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive a report from the Veterinary Products Committee on the safety of veterinary medicines other than sheep dips which have an organophosphorus compound as the active ingredient; and if he will make a statement. [93893]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have now received a report from the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  The Government have accepted the VPC's advice that, although there is no evidence that the products concerned are harmful if used in accordance with recommended precautions, marketing authorisation holders should provide additional data to demonstrate the safety of their products. If they are able to provide such date, the Government will take further advice from the VPC on appropriate regulatory action.

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reductions were achieved in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies for the last year for which data is available; what mechanisms exist for monitoring the post-implementation cost of such regulation; and if he has established targets for reduction in the compliance costs of regulation administered by his Department and its public bodies. [92315]
  372
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: Details of regulations which imposed compliance costs on, or achieved compliance savings to, business are published in the Department's regulatory impact assessments and laid in both Houses. Summaries are published in the six monthly Command Paper, and are available on a monthly basis on the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit's web site.

  Regulations are regularly reviewed.

  We have not set an arbitrary target for reducing the compliance costs of regulations. However, in line with Cabinet Office guidance, we assess the risks, costs and benefits of any regulatory proposal which has an impact on business before taking it forward. We always try to keep the burden imposed on business to the minimum necessary.

  The Department published details on the quality and quantity of its regulatory activity in the departmental annual Report.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gold Sales
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations his Department have received on the sale of excess gold reserves by the Bank of England; and from what sources. [92824]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Representations have been received from a number of Governments, gold producers, gold traders, trade unions, Members of Parliament and members of the public.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of military action by the Government of Sudan in the Nuba Mountains region. [89522]

  Mr. Hoon
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  European Commission Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if secondary employment by senior European Commission staff is required to be registered with the Commission; how many of those in senior grades have secondary employment; and if in all cases such employment is in fields unconnected with the Directorate-General in which they work. [91908]

  Ms Quin
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 276, on European Commission staff, if he will request the Secretary General of the European Commission (a) to supply a breakdown of total numbers of employees (i) of each Directorate General and (ii) other parts of the Commission who have been given permission to take secondary employment,

  373
  (b) to supply a copy of the codes adopted by the Commission to determine whether such permission should be given and (c) to indicate at what administrative level such decisions have been made. [92033]

  Ms Quin
  For reasons of personal confidentiality, the Commission does not publish information about the secondary employment of officials below the level of Commissioner. Decisions on secondary employment are normally made by Director-Generals (or, if a Director-General is seeking permission, by the appropriate Commissioner) on the basis of the staff regulations mentioned in my answer on 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 276. These state that permission to take secondary employment should be refused if the nature of the work would impair the official's independence or be detrimental to the work of the Communities.

  Spanish Socialist Opposition Party
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he or his staff last met the leader of the Spanish Socialist opposition party. [91935]

  Ms Quin
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a list of European Communities working groups, indicating the department responsible for supplying the seconded staff at UKREP. [91845]

  Ms Quin
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  European Communities Secretariats (Documents)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request of the relevant European Communities secretariats the number of(a) instruments not published in the Official Journal, (b) routine management instruments valid for a limited time and (c) opinions given by comitology committees, in 1998. [91846]

  Ms Quin
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Prime Minister (Personal Representatives)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all overseas missions undertaken by personal representatives of the Prime Minister or himself since May 1997, where the representatives were neither Ministers nor officials. [90288]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: As has been the practice for previous Administrations, if it is helpful to the UK Government individuals may be asked to carry messages or undertake particular tasks on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary when they travel overseas. We do not maintain a comprehensive record of such occasions.
  374

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times Ministers in his Department held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the Irish ministers and officials at each meeting. [92273]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Patents
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many patents have been registered by(a) his Department and (b) the Government Communications Headquarters since 1 January 1990. [92253]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None.

  Bilderberg Meetings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the members of the European Commission attending Bilderberg meetings have done so in their official capacity; and at what cost to public funds. [92864]

  Ms Quin
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Intergovernmental Conferences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances the presidency is allowed access to tape recordings of intergovernmental conferences; and if he will list those occasions when such access has been provided. [92825]

  Ms Quin
  The Presidency does not have access to tape recordings of intergovernmental conferences. Recordings are made only to assist the Council Secretariat with its note taking.

  Arms Brokers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has had with his European counterparts concerning the implementation of the German presidency proposal to control the activities of arms brokers. [92817]

  Ms Quin
  None. The German proposal is being discussed at working level in the CFSP Working Group on Conventional Arms Exports (COARM), which has not yet reached any conclusions.

  Burma
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the proposed anti-Government demonstrations in Burma on 9 September. [93045]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have not received any representations.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations KFOR is undertaking on the involvement of Hashim Thaci in the murders of Ilir Kanushevci, Ahmet Krasniqi, Agim Ramadani and Sali Ceku; and if he intends to refer this investigation to the International War Crimes Tribunal. [92719]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: I shall reply to my hon. Friend shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Lord Levy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between Lord Levy's business interests and his mission as an envoy for his Department. [93055]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: Any invitation to Lord Levy to deliver messages from the Prime Minister will have taken account of the need to avoid conflicts of interest. I understand from Lord Levy that he has no business interests in Syria or Jordan.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security clearance of Lord Levy. [93056]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: It is not the normal practice to comment on the security clearance of individuals.

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 429, what plans his Department has to make a submission to the current MOX consultation. [93283]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have no plans to make a submission.

  Exports (Licensed Goods)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the measures his Department takes to ensure that licensed goods are exported to the correct end-use destinations. [93511]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: In accordance with our national export licensing criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, when assessing relevant export licence applications we consider carefully whether there is a risk that the goods might be diverted or re-exported to an undesirable end-user.

  All applications for Standard Individual Export Licences to export goods controlled for strategic reasons must be supported by appropriate End-User Undertakings, or, if the consignee is a Government body, a copy of the relevant part of the official purchase order or contract. We ask our overseas posts to carry out checks in cases where we wish to confirm the accuracy of the information contained in end-user documentation.

  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Wilton Park Executive Agency performed against the targets agreed for 1998–99; and what are the agreed targets for the current year. [93803]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Wilton Park exceeded all four of the agreed targets set for the 1998–99 financial year, for the number of conference participants, income, cost recovery and cost per head to the FCO overall.

  1998–99 Targets:

  Income

  £2,051K

  Recovery of cost

  81%

  Number of Wilton Park conference participants

  2,000

  Cost to FCO per conference participant

  £240

  The following key targets have been agreed for the financial year 1999–2000:

  1999–2000 Targets:

  To increase overall income to

  £2,182K

  To maintain cost recovery at

  82.5%

  To maintain the target for the overall number of Wilton Park conference participants at

  2,000

  To achieve an average cost to the FCO of each participant of

  £232

  Entry Clearance Interviews
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which post will be used as a trial for the tape recording of entry clearance interviews, as recommended in the Fourth report on the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1997–98 (HC 515). [93806]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The entry clearance section at the British Deputy High Commission in Bombay will undertake this trial. The trial will run for a three month period from August until October this year. A further three months will be set aside to allow applicants time to register any observations arising from the trial. An evaluation of the trial should therefore be completed in February 2000.

  Gracko
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the killing of 14 Serbs at Gracko, Kosovo, on 23 July. [93808]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We wholeheartedly condemn this massacre and strongly endorse the statement made yesterday by the President of the UN Security Council expressing shock and concern, calling for a speedy and thorough investigation to bring to justice those responsible, and expressing the Security Council's support for the efforts of KFOR and UNMIK to ensure peace and security for all the inhabitants of Kosovo.

  UK members of KFOR are taking the lead in the investigation and we will do all we can to assist KFOR, UNMIK and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in their investigations.
  377
  With our partners in KFOR and UNMIK, we are committed to a democratic, multi-ethnic and peaceful Kosovo. Our aim is for Kosovo Serbs to stay in Kosovo, and for those who have left to return.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work has been undertaken by the OECD to ensure the millennium-readiness of the critical computer systems of member states and for the global economy; and if he will make a statement. [93531]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93460]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Export Control Reports
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional disaggregated information he plans to include in future strategic export control annual reports. [93524]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are considering the format and contents of future annual reports on strategic export controls in the light of responses to the first.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the United Kingdom sponsored draft UN resolution on possible criteria for suspension of sanctions against Iraq. [93512]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK draft Security Council resolution provides for the suspension of the restrictions on exports from Iraq, if Iraq co-operates with a new disarmament mechanism for a sustained period and if Iraq completes key remaining disarmament tasks, to be identified by UNSCOM's successor. Suspension would end immediately if Iraq ceased co-operation, or was found to be reconstituting its weapons of mass destruction programmes. Discussions are continuing within the Council on the draft resolution.

  Saddam Hussein
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will propose the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry at the General Assembly of the United Nations to investigate the crimes of Saddam Hussein. [93513]
  378
  Mr. Hoon
  The Government support those who are working to bring Saddam Hussein and members of his regime to justice for the crimes they have committed. We applaud the work of the organisation INDICT in this regard.

  Iraq
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to seek the extradition of a responsible member of the Iraqi regime from a third country to face charges under the Genocide Act 1969 for persecution of the Kurds of Northern Iraq and the Marsh Arabs of Southern Iraq. [93510]

  Mr. Hoon
  While the Government would wish to see members of the Iraqi regime brought to justice for the appalling crimes they have committed, under the Genocide Act 1969, the Government do not have the right to prosecute individuals for crimes committed beyond the limits of national territory.

  Arms Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many arms export licences were issued between(a) 1 May 1997 and 10 May 1998 and (b) 10 May 1998 and 10 May 1999 to areas of high intensity conflict; and how many licence applications relating to such areas were refused in the same period. [93293]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Details of the Government's export licensing decisions, broken down by country and type of equipment, were given in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls for 1997 and will be given in the Report for 1998 which we intend to publish as soon as possible.

  We do not break down our export licensing statistics on the basis of "areas of high intensity conflict" as we do not categorise specific countries or regions in this way.

  Arms Control
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the international agreements on arms control signed by Her Majesty's Government which include(a) the requirement to take into account the human rights record of the recipient states and (b) the potential which the equipment has to be used for internal repression. [93290]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK Government are party to two sets of internationally agreed criteria governing the export of arms and defence equipment which include requirements to take into account the human rights record of the recipient states and the risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression. These are the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, adopted by EU member states in June 1998, and the principles governing arms transfers agreed by OSCE participating states in 1993.
  379
  Criteria Two of the EU Code states that member states will:

  (a) not issue an export licence if there is clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression; and

  (b) exercise special caution and vigilance in issuing licences, on a case-by-case basis and taking account of the nature of the equipment, to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the component bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe or by the EU.

  The OSCE principles provide that each participating State will, in considering proposed transfers, take into account the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the recipient country, and will avoid transfers which would be likely to be used for the violation or suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms or for the purpose of repression.

  Conflict Prevention
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish a conflict prevention council to include representatives of other departments to report on countries of high conflict potential. [93295]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government's work on conflict prevention is carefully co-ordinated. The Joint Intelligence Committee brings together all the relevant Departments and agencies to assess situations and issues of current concern. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development (and other Departments as appropriate) work closely together on conflict prevention policies both overall and in relation to individual regions and countries at risk.

  Strategic Exports
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the next annual report on strategic export controls will contain details of(a) the amounts of weapons and equipment contained in each category, (b) the end-users for which the export licence was granted and (c) strategic exports supported by (i) the Disposal Sales Agency and (ii) the Crown Agents. [93480]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are considering the format and contents of future annual reports on strategic export controls in the light of responses to the first.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next annual report on strategic exports will be published; and if it will be made available through the Stationery Office. [93481]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We will publish the second Annual Report as soon as possible.

  We have not yet decided whether to make the annual report available through the Stationery Office. Copies of the first Annual Report have been placed in the Library of the House and are also available free of charge from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The first Annual Report has also been published on the FCO website.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many public interest immunity certificates or equivalent document 380
  have been provided by Ministers or officials in his Department since 3 May 1997; and at what level each such certificate or other document has been signed. [93533]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I shall reply to the right hon. and learned Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is held by the United Kingdom Embassy in Tallinn about the dates of visits by Ministers of other EU countries to Estonia since the enlargement process began; and if he will make a statement. [92685]

  Ms Quin
  The United Kingdom Embassy in Tallinn does not hold information about the visits of all EU Ministers. However, a list of Heads of State, Head of Government and Foreign Ministers that have visited Estonia since 30 March 1998 has been compiled.

  Tallinn

  April 1998: Irish Prime Minister

  July 1998: Austrian Foreign Minister

  January 1998: Danish Foreign Minister

  The Finns often visit. The most recent was 14 July 1999, when the Finnish Foreign Minister visited.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is held by the United Kingdom Embassy in Budapest about the dates of visits by Ministers of other EU countries to Hungary since the enlargement process began; and if he will make a statement. [92687]

  Ms Quin
  The United Kingdom Embassy in Budapest does not hold information about the visits of all EU Ministers. However, a list of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers that have visited Hungary since 30 March 1998 has been compiled.

  Budapest

  22–24 April 1998: Greek President

  15 July 1998: Austrian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister

  1 August 1998: German Foreign Minister

  2 September 1998: Danish Crown Prince and Foreign Minister

  4 September 1998: Austrian President Thomas Klestil

  27–28 September 1998: Finnish President Ahtisaari

  17–18 December 1998: French Foreign Minister

  7 January 1999: German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer

  19 January 1999: French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine

  25 January 1999: Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima

  11 March 1999: Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema

  6–8 April 1999: Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar

  11–16 April 1999: Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio

  6 May 1999: Council of Europe Foreign Ministers' meeting (50th Anniversary).

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is held by the United Kingdom Embassy in Ljubljana about the dates of visits by Ministers of other EU countries to Slovenia since the enlargement process began; and if he will make a statement. [92684]
  381
  Ms Quin
  The United Kingdom Embassy in Ljubljana does not hold information about the visits of all EU Ministers. However, a list of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers that have visited Slovenia since 30 March 1998 has been compiled.

  Ljubljana

  27 May 1998: Greek Foreign Minister Theodorus Pangalos

  22 June 1998: Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene

  3 July 1998: Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen

  6 July 1998: Austrian Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schuessel

  7 September 1998: Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Junker

  18 September 1998: Austrian President Thomas Klestil

  10 December 1998: Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema

  10 December 1998: Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari

  31 January 1999: Belgian Foreign Minister Erik Derycke

  10 April 1999: Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio

  15 June 1999: Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is held by the United Kingdom Embassy in Prague about the dates of visits by Ministers of other EU countries to the Czech Republic since the enlargement process began; and if he will make a statement. [92686]

  Ms Quin
  The United Kingdom Embassy in Prague does not hold information about the visits of all EU Ministers. However, a list of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers that have visited the Czech Republic since 30 March 1998 has been compiled.

  Prague

  7 July 1998: Austrian Foreign Minister Schuessel

  23 September 1998: Austrian President Klestil

  18–19 November 1998: French Prime Minister Jospin

  12–14 December 1998: Spanish Prime Minister Aznar

  6–7 January 1999: German Foreign Minister Fischer.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is held by the United Kingdom Embassy in Warsaw about the dates of visits by Ministers of other EU countries to Poland since the enlargement process began; and if he will make a statement. [92688]

  Ms Quin
  The United Kingdom Embassy in Warsaw does not hold information about the visits of all EU Ministers. However, a list of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers that have visited Poland since 30 March 1998 has been compiled.

  Warsaw

  May 1998: Finnish President Ahtisaari

  June 1998: German Chancellor Kohl

  June 1998: Irish Foreign Minister Andrews

  September 1998: Austrian President Klestil

  September 1998: Portuguese Prime Minister Sampaio

  September 1998: Swedish Queen Sylvia

  October 1998: German Chancellor Kohl

  October 1998: German Foreign Minister Fischer

  October 1998: Finnish Prime Minister Lipponen

  November 1998: German Chancellor Schroeder

  November 1998: Greek Prime Minister Simitis with Foreign Minister Pangalos

  November 1998: Austrian Chancellor Klima

  January 1999: Finnish Prime Minister Lipponen

  382

  February 1999: Dutch Foreign Secretary van Aartsen

  March 1999: Italian Prime Minister D'Alema

  April 1999: German Foreign Minister Fischer

  April 1999: German Chancellor Schroeder

  May 1999: Belgian King Albert II

  May 1999: Belgian Foreign Minister Derycke

  May 1999: Dutch Prime Minister Kok

  July 1999: French Prime Minister Jospin.

  Entry Clearance (Children)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many children by nationality, have been refused entry clearance for settlement because their parent in the United Kingdom has not had the sole responsibility for their upbringing, under paragraph 297(e) of the Immigration Rules, in each year since May 1997. [93327]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not recorded centrally or at overseas posts and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Belarus
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will continue to recognise Mr. Lukashenko as President of Belarus after the expiry of his constitutional term on 27 July; and if he will make a statement. [92805]

  Ms Quin
  We recognise states rather than Governments. Therefore the question of recognition of President Lukashenko does not arise. In its declaration of 20 July, the EU made clear its view that President Lukashenko's mandate under the 1994 Constitution expired on that day.

  Overseas Documents
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications by the Crown Prosecution Service for assistance in securing documents from overseas, pursuant to an investigation in the UK, he has(a) supported by making representations to foreign Governments and (b) declined to support in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [93556]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply regarding his letter of 29 June concerning a constituent. (ref. GV100/51886). [93250]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons, replied to my hon. Friend on 26 July.

  Visa Fees
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list (i) the
  383
  total receipts from fees for (a) visa, (b) settlement and (c) other immigration applications and (ii) the total cost of entry clearance operations, for 1998–99. [92906]

  Mr. Hoon
  Visa fee income is broken down into two categories only: settlement and non-settlement applications. The total receipts for the Financial Year 1998–99 were:

  £ million

  Applications

  Non-settlement applications

  55.7

  Settlement applications

  11.3

  Total fee income

  67.0

  The provisional cost of the entry clearance operation for 1998–99 is £65.2 million. The final 1998–99 costs figure will not be available until the end of August.

  Belize
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since 1993 his Department received written or oral approaches from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on matters relating to banking regulations in Belize. [92069]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No Minister in this Department has received oral or written representations from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on this subject since the change of Government in May 1997.

  Ordtech Ltd.
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he, his Ministers, advisers or officials last met or had contact with any director of Ordtech Ltd. [92732]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Neither myself nor other FCO Ministers nor FCO Special Advisers have had any official meetings with Mr. Paul or John Grecian of Ordtech Ltd. In the time available we have not been able to make an

  Staff employed in the Chancellor's Departments and agencies

  Local authority area

  C and E

  IR

  CA

  VO

  NS

  Total

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  194

  182

  —

  11

  —

  387

  Argyll and Bute

  5

  31

  —

  —

  —

  36

  Borders

  —

  36

  —

  —

  —

  36

  Dumbarton and Clydebank

  28

  23

  —

  —

  —

  51

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7

  56

  —

  6

  —

  69

  Dundee

  139

  133

  —

  —

  —

  272

  East Renfrewshire

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Edinburgh

  261

  1,643

  —

  33

  —

  1,937

  Falkirk

  52

  30

  —

  —

  —

  82

  Fife

  —

  131

  —

  —

  —

  131

  Glasgow

  393

  619

  —

  24

  7

  1,043

  Highlands

  20

  123

  —

  9

  —

  152

  Inverclyde

  127

  38

  —

  —

  —

  165

  Moray

  16

  15

  —

  —

  —

  31

  North Ayrshire

  —

  38

  —

  —

  —

  38

  North Lanarkshire

  24

  1,078

  —

  —

  —

  1,102

  Perthshire and Kinross

  —

  28

  —

  —

  —

  28

  Renfrewshire

  130

  46

  —

  —

  —

  176

  Shetland

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  South Ayrshire

  54

  63

  —

  —

  —

  117

  South Lanarkshire

  —

  1,628

  —

  —

  —

  1,628

  Stirling

  —

  52

  —

  —

  —

  52

  Total staff

  1,461

  6,033

  202

  83

  7

  7,786

  384
  extensive check with regard to officials, but to the best of my knowledge there have not been any meetings with officials.

  I understand that Mr. Grecian had access to the FCO in 1997 as he was employed by a contractor working here. While working in the FCO, he approached one of my advisers in the corridor and in the course of his work may have approached other officials.

TREASURY

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed in Scotland(a) by his Department and (b) by executive agencies responsible to his Department; where these staff are located; and how many staff are employed in (i) England, (ii) London and the South East, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) United Kingdom in total. [90562]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: The statistics for the Chancellor's Departments and Agencies comprise:

  HM Customs and Excise (HMC&E)

  Inland Revenue (IR) including Contributions Agency (CA)

  HM Treasury (HMT)

  Debt Management Office (DMO)

  Valuation Office (VO)

  National Savings (NS)

  Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  Royal Mint (RM)

  Government Actuary's Department (GAD).

  The following tables summarise by Department and Agency the latest headcount figures available and include part-time staff and those employed on casual contracts. Changes following the recent merger of the Contributions Agency with Inland Revenue and the outsourcing of National Savings work have been reflected. Local Authority area groupings have been used to summarise the location of staff in Scotland except that figures are not yet available for Contributions Agency staff.
  385

  Staff employed in the Chancellor's Departments and agencies—United Kingdom summary figures

  Department

  England

  London and South East

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  HM C and E

  21,989

  13,501

  587

  616

  1,461

  24,653

  IR (inc. CA)

  50,187

  14,410

  3,906

  1,326

  6,235

  61,654

  HMT

  900

  900

  —

  —

  —

  900

  DMO

  29

  29

  —

  —

  —

  29

  VO

  3,849

  1,639

  218

  —

  83

  4,150

  NS

  115

  107

  —

  —

  7

  122

  ONS

  2,395

  1,621

  895

  —

  —

  3,290

  RM

  16

  16

  1,068

  —

  —

  1,084

  GAD

  97

  97

  —

  —

  —

  97

  Totals

  79,577

  32,320

  6,674

  1,942

  7,786

  95,979

  ISAs
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he is undertaking to gauge the effectiveness of individual savings accounts in encouraging saving among those on low incomes. [93316]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 8 July 1999,Official Report, column 609.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (1) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91025]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested. As published in the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments have already made some significant progress, for example:

  The Inland Revenue have put in place Green Transport Plans at six of their sites and are now working on the roll-out of a further 300 plans by 31 March 2000, in line with the White Paper target. The plans include measures to reduce both business and commuter travel and promote alternative travel arrangements. Environmental considerations are also being addressed by adopting a number of initiatives, including:
  downsizing the cc of the Pool and Private Use Scheme car fleet;
  piloting and promoting the use of bi-fuelled vehicles (LPG/Petrol);
  with DSS, a joint tender programme to supply and install bunkered Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) taken on sites throughout the UK to encourage and support the use of this alternative fuel;
  386
  an appraisal of the use of electric cars;
  providing defensive driver training which has a strong emphasis on better environmental driving techniques for 450 (50 per cent.) of our PUS drivers.

  Customs and Excise have established Local Transport Plans in its headquarters sites. All other key sites will have established plans by the end of March 2000. Each plan forms the basis of a continuing programme of improvement to meet both the Government's commitments and to obtain the maximum benefits from local knowledge and experience, and covers:

  strategic issues;

  commuting;

  business travel;

  commercial/suppliers;

  fleet.

  The plans include measures to promote car sharing, public transport use, cycling and other solutions to reduce business travel (such as video conferencing) and raise awareness of the environmental and business issues associated with travel. Suppliers and contractors are required to support these plans.

  HM Treasury introduced a Green Transport Plan in March 1999 covering its two buildings. The plans include, among other things, measures to:
  set up a Bicycle User Group (BUG);
  review travel and subsistence policy;
  ensure all cars supplied under the Government Car and Despatch Agency contract are converted to run on alternative fuels by February 2000;
  reduce car parking spaces to the standards laid down by Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities for Central London.

  The National Savings Agency has completed a Green Transport Plan. The plan includes measures to minimise the environmental impact of travel on official business as well as facilitating employee use of public transport.

  The Royal Mint has completed Green Transport Plans covering all key buildings in line with the targets set out in the White Paper. The plans include measures to reduce single-occupancy car use by employees.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has completed Green Transport Plans covering all its main buildings, both in London and nationwide, in line with targets set out in the White Paper. The plans include measures to positively encourage the use of public transport and to reduce single occupancy car use by employees for business.

  Endowment Policies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the number of endowment policies that are surrendered each year and (b) the lapse rate for new endowment policies; and if he will list those aspects of the surrender of endowment policies to which the Financial Services Act 1986 regulatory regime applies. [92463]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: There are no published figures available for the number of endowment policies discontinued each year.

  In October 1998, the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) estimated that, for regular premium endowment policies sold in 1996, the most recent figures available, the percentage of policies discontinued during the first year is as follows.

  Percentage

  Sales channel

  Discontinued in year one

  Company representative

  6.5

  Independent financial adviser

  4.5

  Direct offer advertisement

  4.5

  Home service

  13.0

  Persistency generally improves during the lifetime of endowment policies. It is inaccurate to extrapolate these figures to subsequent years. Policies discontinued in early years are generally worthless on the traded endowment policy (TEP) market.

  The surrender of endowment policies is not regulated under the Financial Services Act (1986).

  Benefits Payments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what level of weekly income for a family of two adults with two children aged 10 and four-years-old he has set as the level which must be exceeded for that family to be lifted out of poverty if the main earner is(a) in work and receiving no benefits and (b) out of work and receiving income support, after receipt of housing and council tax benefits; [93318]

  (2) what level of income for a couple with the woman pregnant for the first time he has set as the level which must be exceeded for that family to be lifted out of poverty if the main earner is (a) in work and receiving no benefits and (b) out of work and receiving income support, after receipt of housing and council tax benefits. [93319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's welfare reform programme aims to tackle the root causes of poverty, help people to earn a decent income through work, and provide security for those unable to work. We have announced an ambitious programme of support for families including increases in child benefit, a new Children's Tax Credit, increase in the Working Families Tax Credit and Income Support, and a new Sure Start Maternity Grant of £200. By the end of this Parliament, we will be spending an extra £6 billion a year on children. The Working Families Tax Credit will benefit 1.5 million families who will receive an average of £24 a week more than Family Credit. It will provide a guaranteed minimum income of 388
  £200 a week for a family with someone in full-time work on the national minimum wage, and more for families with more than one child.

  Families with children will, on average, be £740 a year better off as a result of measures in the last two Budgets. We estimate that 800,000 children will be lifted out of poverty as a result. The definition of poverty which underpins this statement was explained in the written answer which the Economic Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 14 April 1999, Official Report, column 244.

  Arms Control
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will hypothecate the revenue received from defence export levies in order to fund arms control initiatives. [93296]

  Mr. Milburn
  No.

  Inland Revenue (Bournemouth)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Inland Revenue offices in Bournemouth are not within the area of responsibility of the Director of the Inland Revenue South West Region Executive Office. [93361]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue offices in Bournemouth have been in the area of responsibility of the Director of the Inland Revenue South East Regional Executive Office since the Department was reorganised on a Regional basis in the mid-1970s.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate the Government have made of the amount of tobacco smuggling into the United Kingdom, broken down by country, in the last year for which figures are available. [93219]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The provisional assessment of HM Customs and Excise based on their work in progress to monitor the scale of such smuggling (chiefly of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco) is that the total amount of revenue (excise duty and VAT) evaded through all forms of smuggling of tobacco products in 1998 was around £1.7 billion.

  There are insufficient data on which to base a robust quantitative analysis of the amounts smuggled from individual countries.

  VAT
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to implement the recommendation of the urban Task Force to harmonise VAT rates at(a) zero and (b) 5 per cent. for new building and conversions and refurbishments; and if he will make a statement. [93301]

  Dawn Primarolo
  EC agreements mean that we cannot introduce any new zero rates or a reduced rate for work to existing buildings.
  389
  The Government share the urban Task Force's desire for an urban renaissance and is giving careful consideration to the report's recommendations. We will give our detailed response to the report in the forthcoming Urban White Paper.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the annual average income of wage earners and the proportion of that income taken in direct tax on the basis of the single person's rate each year since 1986. [92683]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The information requested is as set out.

  Annual average earnings1

  Percentage of income taken in tax for a single person with average earnings1

  1986–87

  8,811

  21.3

  1987–88

  9,516

  20.1

  1988–89

  10,405

  18.7

  1989–90

  11,406

  18.9

  1990–91

  12,384

  19.8

  1991–92

  13,299

  18.8

  1992–93

  13,985

  18.1

  1993–94

  14,435

  18.2

  1994–95

  14,877

  18.2

  1995–96

  15,376

  18.2

  1996–97

  16,016

  17.4

  1997–98

  16,679

  16.7

  1998–99

  17,372

  16.7

  1999–2000

  18,129

  16.4

  1 Average earnings are median earnings for all full-time employees where pay was unaffected by absence, from the New Earnings Survey

  2 Based on the 1998 New Earnings Survey uprated in line with the 1999 Budget forecast.

  World Trade
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom share of world trade(a) as a whole and (b) in manufactured goods in each year since 1970; and what was the value of (i) UK and (ii) world trade in each of those years. [92560]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: Data for world and UK merchandise trade since 1970, both expressed in US dollars, can be found in the IMF's quarterly Direction of Trade Statistics publication.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the levels of investment in manufacturing industry since 1979. [92681]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The Government have clearly recognised that the UK has a long history of under-performance in investment. That is why they have put in place a comprehensive range of measures designed to tackle this weakness, including macroeconomic reforms to provide a stable environment and a tax framework to encourage investment, such as reducing the rate of corporation tax to its lowest level ever.
  390

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the nominal and real level of interest rates for each year since 1979. [92559]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: Data on short and long-term interest rates, both in the UK and other OECD countries, are available in the publication 'OECD Economic Outlook' in Annexe tables 36 and 37 respectively. An estimate of the real level of interest rates can be calculated using the inflation data contained in table 16 of the same publication.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further developments there have been in the Tax Law Rewrite project. [93812]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Tax Law Rewrite project is continuing to make good progress. The Inland Revenue will shortly publish the project's seventh Exposure Draft, which contains draft clauses on capital allowances for agricultural buildings, scientific research, mineral extraction and plant and machinery. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  This Exposure Draft is the third instalment in a series that will completely rewrite the capital allowances code. The rewritten legislation in this publication will form part of the first rewrite Bill next year.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how fuel used in chemical reactions will be treated under the climate change levy. [93817]

  Ms Hewitt
  As indicated in the consultation document published by Customs and Excise on Budget day, coal and gas used in chemical reactions will not be subject to the levy. Officials at Customs are having useful discussions with industry about how to apply the exemption to fuels used both for chemical reaction and for heating, such as in the steel industry. In the light of the representations received on the treatment of electrolysis, we propose to extend this to electricity. We propose that electricity used for electrolysis, either for the production of chloralkalis or the primary smelting of aluminium, will be exempt from the levy to the extent that it is used in chemical reactions. Again, Customs will discuss precisely how this will work with the industries involved with a view to the revised treatment being included in the draft clauses to be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in relation to the potential of the proposed climate change levy on certain fuels to increase carbon dioxide emissions. [92152]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations in the course of the consultation on the climate change levy. These will be considered very carefully in determining the final design of the levy.

  Civil Registration
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made regarding the review of civil registration in England and Wales announced on 7 December 1998. [93818]

  Ms Hewitt
  The first stage of the review is complete. A consultation paper will be published in early September which seeks the public's views on the future development of the registration service in England and Wales. A full three months will be allowed for responses.

  Construction Industry (Tax)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) Construction Tax Certificates and (b) Subcontractors Tax Certificates under the new construction industry scheme have been issued; how many are awaiting processing; and how many approved applications will not be issued before 1 August. [92410]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The Inland Revenue keep statistics of the numbers of applications received on a monthly basis for both registration cards and tax certificates. The latest figures show that 120,000 applications have been received for certificates and that 14,155 Construction Tax Certificates have been issued and 82,978 Subcontractor Tax Certificates have been issued. In addition, the Inland Revenue has issued 391,630 registration cards to those who do not qualify for a certificate.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications have been received for(a) Construction Tax Certificates and (b) Subcontractors Tax Certificates under the new construction industry scheme; how many have been approved; how many have been rejected; and how many are still being considered. [92409]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The Inland Revenue only keep details of the total number of certificate applications received; they do not keep details of how many of those applications are for either a CIS6 or a CIS5. The latest figures show that 120,000 applications have been received for certificates in total. The Inland Revenue have issued 97,133 certificates in total. Around 15 per cent. of applications fail to meet the criteria so the Inland Revenue currently anticipate issuing no more than 103,000 certificates. The Inland Revenue have also issued 391,630 registration cards to those who do not qualify for a certificate.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons no telephone number is available to enable callers to check with the processing centre in Liverpool about when construction tax certificates will be issued. [92412]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Tax offices are able to advise a subcontractor, from the computer records which are updated daily, whether their application has been authorised and, if so, whether their certificate has been issued or if their application is ready for processing. There is no need for any taxpayer to contact the processing office about their application form as the tax office will be able to give them all the available information. Subcontractors can also obtain some
  392
  information from the subcontractors helpline which has been set up to provide general information about the scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many construction industry application forms for(a) construction tax certificates and (b) subcontractors tax certificates have been rejected by the Inland Revenue on the basis that part of the signature was outside the white box on page 2; and if he will make a statement. [92408]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: The Inland Revenue do not keep details of the reasons why any particular application form may be rejected. All application forms are issued with guidance notes for completion but where a subcontractor has not completed the form correctly Inland Revenue staff will try to identify this when the application form is handed in to them. If the error is not immediately identified but is discovered, the applicant will be called back as soon as possible so that they can complete another form correctly.

  EU Expenditure
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1999,Official Report, columns 132–34, what were the amounts involved in each of the budget lines (a) blocked initially, (b) now unblocked and (c) still frozen; and what are the implications for the UK Government's budget and financial planning of the European Court of Justice ruling of 12 May 1998; [92729]

  (2) what legal implications for the UK arise from the European Court of Justice's judgment of 12 May 1998; and, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1999, Official Report, columns 132–34, what were the legal bases found for each of the budget lines unblocked. [92730]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The budget lines initially suspended by the Commission following the European Court of Justice ruling of 12 May 1998 were listed in my previous answer of 29 June 1999, Official Report, columns 132–34. The amounts contained on each of these lines in the 1998 adopted budget can be found in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L44, Volume 41, published on 16 February 1998, which is available in the Library of the House.

  The guidelines clarifying the funding of measures through the EU budget are set out in the Inter Institutional Agreement on legal bases and implementation of the budget, on which an explanatory memorandum (10893/98) was submitted in October 1998.

  The Government welcomed the European Court of Justice ruling of 12 May 1998, which supports budget discipline. The ruling related specifically to expenditure by the Commission in the EU budget, and has no other legal implications for the UK.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [92656]
  393
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: In accordance with the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Journeys in and around London, which account for the majority of the Chancellor's working week, will normally be made by Government car.

  The Chancellor last used a train in the course of his official duties on 5 July 1999, when he travelled to Bournemouth for the TGWU conference.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which the statement of jobseeker's allowance paid on Form 604 enables accurate deduction of income tax for the year in question. [92310]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1999]: Neither the Inland Revenue nor the Benefits Agency issue a Form 604 in connection with the jobseeker's allowance.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts of a value greater than £10,000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [90835]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 July 1999]: Since 1 April to date, the Treasury had or has contracts of a value of greater than £10,000 in the following areas:

  Area

  Number of contracts

  Value (£)

  London

  111

  10,800,000

  South East England

  162

  7,500,000

  England

  148

  7,900,000

  Scotland

  2

  49,000

  Wales

  2

  311,000

  Northern Ireland

  0

  —

  DEL Scheme
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the entitlements for 1999–2000 resulting from the carry forward of underspends allowed under the DEL end year flexibility scheme. [93819]

  Mr. Milburn
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, individual departmental DELs, running costs limits and external finance limits will be increased when entitlement is taken up.

  The increase in DEL resulting from the take up of end year flexibility will be charged to the DEL Reserve and £700 million, representing the underspend in 1998–99 on programmes within DEL, is being carried forward into the 1999–2000 DEL Reserve for this purpose. A list of entitlements will be placed in the Library.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the 394
  Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved, and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials at each meeting. [90404]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met his Irish counterpart, Charlie McCreevy, on a number of occasions in the margins of meetings of European Finance Ministers. In addition they had a meeting on 12 March 1998 in London.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if those categories of income excluded from taxation with effect from 6 April by the Finance Bill 1999 will be similarly excluded in the calculation of income for the purposes of the Working Families Tax Credit with effect from October 1999. [91835]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The rules for the categories of income which are to be excluded from the calculation of the Working Families Tax Credit build on those for Family Credit. They can be found in the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987, and the draft Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulation 1999 published on 5 July.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date staff in the Inland Revenue inquiry offices will be trained to make better-off calculations for inquirers considering taking up employment; and if the Inland Revenue will advise Family Credit claimants whether they would be better off waiting to claim Working Families Tax Credit rather than renewing or making a claim for Family Credit for the first time. [91833]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Advice on Family Credit and transition to WFTC will continue to be available from the Family Credit Unit Helpline. The training to enable existing IR staff, including those in IR inquiry offices, to tell potential applicants how much WFTC might be due if they made a claim will begin on 31 August.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue will first accept and begin to examine claims for the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit. [91831]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit awards will begin from 5 October. The Inland Revenue will accept applications and have procedures in place in advance of this date to ensure that payments are made as soon as possible after 5 October.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that before employers are involved in the administration of the Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit in April 2000, the lessons learned from the practical experience with the new forms and procedures for those credits in Autumn 1999 will be taken into account. [91834]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The joint Inland Revenue/Benefits Agency Project Team will be drawing on the practical experience of the October 1999 changes in finalising the arrangements for April 2000. Inland Revenue officials will continue to consult employer representatives on the details of the scheme.
  395
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date training for staff will be completed in the Inland Revenue inquiry offices on the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit. [91832]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Help and advice will continue as now, to be available in Benefits Agency and Employment Service offices. The initial training of all Inland Revenue staff who may expect to deal with inquiries about working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit will take place in September and October 1999 so as to ensure that sufficient numbers of trained staff are in position to deal effectively with such inquiries.

  Own Resources
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Commission proposal on own resources at ECOFIN on 12 July. [92830]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Berlin European Council agreed that a new Own Resources Decision should be introduced under which the UK abatement will remain; the ceiling on EU own resources is kept at 1.27 per cent. of EU GNP; and contributions related to VAT and "traditional" own resources are reduced in favour of fairer payments linked to member states' GNPs. At ECOFIN on 12 July the Commission made a short presentation of their draft of that Decision. I shall shortly be submitting an Explanatory Memorandum on it to the Scrutiny Committee.

  European Anti-fraud Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the presidency reports on the implementation of the European anti-fraud office approved at ECOFIN on 12 July. [92829]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Presidency made an oral report on progress on the implementation of the European anti-fraud

  Table showing numbers and percentages of taxpayers with total incomes greater than £50,000, £60,000, £70,000, £100,000 and £150,000 by county

  More than £50,000

  More than £60,000

  More than £70,000

  More than £100,000

  More than £150,000

  County/country

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Greater London

  135,400

  4.5

  99,300

  3.3

  77,900

  2.6

  44,300

  1.5

  24,300

  0.8

  Greater Manchester

  16,000

  1.6

  9,900

  1.0

  6,800

  0.7

  3,500

  0.3

  1,740

  0.2

  Merseyside

  7,000

  1.4

  4,900

  1.0

  3,700

  0.7

  1,600

  0.3

  1—

  1—

  South Yorkshire

  5,600

  1.1

  3,600

  0.7

  2,600

  0.5

  1,200

  0.2

  1—

  1—

  Tyne and Wear

  4,000

  1.0

  2,500

  0.6

  1,800

  0.4

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  West Midlands

  12,700

  1.3

  8,300

  0.8

  5,500

  0.6

  2,400

  0.2

  982

  0.1

  West Yorkshire

  14,200

  1.6

  9,300

  1.0

  6,600

  0.7

  3,400

  0.4

  1,560

  0.2

  Former County of Avon

  9,100

  2.0

  5,300

  1.2

  4,000

  0.9

  1,800

  0.4

  1—

  1—

  Bedfordshire

  5,500

  2.2

  3,800

  1.5

  2,600

  1.1

  900

  0.4

  1—

  1—

  Berkshire

  18,500

  5.0

  11,900

  3.2

  8,100

  2.2

  3,700

  1.0

  1,540

  0.4

  Buckinghamshire

  18,900

  6.0

  13,300

  4.2

  9,800

  3.1

  4,700

  1.5

  2,250

  0.7

  Cambridgeshire

  9,000

  3.0

  5,400

  1.8

  3,700

  1.2

  1,500

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  Cheshire

  13,000

  2.9

  8,500

  1.9

  6,100

  1.4

  3,100

  0.7

  1,340

  0.3

  Former County of Cleveland

  1,400

  0.7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2,200

  1.1

  1,500

  0.7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cumbria

  2,800

  1.3

  2,100

  1.0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Derbyshire

  7,300

  1.7

  5,100

  1.2

  3,200

  0.7

  1,200

  0.3

  1—

  1—

  Devon

  8,000

  1.8

  4,500

  1.0

  3,300

  0.8

  1,400

  0.3

  1—

  1—

  Dorset

  6,900

  2.1

  4,600

  1.4

  3,900

  1.2

  2,500

  0.8

  1—

  1—

  Durham

  2,400

  1.0

  1,600

  0.7

  1,100

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Sussex

  9,600

  2.7

  6,300

  1.8

  4,900

  1.4

  2,200

  0.6

  1,100

  0.3

  Essex

  24,900

  3.7

  16,800

  2.5

  11,700

  1.7

  6,200

  0.9

  2,770

  0.4

  Gloucestershire

  6,400

  2.3

  3,800

  1.3

  2,700

  1.0

  1,300

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  Hampshire

  22,100

  2.9

  14,400

  1.9

  9,900

  1.3

  4,400

  0.6

  1,760

  0.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,200

  2.2

  5,300

  1.6

  4,100

  1.2

  1,500

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  Hertfordshire

  24,900

  4.8

  16,400

  3.1

  11,500

  2.2

  5,800

  1.1

  2,750

  0.5

  Former County of Humberside

  6,500

  1.7

  4,500

  1.2

  3,200

  0.8

  1,900

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  Former County of Isle of Wight

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Kent

  18,700

  2.6

  13,300

  1.9

  9,400

  1.3

  4,500

  0.6

  2,160

  0.3

  396
  office and tabled two documents. The first concerned the appointment of the Members of the Supervisory Committee and was deposited for scrutiny on 21 July. The second was a draft Council decision concerning implementation. I will send this to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee for information when I receive a copy of the final decision which was approved.

  EIB Loans
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the ECOFIN Council of 12 July endorsed increased commitments to EIB loans to third countries. [92871]

  Ms Hewitt
  The ECOFIN Council of 12 July agreed to renew the Community guarantee for EIB lending in third countries for a further seven years from 1 February 2000. The guarantee will cover average annual lending of up to euro 2,630 million during this period. This is an increase on the volume of lending under the existing guarantee which covers an average of approximately euro 2,450 million a year (over a three year period).

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each county in England and for the relevant areas in Wales and Scotland the number and percentage of taxpayers with taxable incomes over(a) £50,000, (b) £60,000, (c) £70,000, (d) £100,000 and (e) £150,000. [93120]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows approximate estimates of the number and percentage of taxpayers with taxable incomes above the levels requested in 1996–97, the latest year for which there is information available. These estimates are based on a sample survey and the sample size is not large enough to allow estimates to be made for the majority of unitary authorities in Wales and Scotland.
  397

  Table showing numbers and percentages of taxpayers with total incomes greater than £50,000, £60,000, £70,000, £100,000 and £150,000 by county

  More than £50,000

  More than £60,000

  More than £70,000

  More than £100,000

  More than £150,000

  County/country

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Lancashire

  9,300

  1.5

  5,800

  0.9

  4,200

  0.7

  2,000

  0.3

  1—

  1—

  Leicestershire

  8,800

  2.0

  5,000

  1.2

  3,800

  0.9

  1,500

  0.3

  1—

  1—

  Lincolnshire

  4,300

  1.6

  3,100

  1.2

  2,200

  0.8

  1,100

  0.4

  1—

  1—

  Norfolk

  6,400

  1.7

  4,300

  1.2

  2,900

  0.8

  1,300

  0.4

  1—

  1—

  Northamptonshire

  7,100

  2.6

  5,000

  1.8

  3,300

  1.2

  1,600

  0.6

  1—

  1—

  Northumberland

  3,900

  3.0

  2,300

  1.8

  1,800

  1.4

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Former County of North Yorkshire

  10,000

  2.9

  6,200

  1.8

  4,800

  1.4

  2,200

  0.6

  1,000

  0.3

  Nottinghamshire

  7,300

  1.6

  4,600

  1.0

  3,300

  0.7

  1,400

  0.3

  1—

  1—

  Oxfordshire

  12,000

  4.2

  7,200

  2.5

  5,400

  1.9

  2,700

  0.9

  1,120

  0.4

  Shropshire

  4,800

  2.4

  3,100

  1.5

  2,000

  1.0

  1,000

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  Somerset

  4,000

  1.6

  2,300

  0.9

  1,700

  0.7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Staffordshire

  7,000

  1.5

  4,500

  1.0

  3,300

  0.7

  1,300

  0.3

  1—

  1—

  Suffolk

  6,300

  2.2

  4,500

  1.6

  3,500

  1.2

  1.500

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  Surrey

  36,400

  6.9

  26,600

  5.1

  20,000

  3.8

  10,700

  2.0

  5,180

  1.0

  Warwickshire

  7,800

  3.3

  5,100

  2.1

  3,800

  1.6

  1,500

  0.6

  1—

  1—

  West Sussex

  13,200

  3.4

  8,900

  2.3

  5,900

  1.5

  2,800

  0.7

  1,150

  0.3

  Wiltshire

  8,600

  2.7

  6,100

  1.9

  3,000

  1.0

  1,500

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  Wales

  13,200

  1.1

  8,900

  0.8

  5,600

  0.5

  2,100

  0.2

  840

  0.1

  Cardiff UA

  2,000

  1.5

  1,600

  1.2

  1,000

  0.7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Scotland

  42,400

  1.8

  25,300

  1.1

  17,800

  0.8

  7,200

  0.3

  3,150

  0.1

  Aberdeen City UA

  3,600

  3.2

  2,400

  2.1

  1,600

  1.4

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Aberdeenshire UA

  3,400

  3.1

  2,000

  1.8

  1,300

  1.2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Dunbartonshire UA

  1,500

  2.1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Renfrewshire UA

  3,000

  6.7

  1,900

  4.2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of UA

  7,400

  3.4

  4,700

  2.2

  3,500

  1.6

  1,400

  0.7

  1—

  1—

  Fife UA

  2,300

  1.3

  1,400

  0.8

  1,000

  0.6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Glasgow City UA

  2,200

  1.0

  1,100

  0.5

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Perthshire and Kinross UA

  1,500

  2.3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Lanarkshire UA

  2.400

  1.7

  1,400

  1.0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 Sample size too low to allow estimates to be made

  Source:

  1996–97 Survey of Personal Incomes, Inland Revenue

  Pensioners
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the rate of income tax paid by pensioners who undertake part-time employment. [92547]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations on income tax matters, including matters relating to pensioners.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 1999,Official Report, column 83, if he will estimate the number of pensioners with effective rates of deduction from gross income of (a) between 50 and 60 per cent., (b) between 60 and 70 per cent., (c) between 70 and 80 per cent., (d) between 90 and 100 per cent. and (e) above 100 per cent., taking into account the effects of tax rates and benefit withdrawal rates, and the rules regarding deemed income from capital. [91659]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: I shall write to my right hon. Friend shortly and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) revenues and (b) jobs caused by the duty differential between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Community. [93140]
  398
  Ms Hewitt
  Duty differentials are not the only factor involved in the legal and illegal cross-border trade in excise goods between the UK and other EU member states. Other factors involved include pre-tax price, manufacturers' and retailers' margins, and transportation costs. It is not possible to isolate the effect of duty differentials alone.

  HM Customs and Excise estimates of revenue lost through cross-border shopping and smuggling are set out in their technical paper deposited in the House of Commons Library on 19 November 1998. HM Customs and Excise does not have any assessment of the impact of such activities on UK employment.

  Statistics
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ask the Office of National Statistics to increase the size of the samples it uses, in order to provide more reliable statistics for Scotland and Wales. [93268]

  Ms Hewitt
  Officials in the Office for National Statistics are holding discussions with their counterparts in Scotland and Wales to consider their requirements for enhanced samples. As a result of these discussions it has been established that samples in many cases are sufficient, while some other samples have already been enhanced, particularly in the area of business statistics. I expect these discussions to continue.

  Gold Sales
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received from overseas Governments with regard to the sale of part of Britain's gold reserves; and if he will make a statement. [93622]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have received representations from South Africa, the Southern African Development Community (also representing Angola, Botswana, DRCongo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe), Ghana and Peru.

  Inheritance Tax
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much inheritance tax is raised from non-UK domiciled persons(a) in total and (b) who invest in unit trusts and open-ended investment companies. [93587]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that the information is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increased take-up of the working families tax credit resulting from the Government's advertising campaign; and if he will make a statement. [93609]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit is central to the Government's aim of making work pay. It will benefit nearly 1.5 million families, providing a minimum guaranteed income for a family with a full time worker of £200 per week. Together with the national minimum wage, increases to child benefit, and reform of tax and national insurance, it will lift around 800,000 children out of poverty.

  It is vital that the right people get the information they need to apply for the tax credits they are entitled to. The Government are, therefore, launching a major advertising campaign to provide clear, targeted and comprehensive information. The Government's aim for the campaign is to encourage all those who are eligible for WFTC to apply.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households he estimates will be removed from housing benefit(a) totally and (b) in part in each region in England and Wales following the introduction of the working families tax credit; and if he will estimate the average loss of housing benefit per household. [93067]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Russia (Debt)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of(a) Soviet era debt and (b) subsequent debt which the Russian Federation has defaulted upon to date; what is the amount of that country's current debt awaiting service; and if he will make a statement. [91761]
  400
  Ms Hewitt
  There are no publicly available official estimates of Russia's total debts or of its arrears. At the Koln Summit G8 Heads welcomed the outline agreements recently reached by Russia with the IMF and the World Bank and looked forward to their speedy implementation as a further important step in Russia's reform program. They also encouraged the Paris Club to act expeditiously to negotiate a debt rescheduling agreement with Russia once an IMF agreement was in place.

  Savings
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the tax benefits for pensions and retirement savings currently goes to families earning(a) more than £100,000, (b) between £50,000 and £100,000, (c) between £25,000 and £50,000 and (d) less than £25,000 per year. [93430]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The distribution of tax relief for contributions to occupational and personal pension schemes by household earnings is not available.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish the final report of the Task Force on Credit Union Development; and if he will make a statement. [93543]

  Ms Hewitt
  I received it a few days ago and am studying it with interest. I will decide how best to take it forward in due course.

  Betting Duty
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the rate of General Betting Duty. [93656]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government keep the revenue yield from General Betting Duty under constant review.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much General Betting Duty(a) was raised in 1998–99 and (b) is forecast to be raised in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–2001. [93657]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1998–99, revenue raised from General Betting Duty was £479.8 million. The forecast for total betting and gaming receipts (including General Betting Duty, Pools Betting Duty, Gaming Duty, Amusement Machine Licence Duty, Bingo Duty and Lottery Duty) in 1999–2000, published in the March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report, is £1.5 billion. No forecast has been published for 2000–2001.

  Treasury Building
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the proposal to refurbish the Treasury building under the private finance initiative. [92529]

  Mr. Milburn
  Ministers have now approved plans for the refurbishment of the Treasury building under the terms of an innovative PFI deal with Exchequer Partnership plc (EP), the Treasury's Private Sector Partner. This flagship PH project at the heart of Whitehall confirms the Government's commitment to PFI in the accommodation sector. On completion, the project will
  401
  bring together the whole Department in one modern, efficient office building fit for the 21st century. It is the first to follow the recently published Treasury Task Force PFI Standard Contract Guidance. It is also the first project where the service provider, in partnership with the Treasury, will put debt financing out to competition.

  This will be the first, major refurbishment of a building nearly a century old. While it needs some remedial work, the building's services also require major updating, and more flexible and efficient use needs to be made of the space within it to meet business needs. The project will achieve both, as well as providing very good value for money for the taxpayer. Work on site is expected to commence in the spring of 2000 and take two years to complete. The Department will remain at the eastern (Whitehall) end of the building while its new accommodation at the western (St. James's Park) end is refurbished. The move is scheduled to take place in Spring 2002, and the Treasury will then be occupying just under half of the building. The Treasury will pay as and when its accommodation needs are delivered to specified standards.

  Under the terms of the PFI deal, EP are responsible for securing town planning permission and listed building consent. It is also for EP to let the non-Treasury space to another public sector tenant.

  Debt Management Office
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the UK Debt Management Office's annual administrative accounts. [93816]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DMO's accounts for 1998–99, its first year of operation, are being published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Pooled Pension Investment
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the pooled pension investment will be available; and what investments will be eligible for inclusion. [93814]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have decided to introduce pooled pension investments (ppis) in April 2001, to coincide with the introduction of stakeholder pensions.

  The joint Treasury and DSS consultation paper "Helping to deliver stakeholder pensions: flexibility in pension investment" suggested that ppis could help the successful launch of stakeholder pensions. Most responses to the paper agreed, and many pressed for a joint introduction. Also, financial services firms are still dealing with year 2000 compliance, and many will be introducing change freezes around the millennium period. It therefore makes good practical sense to introduce the two reforms together.

  The Government will allow ppis to hold units in

  authorised unit trusts,

  open-ended investment companies,

  investment trusts with separate custodians and gearing at or below 50 per cent., and

  single gilts

  402
  These investments offer appropriate security and risk spreading for savers. They also give the flexibility required to match investments with the length of time from retirement. Again this is consistent with the responses from consultation, and strikes the right balance between minimising investment risk and allowing choice and innovation.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 1998–99. [93815]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Office for National Statistics' performance is described in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts which is being laid before the House and published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  ONS's performance against its key targets was good and in the case of the compliance plan and efficiency savings both targets were exceeded. In a few cases the target was missed marginally. Targets for 1999–2000 are set out in the ONS Business Plan 1999–2002, which was published in March. Copies of the Business Plan are in the Library.

  Simon de Danser
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement in connection with the independent inquiry, announced on 11 February, by Sir Gerald Hosker KCB QC, into the actions of HM Customs and Excise officials in relation to the seizure of the Simon de Danser vessel. [93813]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Sir Gerald has completed his independent inquiry and has submitted his report. My commitment was to make available to the House a summary of the report and its recommendations but I have decided to go further and to place a copy of Sir Gerald's full report in the Library of the House.

  The Chairman of Customs has accepted his conclusions and recommendations in full. The Commissioners are taking action as a matter of priority to implement the report's recommendations in order to remedy the failings identified.

  Land Settlement Association
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many former tenants of the Land Settlement Association are still being pursued for tax by the Inland Revenue in respect of their settlement of litigation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1982. [93535]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman shortly and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Annual Incomes
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between the annual incomes of the top decile and those of the bottom decile, and between the top quartile and the bottom quartile in each year since 1986; and if he will
  403
  give the same figures for (a) Germany, (b) France, (c) the United States of America, (d) Australia and (e) New Zealand over the same period. [92558]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Belize
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what occasions since 1993 his Department received written or oral approaches from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on matters relating to banking regulations in Belize. [92068]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 July 1999]: I shall write to the my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Shipping Taxation
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive Lord Alexander's report on Shipping Taxation; and if he will publish it. [91563]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [88475]

  Ms Hewitt
  Treasury officials regularly attend meetings of Council working groups. The Treasury is occasionally represented by officials from the United Kingdom's Permanent Representation to the European Union. I list the working groups principally involved.

  Working Group

  Meetings over last 12 months

  Financial Counsellors Group

  5

  Working Party on the Staff Regulations

  10

  Tax Policy Group

  2

  Financial Questions Group

  2–3 per month

  Code of Conduct Group

  18

  Working Party on Economic Questions

  29

  Working Party on Consumer Protection and Information

  6

  Advisory Committee on Own Resources

  4

  Budget Committee

  2 per week

  Protection of Financial Interests in the Community

  2

  Ad-hoc anti-fraud group

  6

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on travel on Government business by the Treasury's special advisers. [93925]

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 1999,Official Report, column 300, for what reasons he withheld the information
  404
  requested by the hon. Member for Chichester on the number and total cost of visits abroad made in an official capacity by special advisers in the Treasury, since 2 May 1997. [89578]

  Ms Hewitt
  All travel by Treasury Ministers and special advisers is conducted in line with the principles set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code. Details have been placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, stating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [91681]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 636, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the administrative cost of the NHS in Wales as a percentage of its total budget for each year since 1989. [93105]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information is contained in the following table:

  NHS administrative costs since 1989

  Administration clerical and management staff (£ million)

  Net expenditure (£ million)

  Percentage of net expenditure

  1989–90

  73.3

  1,324.4

  5.5

  1990–91

  86.9

  1,490.6

  5.8

  1991–92

  98.5

  1,710.1

  5.8

  1992–93

  116.9

  1,912.9

  6.1

  1993–94

  141.6

  1,986.6

  7.1

  1994–95

  149.3

  2,076.6

  7.2

  1995–96

  160.6

  2,178.3

  7.4

  1996–97

  162.7

  2,293.0

  7.1

  1997–98

  155.9

  2,350.0

  6.6

  Source:

  Annual audited accounts of NHS trusts and Health Authorities

  Education Funding
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received regarding the future funding of further and higher education institutions. [93123]

  Mr. Hain
  One recent representation arrived in my office before 1 July. This is now a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  GDP Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the GDP per capita of the West
  405
  Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 area status as a percentage of (a) the United Kingdom average and (b) the European Union average. [92924]

  Mr. Hain
  According to figures released by Eurostat, GDP per capita of the West Wales and the Valleys area during the period 1994–1996 was estimated to be:

  (a) 72 per cent. of the UK average

  (b) 71 per cent. of the European Union average.

  Departmental Finance
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the value of grants and financial support(a) disbursed and (b) administered by the Welsh Office for each year since 1990. [93122]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Total expenditure excluding central administration costs within the Secretary of State's responsibility over the period in question has been:

  £ million

  (a) Disturbed (actual outturn expenditure)

  (b) Administered (planned expenditure)

  1989–90

  3,742

  3,737

  1990–91

  4,388

  4,404

  1991–92

  5,247

  4,864

  1992–93

  5,936

  5,748

  1993–94

  6,240

  6,248

  1994–95

  6,474

  6,578

  1995–96

  6,650

  6,712

  1996–97

  6,745

  6,733

  1997–98

  6,723

  6,824

  1998–99

  6,906

  6,879

  The years 1997–98 and 1998–99 do not include expenditure on the Capital Receipts Initiative or Welfare to Work programmes which are UK wide initiatives.

  Appointments (Quangos)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appointments to quangos he made between(a) 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (b) 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999; and in each case of those how many were members of Britain's (i) Asian and (ii) ethnic minority communities. [92143]

  Mr. Michael
  The number of appointments I made to quangos(a) between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 was 121 and (b) between 1 June 1988 and 31 May 1999 was 131. Information as to how many of those appointees were members of Britain's Asian and ethnic minority communities cannot be divulged since disclosure would risk identifying individuals without their consent, in accordance with standard practice.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to reply to the letters concerning the Owens-Corning factory, Deeside, of 28 May and 9 July from the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. [92724]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: I met my right hon. Friend and a delegation from Owens Coming on 30 June to discuss his concerns and I plan to write to him shortly on the issues arising from that.

  Housing
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the local reference rent for(a) a self-contained one bedroomed flat and (b) a single room in a shared accommodation for each local authority in Wales on 1 April. [93128]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Data are compiled by the DETR on behalf of the eight Rent Registration Areas in Wales which are largely based on the former county council areas. The latest published figures from that source are for quarter ended September 1998.

  The following data have been compiled as at 1 April by direct reference to the eight Rent Offices in Wales and have been provided as a guide only. The information is not collected in the way it has been requested.

  Information for flats is not separately available, therefore the details provided relate to all two room accommodation (ie one bedroom and one living room).

  The Local Reference Rent is specific to an individual property and is meant to reflect the general level of rent for properties of the same size in the locality. In order to arrive at a single figure, an average has been calculated.

  Rent Officers are required to determine rents based on the size and type of accommodation in a locality which may be different to a local authority area and localities could also cross local authority boundaries. The information has, therefore, been estimated to cover local authority boundaries.

  £

  Local authority area

  Two living-roomed accommodation

  Single room in shared accommodation

  Blaenau Gwent

  52.50

  38.00

  Bridgend

  61.20

  40.00

  Caerphilly

  57.50

  40.50

  Cardiff County

  71.50

  39.50

  Carmarthenshire

  58.50

  42.50

  Ceredigion

  70.00

  42.50

  Conwy

  62.50

  37.50

  Denbighshire

  60.00

  38.75

  Flintshire

  62.00

  42.50

  Gwynedd

  57.50

  36.00

  Merthyr

  54.00

  37.00

  Monmouth

  68.00

  42.50

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his estimate on 1 April of the total number of homes for rent from(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) other registered social landlords in Wales. [93126]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The latest information relates to March 1999 when the estimates were:

  Homes for rent

  Local Authorities

  197,400

  Housing Associations

  52,500

  Other registered social landlords

  nil

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department made in April of the total
  407
  number of houses in multiple occupation in Wales and the total number of occupants of such accommodation, using the categories used in the licensing of multi-occupied houses. [93130]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Council Homes
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total number of council homes sold(a) under the right to buy legislation and (b) otherwise in each local authority area in Wales in the periods (i) 1979 to 1985, (ii) 1984 to 1987, (iii) 1988 to 1992 and (iv) 1993 to 1996. [93121]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the House.

  Unrestricted GMPs—Number who are full time at 1 October

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19961

  1997

  1998

  Family Health Service Authority

  Clwyd

  207

  208

  203

  204

  204

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  192

  199

  199

  200

  198

  —

  —

  Gwent

  221

  220

  218

  217

  215

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  146

  147

  147

  148

  148

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  287

  282

  282

  273

  270

  —

  —

  Powys

  76

  74

  73

  73

  72

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  212

  208

  203

  198

  197

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  186

  189

  187

  186

  188

  —

  —

  Wales

  1,527

  1,527

  1,512

  1,499

  1,492

  —

  —

  Health Authority

  Bro Taf

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  343

  342

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  269

  264

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  278

  274

  Morgannwg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  259

  257

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  344

  340

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,493

  1,477

  1 As at 1 April data for 1 October could not be split by the new Health Authorities.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amounts retained by general practitioner fundholders by health authority at the end of each financial year since the introduction of general practitioner fundholding in Wales. [93111]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is given in the table:

  General practitioner fundholder savings since the introduction of the scheme

  £000

  Family Health Service Authority

  Cumulative savings to 1993–941

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Clwyd

  567

  548

  472

  Dyfed

  191

  501

  760

  Gwent

  912

  1,841

  1,383

  Gwynedd

  0

  469

  375

  Mid Glamorgan

  317

  458

  599

  Powys

  831

  1,005

  546

  South Glamorgan

  207

  1,070

  490

  West Glamorgan

  250

  996

  736

  Total

  3,275

  6,888

  5,361

  GPs
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner fundholders in Wales went over budget in the last five years broken down by the amount of overspend. [93116]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  For the last five years Health Authorities have been responsible for monitoring GP Fundholder performance and this information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of full-time general practitioners by trust area in Wales, in each year between 1992 and 1998. [93117]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on general medical practitioners (GMPs) is collected on a health authority (or prior to 1997 Family Health Service Authority) basis. Information on the number of full-time unrestricted principals is given in the following table.

  £000

  Health authorities

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total of GPFH savings as at 1 April 1999

  Bro Taf

  1,072

  133

  (514)

  2,674

  Dyfed Powys

  887

  (344)

  (332)

  2,655

  Gwent

  1,409

  390

  (734)

  4,040

  Morgannwg

  769

  (10)

  510

  1,752

  North Wales

  471

  (241)

  (625)

  1,614

  Total

  4,608

  (72)

  (1,695)

  12,735

  1 Family Health Service Authority savings are not available on an annual basis until 1994–95

  Source:

  Audited Annual Accounts to 1997–98, unaudited accounts 1998–99

  GPs (Trainees)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trainee general practitioners there were in each training centre in Wales for each of the last five years; and how many places were available. [93115]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of cottage hospitals closed in the last 10 years and planned to be closed in the next two years; and if he will make a statement on the future of cottage hospitals in Wales. [93133]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on the closure of cottage hospitals is not held centrally.

  The future of cottage hospitals is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had in relation to the impact of the Climate Change Levy on(a) the steel industry, (b) aluminium smelting, (c) intensive energy use farming and (d) the sector of the tourism industry which is dependent on LPG for energy in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [93611]

  Mr. Hain
  The Climate Change Levy is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, representations have been received from individual companies in the steel and aluminium smelting industries and their representative bodies. We have made the Chancellor aware of the concerns expressed.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved, and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials at each meeting. [90412]

  Mr. Michael
  My predecessor and my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), met the Irish Consul General Mr. Conor O'Riordan on 13 October 1998 at the Welsh Office, Cardiff. I met Mr. David Andrews, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Edward Barrington, the Irish Ambassador and Mr. O'Riordan on 27 May at the Welsh Office, Cardiff.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much expenditure his Department(a) has incurred to date and (b) expects to incur in the future, on preparations for possible United Kingdom entry into the European single currency; and if he will make a statement. [91878]

  Mr. Michael
  Following the publication of the Government's Outline National Changeover Plan, my Department is considering what preparations may be necessary.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of transferring oral questions to other Departments; and in what ways it has changed since 1 July. [93242]
  410
  Mr. Michael
  My policy has always been to be as helpful as possible to right hon. and hon. Members and to supply as full a reply as is possible in the light of the nature of the question and the extent to which it touches wholly or partly on my responsibilities. I am considering this approach for the future in the light of Madam Speaker's ruling in the House on 12 July.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs within the West Wales and the Valleys area covered by Objective 1 status; and what target he plans to set for the number of jobs in(a) 2002, (b) 2006 and (c) 2010. [92919]

  Mr. Hain
  According to the 1997 Annual Employment Survey, there were an estimated 552,000 employee jobs within the West Wales and the Valleys area in September 1997 (this excludes the majority of employee jobs in agriculture). In addition, according to the 1997 Labour Force Survey Annual Database, covering the period March 1997-February 1998, there were an estimated 105,000 self-employed people.

  Future targets are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the total number of people of working age who are economically inactive within the West Wales and the Valleys area covered by Objective 1 status. [92923]

  Mr. Hain
  According to the 1997 Labour Force Survey Annual Database, covering the period March 1997-February 1998, an estimated 295,000 people of working age were economically inactive within the West Wales and the Valleys area.

  Doctors and Nurses (Vacancies)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many doctors and nurses have been employed in NHS hospitals in Wales since 1990; and how many vacancies for doctors and nurses in Wales remain unfilled at present. [93110]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on the whole-time equivalent numbers of hospital doctors and nurses is given in the following table. Information on hospital nurses is available in a comparable form only for the last three years.

  Current vacancies for doctors and nurses in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Staff in post at 30 September (whole-time equivalents)

  Hospital doctors

  Hospital nursing staff

  1990

  2,440

  —

  1991

  2,491

  —

  1992

  2,624

  —

  1993

  2,751

  —

  1994

  2,858

  —

  1995

  2,972

  —

  1996

  3,059

  17,751

  1997

  3,168

  17,809

  1998

  3,314

  18,155

  Council Tax Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect on the finances of the National Assembly for Wales, and on council taxes in Wales, of his proposals included in the Statement on Funding Policy for the National Assembly for Wales, that adjustments in respect of council tax benefit subsidy for Wales should be based on relative percentage changes in council tax; and by what means the Barnett Formula will provide the necessary additional funding for Wales for these purposes. [82879]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 30 April 1999]: In future years, local authorities in Wales and the National Assembly will determine the level of local authority self-financed expenditure, including council tax.

  The precise effect of council tax benefit subsidy on the finances of the National Assembly will depend on individual local authorities' budgeting decisions and the Assembly's decisions on how and whether to use its reserve powers to control council tax increases. The detailed rules have yet to be finalised, but it is currently estimated that each percentage point difference between the relative change of council tax in Wales and that in England will require a balancing adjustment to the Assembly's Departmental Expenditure Limit of approximately £1 million. Any adjustment to the Assembly's funding in respect of council tax benefit subsidy will not directly effect council tax.

  Departmental Hospitality
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the hospitality budgets were for his Department for each year since 1989. [93112]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available prior to 1991–92. The figures for that and subsequent years is as follows:

  1991–92: £36,000 (including CADW)

  1992–93: £38,000 (including CADW)

  1993–94: £27,000

  1994–95: £29,000

  1995–96: £22,000

  1996–97: £21,000

  1997–98: £15,000

  1998–99: £19,000

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans existed to privatise the Public Health Laboratory Service in Wales prior to 1 May. [93135]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There were no plans in place to privatise the Public Health Laboratory Service in Wales prior to 1 May.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many TB notifications there were for each trust area in Wales in each of the last five years. [93104]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on the number of cases of TB (excluding chemprophlaxis) in each of the last five years is given in the following tables. As NHS 412
  trusts during this time did not have unique geographical areas the data are shown by local authority for 1994 and 1995 and then unitary authority for 1996 to 1998.

  Local authority

  1994

  1995

  Aberconwy

  5

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  1

  3

  Arfon

  5

  7

  Blaenau Gwent

  8

  3

  Brecknock

  2

  2

  Cardiff

  29

  32

  Carmarthen

  2

  4

  Ceredigion

  3

  1

  Colwyn

  3

  2

  Cynon Valley

  3

  —

  Delyn

  3

  4

  Dinefwr

  5

  3

  Dwyfor

  3

  4

  Glyndwr

  —

  5

  Islwyn

  1

  4

  Llanelli

  9

  10

  Lliw Valley

  8

  2

  Meirionnydd

  1

  1

  Merthyr Tydfil

  3

  2

  Monmouth

  3

  2

  Montgomeryshire

  —

  —

  Neath

  7

  4

  Newport

  5

  9

  Ogwr

  9

  6

  Port Talbot

  3

  4

  Preseli

  1

  6

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  Radnorshire

  —

  —

  Rhondda

  10

  5

  Rhuddlan

  2

  5

  Rhymney Valley

  4

  7

  South Pembrokeshire

  3

  —

  Swansea

  10

  9

  Taff Ely

  9

  9

  Torfaen

  2

  3

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8

  9

  Wrexham Maelor

  8

  8

  Ynys Mon (Isle of Anglesey)

  3

  5

  Wales

  181

  180

  Unitary authority

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Blaenau Gwent

  1

  —

  —

  Bridgend

  12

  7

  7

  Caerphilly

  1

  4

  1

  Cardiff

  32

  33

  38

  Carmarthenshire

  22

  19

  13

  Ceredigion

  4

  5

  6

  Conwy

  4

  5

  9

  Denbighshire

  3

  11

  3

  Flintshire

  4

  5

  4

  Gwynedd

  10

  6

  17

  Isle of Anglesey

  3

  7

  3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5

  4

  4

  Monmouthshire

  —

  —

  2

  Neath Port Talbot

  8

  11

  24

  Newport

  2

  5

  2

  Pembrokeshire

  8

  12

  8

  Powys

  7

  7

  5

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  12

  29

  15

  Swansea

  7

  3

  2

  Torfaen

  1

  —

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  6

  14

  2

  Wrexham

  9

  8

  7

  Wales

  161

  195

  172

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on hospital waiting times in Wales, by hospital and by specialty. [93136]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Dental Caries
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the incidence of dental caries of five-year-old children in each trust area of Wales, in each year since 1989. [93119]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of attenders at accident and emergency units in each of the last five years in Wales. [93106]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The total number of attendances at accident and emergency or casualty units in Wales was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  960,572

  1995–96

  995,841

  1996–97

  975,322

  1997–98

  997,944

  1998–99

  1 982,012

  1 Provisional

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many casualty units there were in Wales in each year since 1989. [93107]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The number of accident and emergency/casualty units which were open at some point during the year in question is given in the following table.

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  70

  1990–91

  71

  1991–92

  67

  1992–93

  68

  1993–94

  66

  1994–95

  68

  1995–96

  66

  1996–97

  65

  1997–98

  64

  1998–99

  63

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of attenders at casualty/accident and emergency departments in each acute trust for each of the last five years in Wales. [93109]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beds there were in intensive care units in Wales on 1 April, broken down by hospital. [93127]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The average daily number of available beds in intensive therapy units during the quarter ending 31 March 1999 is given in the following table.

  Hospital

  Beds

  Bronglais General

  2.0

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  3.8

  East Glamorgan

  6.0

  Glan Clwyd

  6.0

  Llandough

  5.0

  Morriston

  12.0

  Neath General

  8.0

  Nevill Hall

  7.0

  Prince Charles

  5.0

  Prince Phillip

  6.0

  Princess of Wales

  5.0

  Royal Gwent

  6.4

  Singleton

  16.0

  University Hospital of Wales

  15.9

  West Wales General

  6.0

  Withybush

  3.0

  Wrexham Maelor

  5.0

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  7.0

  Wales

  125.0

  External Consultants
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much(a) his Department and (b) the NHS trusts in Wales, spent on external consultants in each year since 1989. [93108]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  (a) The figures for the Welsh Office on external consultancies are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1992–93

  1,550,000

  1993–94

  1,550,000

  1994–95

  843,000

  1995–96

  1,212,000

  1996–97

  600,000

  1997–98

  700,000

  1998–99

  1 835,000

  1 Forecast outturn

  Figures for years prior to 1992–93 are available only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) The figures for the NHS Trusts in Wales, including external contract staffing and consultancies service are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1992–93

  230,000

  1993–94

  554,000

  1994–95

  2,017,000

  1995–96

  7,949,000

  1996–97

  1,859,000

  1997–98

  3,292,000

  1998–99

  2,107,000

  415
  There are no figures prior to 1992–93 as NHS Trusts have been operational only since 1 April 1992. The 1998–99 figures are taken from unaudited accounts and are provisional.

  Following the Transfer of Functions on 1 July 1999, these are now matters for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Local Government Pensions
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he issued to local authorities concerning the management of their pension funds prior to April. [93131]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  None. This is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  District Nurses and Health Visitors
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) district nurses and (b) health visitors there were in each health authority in Wales in each of the last five years. [93114]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy in the House Library.

  Dental Fillings
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental fillings per child were made in each trust area in Wales, in each month in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [93118]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Lord Rennard
Christopher John Rennard, Esquire, MBE, having been created Baron Rennard, of Wavertree in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Maddock and the Lord Clement-Jones.

Baroness Hanham
Mrs. Joan Brownlow Hanham, CBE, having been created Baroness Hanham, of Kensington in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Miller of Hendon and the Lord Hanningfield.
The Earl of Coventry The Earl of Coventry—Took the oath.

NHS Interpreting Services
2.50 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress there has been with the employment of qualified interpreters in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the National Health Service provides a range of interpreting services in the many and varied settings in which healthcare is delivered. Interpreting services are provided on both a planned and emergency basis to support the delivery of effective and culturally-sensitive healthcare. The NHS is committed to addressing communication barriers that prevent black and ethnic minority patients from receiving the care and treatment which they need.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. The aims are clearly excellent. I should like to know why lower standards are accepted for translation and interpreting in the health service than in the criminal justice system where there is an agreement that, by the year 2001, all the interpreters in all sections of the criminal justice system will be members of the national register of public service interpreters.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is lower standards or different challenges that we face in the health service. This year, for the first time, the formula used to inform allocations to health authorities included an English language difficulties adjustment of
1388
£10.9 million. That was to reflect the extra costs of providing interpretation, advocacy and translation services to ethnic minority patients who experience difficulties with the English language. I believe it important that we recognise the variety of situations in which healthcare is delivered and the need not only to deal with simple issues of speaking a different language but to make sure that services are accessible to communities who may not easily gain access to them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is not very clear exactly what the Minister is saying. Does the department acknowledge the value of the use of trained interpreters and has it commissioned a report into the use of those interpreters, which I believe to be the case? Does it have any intention at all of following the excellent example of the criminal justice service?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should not like in any way to devalue the work which has been done in the criminal justice service. Indeed, some of the training utilised by health authorities is the same as that for interpreters within that service. The noble Lord is right that a piece of work is being carried out at the moment, undertaken by the King's Fund, to map in London a comprehensive picture of the provision both of health advocacy link work and interpreting services. As I said, I think the issue is broader than that of simple interpreting. The report will cover all the Greater London NHS trusts and health authorities as well as voluntary organisations representing the minority ethnic and refugee communities in the capital.
Lord Laming: My Lords, the National Health Service is no more immune from racism than any other organisation; and I include every organisation with which I am associated. What steps are being taken to ensure that all patients and staff are treated with equal respect?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly points out the two different strands of work that we have to undertake. We have to provide equal opportunities for staff within the NHS. We have launched a national plan of action about tackling racial harassment in the NHS, and through the positively diverse programme we are engaged in a service-wide policy of encouraging recruitment and development of staff from local communities.
We also have to consider the provision of services which are sensitive to the needs of minority groups. For example, as regards the uptake of screening programmes it is important to have locally-based services within communities which have the best insight into how to encourage women, in the example I give, to take up the services available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister says that about £10 million is being devoted to this issue. In order to achieve better value, has consideration been given to encouraging interpreters also to act as health assistants and to seeking volunteers

1389
from the community groups to which the noble Baroness referred? The National Health Service is desperately in need of every penny it can obtain.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, some schemes are based on using volunteers. It is important to recognise the need to ensure confidentiality and standards. I believe that that motivation lay behind some of the questions about training. Volunteers must be properly trained and equipped. None of us wants volunteers to be the small children who interpret for parents. There is an area of work there. Traditionally, the NHS has used staff who speak other languages to interpret in emergency situations. Again, we need provision for standards. However, in the employment of link workers and patient advocates, people can take on a dual role rather than simply interpreting.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the needs of deaf people who require sign language are just as great as those who are black, from ethnic groups, or who depend on foreign languages. Perhaps I may make a declaration of a non-pecuniary interest. I am the president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID). Although the Minister's initial Answer about the provision sounded marvellous, in fact it is not that marvellous. The RNID recently conducted a survey of doctors' surgeries. It found that 39 per cent of individuals had to rely for interpretation on families and friends; and when they left the surgery 37 per cent did not know the diagnosis or treatment. Does the Minister agree that the health service should ensure that all patients—deaf, black, ethnic, foreign, or whoever—should be told clearly the diagnosis and treatment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend rightly points out that the barriers to receiving high quality care are not simply those of speaking a foreign language. When we consider health inequalities, we realise that a number of factors—they may involve speaking or hearing language, or socio-economic deprivation—may stop people receiving services. That is why work in health action zones and health improvement programmes is important.
I am not sure that I said everything was marvellous. I said that we sought to make progress in this area. There are some innovative schemes. In one of the beacon sites recently commended, which involved primary care, a telephone link with a hand-free conference facility is being used where the patients of a GP speak many different languages. It has been well received by both professionals and patients.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, does the Minister agree that employment of advocates and interpreters was a short-term replacement for the employment of bilingual workers across the health service? Can some of the good practices in areas such as Tower Hamlets and Newham be examined? Some interpreters have had the
1390
opportunity of NVQ experience, a factor which might address the Question asked by my noble friend Lady David.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, yes, we can learn from, and spread examples of, good practice. The King's Fund exercise will help us to do that.

Pensioners: Income Support Entitlement
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will publish the reports of the nine pilot schemes which they set up to discover and analyse the reasons why some 1 million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the independent evaluation of the pilots has taken longer than originally expected. We hope to have a final report after the summer. Publication will follow as soon as possible after that.
We also commissioned research into why pensioners do not claim their entitled income support, which we hope to publish before the pilot evaluation.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I suppose better late than never. When the Minister leaked the report during our debates on the Welfare Form and Pensions Bill, she told us that it indicated that certain of the pensioners whose incomes were low enough to qualify them for income support had savings too high to qualify them. Is it therefore going to be the policy of this Government to penalise thrift, and will she say in future to would-be savers among the lower income groups, "You might as well go and have a spending spree"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, today's publication of the Rowntree report suggests that pensioners are doing precisely what my noble friend suggests. They are the new rich and are deciding to spend their money. As regards my noble friend's substantive point, there was no leak; I was giving my noble friend the best information I had. As I have more information, I shall be happy to share it with her in the House.
The number of people who we believed might be entitled to income support is somewhat lower in part because many have substantial savings. Half of those disqualified from income support because their incomes are below income support level have capital of more than £20,000, and 200,000 have capital of more than £50,000. It is questionable whether we should ask taxpayers to support people in boosting their incomes if they have capital on which they can draw.
The other reason we overestimated the number of pensioners who may be entitled to income support, which may be fresh to my noble friend, is that since the early 1990s surveys have incorrectly disregarded the

1391
private occupational pensions which widows inherit on their husbands' death and therefore they have an income higher than originally anticipated.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the limits on capital are low—£3,000 is sufficient to receive a reduced level of income support, but nothing over £7,000? Will the pilot studies give us a precise assessment of the extent to which people do not claim because they have levels of capital of that order?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have those statistics on a national basis. However, I recognise the problem raised by my noble friend and the noble Lord. The Government are seriously considering the situation of capital limits.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister remind the House when the capital limits to which she referred were last uprated for inflation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in about 1988.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, do the investigations expose people who have not claimed? Will there be any element of retrospection?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no, except in so far as there is the usual backdating, which is a month or up to three months, depending on whether it is an income-related benefit or a contributory benefit. My noble friend raises the key question of how we ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the point about the pilot schemes. We estimate that 500,000—perhaps 700,000—mainly older, single women who have become widowed are failing to claim on average £15 a week.
Those people are entitled to claim. They do not have capital, and they are failing to claim. Our research shows that that is due to a mixture of ignorance about the benefits system, worries about what may happen to them, the fact that, on claiming for benefit in the past, they were not eligible and therefore refused to claim again, and that their memories are at fault. However, a good piece of news from the findings is that, among those who are eligible but are failing to claim, two years on 25 per cent have gone on to claim. Obviously, we must build on that and ensure that people receive the money to which they are entitled; they cannot afford to go without that money, and we should not let them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will immediately review the capital limits to which she referred, which have not been reviewed for 11 years, and uprate them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are keeping them under review. I can give only the answer
1392
that is correct. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish me to give false hopes to the House that I or anyone else can subsequently deliver.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, whatever the merits of the pilot schemes, will the Minister agree that an immediate increase in the basic pension to £75 a week will be a far more effective way of dealing with pensioners' poverty?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend. It would cost more than £3.5 billion. Some of it would go to the very rich, as the Rowntree report indicated, and the poorest—those on income support—would see not a penny. Frankly, I do not support a policy which would spend a considerable sum of money—£3.5 billion—on aiding the better off and doing nothing at all for the poorest off.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister propose to take any steps to ensure that the same problems do not return when the Government introduce their minimum pension guarantee?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we already have a minimum pension guarantee in so far as we have a minimum income guarantee. In that sense, the noble Lord's question is misdirected. However, we are seeking to ensure that pensioners are claiming the money to which they are entitled and it forms a minimum income guarantee for pensioners. It may be that, as a result of the findings of the pilot schemes, we shall need to repackage it, relaunch it, rename it in order, so to speak, to dissociate it from its income support background. In that respect there is a real issue for us to address.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Will the Minister ensure that when a report is published it contains a figure of the cost involved in funding the pilot schemes?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
3.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty agreed in 1995–96, with its verification and monitoring regime, has not come into force and whether they will exercise their right under the treaty to call a special conference to accelerate ratification.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the treaty has not yet come into force because a number of key states have yet to ratify it. I can confirm to my noble friend that the Government will indeed exercise their right, as one of the countries which have ratified the treaty, to call a special conference this autumn to consider ways

1393
to accelerate its entry into force. The United Kingdom has been leading international preparations for this event for nearly a year.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am pleased to receive so affirmative a response from my noble friend the Minister. However, may I suggest that if the Government want to accelerate the process still further towards their aim of the elimination of nuclear weapons, they should consult the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Carver, who will show them a better way?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to wish my noble friend a very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that he deserves the congratulations of the whole House on reaching the splendid age of 91. My noble friend, even in his 92nd year, is as assiduous as ever in pursuing these issues. I am delighted to talk to whoever in your Lordships' House is able to offer help, guidance and advice on how to get the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force as quickly as possible. We cannot formally call the conference until September, but we are organising for it. It will take place in Vienna on 6th to 8th October. Its importance lies in the political message which we hope it will send to those who have not yet signed the treaty and to those who have signed the treaty but not yet ratified it.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, what indication does the Minister have that India and Pakistan will sign the treaty before the third anniversary of the treaty's opening for signature, particularly in the light of the statement of India's foreign minister that India will not sign the treaty before the general election there? Furthermore, will the Minister kindly inform the House what initiatives the Government have taken to urge the Indian Government to fulfil their commitment made last year? Can she confirm that it remains the Government's policy that India must sign the treaty without conditionality?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it remains our policy that everyone must sign the treaty without conditionality. Of course, we have received welcome assurances from both India and Pakistan that they intend to sign the treaty. India has said that it will not test again before such signing takes place. It is very important that that is done on an unconditional basis. We have welcomed opportunities to reaffirm with the Indian and Pakistani Governments that these are their intentions.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the conference to which my noble friend refers will take place during the Recess and the spillover period, and bearing in mind also the reputations in this field of my
1394
noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will the Minister consider taking them along as advisers to the UK delegation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the list of those attending the conference has still to be fixed. I consulted the advisers in the department today about the level of representation that will be available. It will be very senior representation. I thank my noble friend for his wise suggestion about other sources of wisdom which may be available to the Government on this occasion.

EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
3.10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress there has been in implementing the European Union's urban waste water treatment directive in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, as a member state, the United Kingdom has obligations to implement this directive. In Scotland, the Scottish Office, the water authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency co-operated to end the dumping of sewage sludge at sea and to provide tertiary treatment for discharges into sensitive areas by the end of 1998. Considerable progress has been made towards installing secondary treatment at appropriate locations.
From 1st July 1999 implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive in Scotland is a matter for Scottish Ministers.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first perhaps I may express the hope that this is not the Minister's last appearance at the Dispatch Box. Is he aware of the considerable problems caused by the directive to the fish processing industry, particularly in Aberdeen? Is he further aware of the report currently being worked on to find a solution which would enable the industry to meet its obligations without incurring the huge costs currently proposed by the North of Scotland Water Authority?
If the Scottish Executive comes forward and asks the Government to speak to Brussels and suggests that perhaps they should stay their hand to allow the Cordah project to come to fruition, can I, together with the fish processors, have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government, who are responsible for these matters in Europe, will intercede or intervene with the European Commission, if necessary?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am aware of the difficulties faced by the fish processing industry in implementing this directive, particularly in the north east of Scotland. It is non-negotiable in that there is a strict requirement to put secondary treatment in place by the end of the

1395
year 2000. It may be remembered that the directive was adopted in 1991 and transposed into British law in 1994. The industry has had a considerable period of time in which to prepare for the implementation. However, I accept that it is now looking keenly at what to do. I am aware of the Cordah report, which I believe is due at the end of August. I am also aware that Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire County Council have proposed a waste treatment solution which could significantly reduce the costs falling upon the industry.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the fish processing industry is a vital industry in the north east of Scotland. It also serves the fishing industry largely based at ports in that area. It is now confronted with a massive increase in charges for disposal of effluent. Wilt the Government take action as suggested by my noble friend vis-à-vis the European Union, if necessary to obtain more time to consider more alternatives, especially on a day when consumers in England and Wales are learning from their regulator that prices south of the Border will be reduced?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may again point out the dates I gave previously. The urban waste water treatment directive was adopted in 1991 and became transposed into British law in 1994. Since 1989 the various water authorities have been in dialogue with the industry to warn them of the problem they face. I regret that it is only relatively recently that the industry has responded positively. It would be difficult to argue for delay. It is clear that at present the Commission is taking a long, hard look at Italy and Belgium as two member states who have not proceeded to implement the directive timeously. Clearly, there is the problem of infraction proceedings being taken against the United Kingdom Government. As the noble Lord knows, such proceedings could result in fines measuring hundreds of thousands of pounds per week or even per day. The Scottish Executive will be aware that if that should happen, the responsibility for paying the fine would fall upon the Scottish Executive.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, was the order for cleaning up the Wheal Jane mine in Cornwall made in accordance with this directive? If not, why not?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, although I know quite a lot about the problems facing the fish processing industry in the north east of Scotland, I know nothing about the Wheal Jane issue.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that it is not only the fish merchants in the north east of Scotland who are bearing these heavy charges? I understand that the fish merchants of Grimsby and Hull are equally outraged at the high levies being introduced. Does the Minister not find it strange that some "Johnny-come-lately" should now be complaining
1396
bitterly about excess charges which they must have known about during the negotiation of this treatment for water charges?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, my noble friend is right. This does not just affect the north east of Scotland; it affects Grimsby and other fish processing centres throughout the United Kingdom. I accept that this is a very real issue. The increases in charges will be very real. I shall not use the words which I was invited to use by my noble friend. However, this is a settled policy of successive United Kingdom Governments dating back to 1991. It does no good to try to pretend that if we put our heads in the sand it will somehow go away; it will not.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in an earlier Answer, the Minister led us to understand that the Commission is invigilating the way that this directive is enforced by other governments. Is there any more precise and transparent means by which industries loaded with heavy costs by European legislation can satisfy themselves that the equivalent costs are being borne by their competitors in other European countries?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, during my period as a Minister in an area responsible for implementing European directives, I have learnt that just about every country I go to complains that their government requires them to implement it down to the last detail, and that every other government is somehow "dodging". We have to take such accusations with a pinch of salt. However, I am aware that the Commission gives a high priority to ensuring that this directive is implemented. I have already mentioned two member states where the Commission is looking closely at what is being done.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I do not wish to minimise the difficulties of implementing this directive. However, does the Minister agree that it is a good thing in general that the European Union is legislating to safeguard the environment and the quality of drinking water, and that that is a measure that the citizens and consumers of Europe welcome?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, indeed it is a very good thing that we legislate to protect the environment, both at European and member state level. It is also a good thing that we do all we can to protect jobs and industries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not also necessary that all United Kingdom governments, of whatever political complexion, should examine proposed European legislation far more thoroughly than they have done in the past or, as far as I can see, are likely to do in the future?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I would not accuse the previous administration of not examining the proposal in detail. It was subject to a great deal of negotiation and scrutiny as it evolved and developed. We reached a stage at which there was agreement in this country and

1397
throughout the European Union on an appropriate way forward to protect the environment, which is our priority.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the funding of political parties.

House of Lords Bill: Peers' Writ of Summons
3.20 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden Lord Mayhew of Twysden rose to move, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, affect the right of those hereditary Peers who have answered to their Writ of Summons before the Bill receives Royal Assent to continue to sit and vote throughout the Parliament in which the Bill is enacted be referred to the Committee for Privileges.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Motion arises from a dispute with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the Government's policies for the reform of the House of Lords, as far as they are known. The dispute is about the meaning of the language in the House of Lords Bill to deliver those policies and what effects the Bill will have.
From the earliest opportunities in Committee and subsequently on Report, some of us have criticised the language of Clauses 1 and 7 on the grounds that it is uncertain in its effects and would leave the position of most hereditary Peers uncertain if the Bill was enacted. Not all of us who have voiced such doubts sit on the Conservative Benches. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been supplied with a copy of an opinion by experienced counsel supporting our doubts. Although he has been good enough to consider the provisions and comment on them, he has stuck to the language of the Bill, asserting that its meaning is perfectly clear and saying that anyway everybody, including the judges, knows what the Government's policy is—what the language is intended to mean—and the wording will be construed accordingly.
This is a serious dispute. I doubt that many of your Lordships remember a Bill reaching the end of its Report stage with such a serious disagreement about its meaning and its effects still unresolved. We all agree that it is in nobody's interests for that disagreement to continue unresolved. It is certainly not in the interests of those hereditary Peers who may well feel obliged to test in proceedings of their own whether their ejection from this House under the purported authority of the Act is lawful. It would be shameful consciously to expose them to such expense, stress and risk simply because the
1398
Bill left this House with its meaning still in doubt. That would be an unjust consequence of our failure to fulfil a responsibility that is properly ours.
I shall try to take your Lordships briefly to the areas of dispute and to outline the arguments. It is perhaps worth interposing here the thought that legislation leaving this House ought to be as clear and certain in its effects as we can reasonably make it. Perhaps that principle carries double weight when the composition of Parliament is involved. The interpretation of the language of such legislation should not rely to any extent on the Government's intentions being deduced or picked up from Hansard or any other extraneous source.
As we are confronted with this unhappy and unnecessary situation, it is fortunate that we have a remedy. We do not simply have to watch events unfold. We are able to seek an authoritative view from the Committee for Privileges, which can settle beyond question what the Bill will do to hereditary Peers who have answered their Writ of Summons before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
There is nothing hypothetical in that task and it would be helpful for all concerned to have the committee's opinion. That opinion will be authoritative because it is the practice in cases relating to privileges of Parliament for three or four Law Lords—serving or retired—to serve on the committee. It is unsurprisingly the practice of the lay members of the committee to concur with the opinion of the Law Lords.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I shall not make anything like the speech that could appropriately be made to the committee, where, if the Motion carries, it will be made by leading counsel. However, I need to satisfy your Lordships in a few minutes that there is a serious argument to be made and a real doubt which it would be sensible to take this unusual step to allay.
In a nutshell, the question is whom the Bill catches. The Lord Chancellor says that we should turn to Clause 1, which says:
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
That, says the Lord Chancellor, is all ye need to know, but in amplification on 27th April he said:
"Clause 1 is intended without any qualification to preclude membership of the House of Lords by any person whose membership, if not so precluded, would be in any way be connected with, or related to, any hereditary peerage".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 167.]
Clause 1 is short and punchy and none the worse for that, but what does it mean, particularly in the light of Clause 7? What do either of those clauses mean? How do they affect the hereditary Peer who has duly answered his or her Writ of Summons? The clearest language is required if the purpose is to eject them from the House when Clause 1 takes effect, as Clause 7 says that it will at the end of the Session in which the Bill passes.
I apologise for being a tiny bit technical in so large a forum. My final quotation is from Clause 7, which says:
"Accordingly, any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after that Session unless it has been issued to a person who, at the end of the Session, is excepted from section 1 by virtue of section 2".

1399
That relates to persons elected under the Weatherill amendment.
The problem is that a Writ of Summons probably ceases to have any effect when a Peer answers it. No one can sit, speak or vote here until they have answered the Writ of Summons. Once they have done so, the Writ of Summons is spent. Its effect is achieved and it has no continuing effect, so Clause 7 cannot apply to it. Clause 7 seems likely to have no effect on Peers who have answered their writ before Royal Assent. If the Bill is going to eject them from Parliament, which is the purpose, that can be done only by dint of Clause 1.
Can one ever be a Member of the House of Lords merely by virtue of holding a hereditary peerage? A Peer who has answered his or her Writ and come here, as we have all done, is undoubtedly a Member of the House of Lords, because he or she can perform the duties and enjoy the privileges of this place. However, that is by virtue of the Writ of Summons. Can someone who holds a peerage but has not answered a Writ claim to be a Member simply by virtue of holding a hereditary peerage? It is surely an odd form of membership that extends to a person who is prohibited from performing the duties and enjoying the privileges of this place—and prohibited even from getting through the door. That is what the Government have to argue by reason—I nearly said "by virtue"—of using the language of Clause 1.
Does not that give a strong indication that, for a hereditary Peer, membership of the House of Lords is gained by virtue of answering a Writ of Summons, not by virtue of a hereditary peerage? Those who have not yet answered a Writ in this Parliament apparently number 70. Clause 7 will bite on them by depriving their Writs as yet unspent of effect.
The true status of the Writ of Summons is important, arcane though it may seem. Words of Lord Chancellor Cranworth in the Wensleydale peerage case were cited on 27th February:
"That which gives every noble Lord his right to sit here is not his Patent of Nobility, but the Writ of Summons which he is entitled to, in consequence of that Patent".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 160.]
Unfortunately, when asked to comment on those words by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur at col. 170, the Lord Chancellor said he had no intention of getting involved in arcane questions of peerage law. He said the judges would have no difficulty in discerning the Act's manifest intention and effect, which was well-known. His response was the more disappointing and even surprising in view of the fact that the noble Lord who cited Lord Cranworth's words was the former Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, only to have them somewhat summarily dismissed.
If my argument is right, then hereditary Peers who have returned their Writs of Summons before Royal Assent may not be prevented from sitting until the end of this Parliament by the language of Clause 1 any more than by the language of Clause 7. This language and the resulting uncertainty could so easily have been avoided. The manifesto pledge, which we have heard a lot about, was just as short and punchy as the language of Clause 1; the difference is that it was clear. It said that
1400
the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords would be ended by statute. There is no mistaking the meaning and effect of that language. What a pity the Bill does not adopt or emulate it. In Committee we suggested a draft or two, doubtless defective, but it was not to be.
Your Lordships have been extremely patient. I conclude by saying that the right thing to do now is to allay the apparent uncertainty which has uniquely resulted, including uncertainty as to the lawful composition of Parliament. Such matters should surely not be left to the haphazard chance of being sorted out later in private proceedings and at private expense. We should refer this question. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, affect the right of those hereditary Peers who have answered to their Writ of Summons before the Bill receives Royal Assent to continue to sit and vote throughout the Parliament in which the Bill is enacted be referred to the Committee for Privileges.——(Lord Mayhew of Twysden.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, as I understand it, the Government propose to deprive hereditary Peers of all representation in the legislature at least until the next general election. In asking whether or not that is legal, I want to draw attention to a slightly different point from that raised by my noble friend; that is, whether or not it is legal on the basis of the laws of human rights by which we are all bound.
A year ago, in the context of the elections to the European Parliament I was drawn to Article 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that all members undertake to ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. A year ago the Minister, speaking in this House, said that it was within the convention for Britain to disenfranchise the Gibraltarians, even though they are part of the European Union. Early this year it turned out that he was wrong and the Strasbourg Court found against the British Government.
I support the Motion before your Lordships' House today because I believe that the Government are about to make a similar mistake. I put it to your Lordships that under the Convention on Human Rights "the people" means "all the people". Just as it did in the case of the Gibraltarians, it means the people not minus a few thousand Gibraltarians or minus a few hundred hereditary Peers. Nor should those hereditary Peers be deprived of their right to choose the legislature simply on the basis that they are to be disenfranchised only for two or three years until the next general election.
One vote of course is not very much. But that is not the point and that is something noble and learned Lords may wish to take into account. It is a small part of the opinion of the people. It may have been enough in the past as a quid pro quo over a period of time to give Peers the right to vote directly in this House instead of indirectly for another place, even though we are

1401
subordinate to the main legislature with no right to insist on amendments or control over financial matters. But it cannot be right to leave us without any vote at all, even for a short period of time. I cannot take seriously the proposal that we are compensated by being allowed to vote for a small number of Members of this House to represent us in the subordinate legislature.
This year the Government lost one case in the European Court of Human Rights on a question of universal suffrage. I hope that they will not be forced to fight another one. To lose one case in the Strasbourg Court may be counted as misfortune, but to lose two in one year begins to seem like carelessness. I hope too that noble Lords on the Lib Dem Benches, who voted rather illiberally a year ago to disenfranchise the Gibraltarians, will not make the same mistake again today. On that basis I support my noble friend and his Motion.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what this Motion proposes is, frankly, a waste of time. There can be no doubt that Parliament has the power by statute to terminate the effect of a current Writ of Summons issued for that Parliament. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, did not challenge that. I believe there can be no doubt whatever that Clauses 1 and 7(2) of this Bill are intended to do, and obviously do, just that.
There is of course a precedent for the cancellation of a Writ of Summons during its currency; that is, the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. That applied to three German princes holding British Royal dukedoms and to one Irish viscount. Perhaps not altogether surprisingly, none of them challenged the question of whether or not they were entitled to continue to sit for the duration of the Parliament then sitting.
That of course is the question raised by this Motion. It is a question to which there is only one possible answer and it is therefore pointless to ask it. Nevertheless, it is clear that some Members of your Lordships' House are going to find some forum in which to ask it, and so the question is: how should it be dealt with?
The question is a pure question of law; one of interpretation of statute. One would have thought therefore that it was a matter for the courts rather than for the Committee for Privileges. The Committee for Privileges is most suitable for deciding questions of fact concerning the rights of individuals to a peerage, as it did for example in the Moynihan and Arlington cases recently. But out of the 30 members of that committee, only four are Law Lords. I recognise that a number of others are lawyers, but it remains an unsuitable body for deciding a pure question of law.
There is a particular problem in this case which renders the Committee for Privileges clearly unsuitable for deciding this question. Hereditary Peers have an interest in the outcome which disqualifies them from taking part in a decision of the committee, which is a judicial decision. That might not apply to hereditary Peers who have already been elected as one of the
1402
15 Deputy Chairmen at the time when the committee is considering that issue, but it certainly applies to any unelected hereditary Peer and I also believe it applies to any of the 75 hereditary Peers who are elected by the other hereditary Peers in party groups because they are representatives of unelected hereditaries who themselves have a direct interest.
That knocks out four of the five Conservative members of the Committee for Privileges, leaving only the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In addition it may be argued that all party Peers, as opposed to Cross-Benchers, are disqualified, because if they are Conservatives they have a clear political interest in maintaining the predominance of their numbers in your Lordships' House. If they are government or Liberal Democrat Peers they have an interest in ending that predominance. So we would then potentially end up with four Law Lords and three Cross-Bench life Peers eligible to sit.
If the Committee for Privileges decided that Writs of Summons were valid until the end of the Parliament, there would of course be a serious constitutional crisis. That decision, taken by that committee, would be regarded as self-interested. There would be an immediate conflict between the two Houses of Parliament and between your Lordships' House and the Government. The outcome of that could be extremely serious especially if government legislation were blocked or delayed in your Lordships' House by the votes of hereditary Peers.
Any decision, to have legitimacy, needs to be taken by the courts and not by your Lordships' House. However, the present constitutional position seems to be that it is for the Committee for Privileges or an equivalent body in the other place to decide on the rights of claimants to sit as Members of either House of Parliament. The courts will apparently not overrule that decision. That was decided, in relation to the House of Commons, in 1883 in the case of Bradlaugh v. Gossett. That is a well known case in which the House of Commons refused to allow the well known free thinker, Charles Bradlaugh, to take the Oath that he was required to take before he could take his seat. That case involved the interpretation of the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866. The High Court said that it could not overrule the decision of the House of Commons even if it had wrongly interpreted the statute.
So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, the power to interpret an Act of Parliament was assumed without argument in the Viscountess Rhondda's case, when the Committee for Privileges decided the effect of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. That was procedurally a curious case and an unhappy precedent. The case was originally decided by the Law Lord members of the Committee for Privileges alone. They were in favour of the Viscountess. Your Lordships' House referred the case back to the committee for reconsideration and, by 22 votes to four, it voted against Lady Rhondda and its report was accepted by your Lordships' House.
There is another more helpful and more recent precedent. In 1957, the question arose whether the issue for a writ for libel against George Strauss, a well known

1403
Labour Member of the House of Commons, in relation to the contents of a letter written by him to a Minister, would be contempt of the House of Commons. That question involved the interpretation of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770. That question was referred by Her Majesty the Queen on an Address from the House of Commons to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. That question was duly heard by seven Law Lords sitting in the Judicial Committee who gave their report. It was published as Command Paper 431 of 1958.
If the question that is now being considered has to be decided at all—I do not believe that it does—that is the way to do it. We therefore oppose the Motion, both on the ground that the issue is too clear for argument and on the ground that, in the circumstances, the Committee for Privileges is not the appropriate body to decide that question. We might have taken a different view on the Motion if it had been a Motion to refer the question to a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That would have been an appropriate body to hear such arguments as may be put forward but, as it is, we are referring a question that does not need to be asked to a committee that is unsuitable to decide it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether, despite the charm and persuasiveness with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, moved his Motion, it is any more than another attempt to sabotage the Bill. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not to flinch—as we know, from the reform legislation that he has driven through the House, he is not a man for flinching—from saying categorically that if this Motion were passed, the whole of the Weatherill amendment would fall to the ground.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not speak because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned my name. I have no interest in this to declare. As a member of the Privileges Committee I can say that it is non-political and that we always defer to the Law Lords. It makes wholly objective determinations, without any political interest or extraneous motives whatever. That has always been the case.
As for the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this is a matter for the courts and not the Privileges Committee, the noble Lord, with respect, is totally mistaken. The courts, before enactment, could not entertain this matter, because of parliamentary privilege. It is only after enactment that they may do so.
On the reference, there are inevitably two related questions for determination: judicial determination of the highest order, akin to that of your Lordships' Appellate Committee, or by the Privy Council. The first question is the one dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. It is the question of legal construction as to the entitlement under the Writ of Summons.
The second question is whether, in context with that entitlement, Clause 7(2), as amended by Amendment No. 68A on Report, imports hybridity on to the face
1404
of the Bill by conferring disparity of treatment on the Weatherill hereditaries that is not afforded to the general class or category. That is the very situation that was sought to be avoided by resort to Standing Orders.
It is essentially a matter for judicial determination. Without the reasoned advice of the four Law Lords, one of whom always presides and to whom the lay members, such as myself—I have served on the committee for more than 15 years—always defer, I do not understand how your Lordships may resolve such questions on Third Reading. Should the Bill be amended and, if so, in what form, before it do pass? Indeed, should it pass? The question of the entitlement of the hereditary Peers to seek declaratory relief from the courts exists. Without the advice, can your Lordships have any assurance that the Bill is not defective?
I have no conclusion about the answer to either of those two questions. All I beg your Lordships to accept is that, in accordance with the advice of Treasury counsel, this is a matter that is worthy of investigation by the only forum that is suited, competent and appropriate to consider it. I support the Motion.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has explained very clearly the argument that he, or some leading counsel, would wish to address if this matter were duly referred to the Committee for Privileges. He has not told us about the appropriateness of the procedure that he has proposed. I am concerned that it is a wholly revolutionary procedure that would give rise to a dubious precedent if it is allowed. It might mean that every Bill would end up being construed before it was passed.
The curious thing about the noble and learned Lord's Motion is that he is seeking an interpretation of a Bill that has not yet been enacted and may not be enacted in its present form. Normally, as your Lordships know, if a Bill that might be passed would, on a certain construction, affect the rights of individuals, they wait until the Bill is passed and then seek a declaration from the appropriate court or tribunal about the proper construction of what is, by that time, an Act. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever sought a declaration as to the meaning of a Bill that may or may not be passed.
I wish to ask three questions, on which I hope that either the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, or perhaps as a bonus both of them, will enlighten us. First, if the Bill had been enacted and a hereditary Peer wished to say that it did not deprive him of his right to sit, would that be a matter which would go to court, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, or would it then be a matter for the Committee for Privileges as the right tribunal? That is important, because if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is correct, the Committee for Privileges might say that the Bill had meaning A—namely, that it did deprive people—but then, after the Bill had been passed, the matter might be challenged in the courts, which might come to a different conclusion.
Secondly, we know that a court will not normally decide a hypothetical point and certainly will not pronounce upon the construction of a Bill which may or

1405
may not be passed. I ask therefore whether there is any precedent in all our history for a reference to the Committee for Privileges to decide in advance what would be the effect of a Bill if it was enacted.
Thirdly, if the Motion is passed, does it oblige the Committee for Privileges to decide the matter, even if when the committee considers it it would think that because it was hypothetical it was inappropriate to answer it? Normally a court would say, "We will not answer your point because it is hypothetical". However, if this House has referred a matter to the Committee for Privileges, does the committee, as a committee of this House, have to answer it even if it does not think it is appropriate? I look forward to enlightenment on those three points.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, is not only a distinguished public servant, he is also—which I regard as a much greater honour—a good House man. As always, I have listened to him with interest, respect and pleasure. The noble and learned Lord is also a distinguished advocate. However, I believe he suffered today from the one fate which a distinguished advocate finds most difficult to handle: I believe that he has been inadequately briefed.
I have read the opinion to which the noble and learned Lord referred. It touches on many points which are clearly within the scope of my professional knowledge. I know many of the quotations upon which that opinion relies, but I do not read them as does the opinion. That of course is a fate with which all scholars are familiar. It happens to all of us. Quoting out of context is by definition what one's opponent does. So I record the fact only to indicate that there is ground for argument.
I have checked other quotations which appear to me to be material to the argument. Again, I find that I do not read them as does the opinion. Your Lordships may wonder why I have the temerity to challenge a distinguished legal opinion. Partly, because it is in areas where I believe that my opinion as an historian is as relevant as the opinion of a lawyer and partly because I have the comfort of knowing that I am in agreement with Her Majesty's judges. While it is not always the case that the law is what Her Majesty's judges say it is—if it were, the Appellate Committee of this House would be redundant—the opinion that the law is what Her Majesty's judges say it is is one which at least deserves a hearing.
In the case of Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn, as he then was, the judges were faced with an argument similar to the one put by the noble and learned Lord—the distinction between the hereditary peerage and the Writ of Summons. Mr Benn relied extremely heavily on the claim that the Crown was entitled to refrain from issuing a Writ of Summons. Therefore, contrary to what the opinion says, the judgment of the court on that occasion that the Writ of Summons was an inescapable incident of the hereditary peerage was not, as the opinion suggests, obiter; it was directly on the matter of the case.
1406
In my opinion, for what it is worth, the wording of Clause 1 of the Bill is correct. Halsbury's Laws of England, states that,
"a hereditary peer of the United Kingdom is entitled to receive, in virtue of his peerage, a writ of summons to sit and vote in the House of Lords".
The gap between those words and the words of Clause 1 of the Bill is very narrow indeed. Before I sit down, I hope I may close it.
The noble and learned Lord relied heavily on the opinion of Lord Chancellor Cranworth. However, in the judgment of the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Birkenhead, which I read last night—I may say that a Liberal quoting F.E. Smith feels a little like the devil quoting scripture: but on this occasion F.E. Smith happened to be right:
"The doctrine that the King, having created a peer, cannot direct that he shall not be summoned to Parliament had become settled constitutional law in the course of the seventeenth century".
He also said, and this passage is worth reflection:
"It is easy to see what use George III could have made in the eighteenth century of a constitutional position in which the right to determine whether writs should issue to particular peers depended upon the Royal will and not upon hereditary descent".
Here is why I believe not merely that the opinion is mistaken but that it would be dangerous to refer it to the Committee for Privileges. It would open a can of worms which has been very securely closed ever since 1640. If, after that length of time, you open a can of worms, the smell is rather unpleasant. Moreover, that can of worms has been closed for a very good reason. As soon as we separate the Writ of Summons from the hereditary peerage, we open the way to the suggestion that the Crown has a discretion to give or withhold the Writ according to whether it likes a noble Lord's face. That is a doctrine which the Crown has attempted in the past to argue and has been defeated. It is very dangerous indeed to encourage the Crown to try again.
When we consider the reflections of Lord Birkenhead—the danger of allowing the Crown that power—the danger is no less if the Crown exercises that right on the advice of its Prime Minister. The one strength of the hereditary peerage is its independence. As soon as the Crown has a discretion to give or withhold a Writ of Summons, that independence is seriously threatened. That has been the position since 1640, when Charles I attempted to deny a Writ to Lord Mandeville. The Lord Admiral's secretary expressed great dismay. Two days later, Mandeville got his Writ. He then presented the Lord Admiral with five pounds of Bermuda oranges in the middle of the procession of the State Opening. I would love to know what happened to those oranges. I am sure the Lord Admiral did not have a Waitrose bag to put them in.
That was a political decision, and so indeed was the decision to send for Baldwin and not Curzon in 1923. Both of them have given rise to a practice which has remained unchanged ever since. I am not aware of any case since 1640 where the Crown has denied a Writ of Summons to a Peer suitably qualified; that is, not in certain well-defined categories of exception: a minor, an alien, a traitor, a felon or, until 1958, a woman. Those categories are laid down, or were laid down, in common law and statute. Parliament may change those categories

1407
in the exercise of its sovereign power. However, as soon as we say that the Writ of Summons, independent of the hereditary peerage, is the sole ground of membership, we open the door to a discretion which I believe is extremely dangerous to us all. That is why I hope that this case will not be referred to the Committee for Privileges; and I would not say that if I did not also believe that there is no case to answer.
4 p m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, rather uncharacteristically, your Lordships may feel, I shall not detain the House very long. I was provoked by the reference of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to a can of worms. During the course of the early debates at Committee stage of this Bill, the Government made it perfectly clear that they were wholly confident in their interpretation of the matter of the writ in Clauses 1 and 7. As I understand it, the Government Front Bench has, from that time to this, maintained its confidence that its interpretation is solid.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to a can of worms. I believe that this is precisely the point that your Lordships need to address this afternoon. I, mercifully, am no lawyer. I have no idea whether the arguments advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the arguments advanced by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew or the arguments advanced by any of the other distinguished lawyers on both sides of your Lordships' House this afternoon are accurate. However, what is perfectly clear to me is that during the course of the last few months a great deal of doubt has been cast, as my noble friend explained, on the Government's interpretation, of which they have told us they are so completely certain. I believe that that is the can of worms that your Lordships ought to be addressing this afternoon. It is a can of worms that has already been opened rather than the can of worms to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred which he fears will be opened.
If this Bill were to be passed without this matter being resolved, I believe that there will be a legacy of bitterness which would be extremely unfortunate to leave in the mouths of your Lordships if and when this Bill is finally passed. Therefore, from the point of view of good order and from the point of view of good government, it seems to me sensible that the can of worms that has been opened should either be closed or, if there is indeed a case to answer, that that case should be laid before your Lordships before the Bill is passed rather than afterwards. That seems to me to be the great merit of what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has laid before your Lordships this afternoon.
For that reason, it is right, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has made clear, that we should find a tribunal which is made up of the highest judges in the land, in which those of us who are members of the Committee for Privileges are merely handmaidens. It is right that that body should be able to determine whether the can of worms has been opened or whether it remains closed, as is suggested by the Government. It
1408
is for that reason that my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has indeed performed a considerable service to your Lordships today in proposing this Motion.
The Government have made it clear that they still believe they are right in their interpretation of Clauses 1 and 7. If that is so, they should have nothing to fear. If it is not so, it is better that we should know it before the Bill is passed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the legal case, I suggest that that is not a question for your Lordships this afternoon. The question is whether we want this matter to be settled once and for all, so that we can either address a fault in the Bill before the Bill is passed or dispose of an issue which turns out to be, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, a non-issue. I venture to suggest that your Lordships would be wise to refer that question to a committee of experts before the Bill is passed. We are fortunate indeed that a committee of experts exists in the form of the Law Lords who sit on the Committee for Privileges.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I would like to say a few words against this Motion. I am always impressed by the Conservative Party when it is in full operation. I have heard this afternoon from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that this is totally non-political. It is a highly objective analysis of a legal and difficult constitutional situation which deserves examination by the Committee for Privileges and in particular by the four Law Lords who will sit on it.
I am impressed by the number of your Lordships who have arrived this afternoon to engage in this objective examination of the issue. There is a large number of people beyond the Bar whose acquaintance shall be very pleased to make after this debate! Assuredly, I have not made their acquaintance to date, despite having been in the House for nine-and-a-half to 10 years. It is impressive to see such an array of people here, all concerned with the constitutionality of this Bill.
I make two points. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was devastating in his critique of this proposal, as indeed was the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. There is no precedent for it. It is clearly politically motivated. Whatever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, may say, it is a transparent political device to attempt to delay the coming into operation of the Bill in respect of which we have now been engaged for a long time. If it is not, why on earth has it been left for so long? If this is a genuine attempt to obtain an opinion from four Law Lords in this rather extraordinary way, I am surprised that the issue has been raised at the last minute before the Bill receives its Third Reading. Transparently and obviously, it is a political device to delay the coming into operation of the Bill. I oppose it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the fact that something has not been done before as a reason for not doing it now is hardly a principle which applies to Labour government.
First, I believe that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with respect to the motives behind the tabling of this Motion today by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew are, frankly, misplaced and unfair. Those who have followed

1409
this debate from its outset at Committee stage, and through Report stage to today's Motion, will know that right from the very outset my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has sought to obtain from the Government clarification of the meaning of what are now Clauses 7(2) and 1—and has totally failed to do so. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to your Lordships that the Government are faced with this Motion today.
The Opposition believe that there are three areas of doubt about this Bill which deserve consideration by the Committee for Privileges. Incidentally, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that when the Committee for Privileges comes to consider this matter, it will be the views of the Law Lords alone which determine the interpretation of the Bill.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he accept that that was not the case in the Rhondda decision?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, whatever has been the case in the past, that is certainly the position that the Opposition both understand and abide by in relation to this matter.
There are three elements of doubt in relation to this Bill. The first applies to Clause 7(2). Clause 7(2) concerns the effect of Writs of Summons. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has pointed out, when your Lordships receive a Writ of Summons and obey it and return it, the Writ ceases to have effect; it is physically cancelled. From that moment on, your Lordships have a right to sit and vote in the House. How, therefore, can Clause 7(2) make Writs of Summons cease to have an effect when they have already ceased to have an effect, except in relation to those noble Lords who have received writs but not have not yet returned them? If that interpretation is correct, and I know not whether it is—
Earl Russell: My Lords, could it be that this Bill causes the Writ of Summons to cease to have effect in exactly the same way as an act of attainder has always caused a Writ of Summons to cease to have effect?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, surely the Labour Government would not be considering retrospective legislation!
If that interpretation of Clause 7(2) is correct, it is my submission that the Government would have to fall back on Clause 1. Clause 1 states that no one should be a Member of your Lordships' House by virtue of an hereditary peerage. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew so devastatingly pointed out, nobody is a Member of your Lordships' House by virtue of an hereditary peerage. Your Lordships are Members of this House only as a result of receiving, obeying and returning the Writ of Summons. Those are two of the three areas of doubt to which I referred.
I turn now to the final area, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Bethell. The Government have certified the Bill as conforming with the European
1410
Convention on Human Rights. Your Lordships do not have a vote in general elections; your Lordships have an arrangement whereby, in return for not voting in a general election, noble Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons represent themselves in your Lordships' House. What is the position if, halfway through a Parliament, your Lordships cease to be allowed to represent yourselves in your Lordships' House?
For those years that remain, from the moment of secession until the next general election, your Lordships will neither represent yourselves in your Lordships' House nor will your Lordships have authorised the activities of those who might have represented your Lordships in the House of Commons had your Lordships had the vote which your Lordships have given up. I believe that this is also a perfectly proper matter to put before the Committee for Privileges.
When judges in our nation's courts consider legislation, which seeks to remove the rights or liberties of citizens, they are particularly careful to ensure that the intention of Parliament to do so is clearly set out on the face of the Act. This is pre-eminently a Bill which seeks to remove rights of certain citizens in our country; namely, your Lordships. However, the matter goes even further than that, because the rights that those of your Lordships who receive a Summons by virtue of being hereditary Peers have is not just an individual right; it is a right to be part, and to comprise part, of this nation's sovereign authority.
In my submission, it is quite unacceptable that an Act should go on to the statute book which throws doubt on exactly what the composition of the sovereign power of this country is. That is the doubt which will open up if this Bill becomes law without a clear interpretation from the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, perhaps I may be direct about the Motion before the House—
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Leader!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall start again. Perhaps I may be direct about the Motion that we are considering this afternoon. The Government—I say this with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord who was tasked with the role of moving the Motion—regard it as time consuming, potentially wasteful of public resources and irrelevant to the passage of the Bill. In other words, it is, frankly, both frivolous and irresponsible. Further, implicit in the Motion, underlying the arguments which have been advanced for it, is the extraordinary suggestion that Parliament may not be sovereign in the government of this country.
The full resources of the Cabinet Office have been unable to discover any case where the courts, or the Committee for Privileges, have been called upon to construe a Bill—a Bill currently before Parliament. That may, I hope, be helpful to the noble Viscount,

1411
Lord Bledisloe. Case law suggests that the courts would decline to consider a Bill if the matter were put to them; for example, the courts have said:
"It roust be for Parliament to lay down the procedures which are to be followed before a Bill can become an Act".
Why should there be one rule for the courts and another for the Committee for Privileges? In effect, the Motion seeks to obtain from the Law Lords in committee a decision that could not be obtained from the courts.
I am well aware of the authority of the Committee for Privileges and of the extent to which this House reserves to itself the right to determine questions relating to its membership and privileges. But, as far as I am aware, that has always been in the context of a decision of whether an individual who claims membership of the House or privileges as a Member of the House is, indeed, entitled to that membership, or those privileges, in the existing state of the law. Even the case of the Earl of Bristol, which we considered extensively in Committee when debating this point previously, added the rider to its ruling that a Peer could be excluded from the House if there was some judgment of Parliament or other legal judgment making him incapable of sitting. After all, if the law of peerage is judged immutable, then—I am happy to make a sexist point here—hereditary Peeresses would never have been enabled to sit in your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships know very well the power of precedent in this House. I would advise the House to be wary about the consequences for the future conduct of legislation if this device is accepted as proper in relation to this Bill. After all, the Committee for Privileges has, up until now, had no advisory role in relation to Bills; its function is to advise the House on matters concerning its privileges. Although this Motion asks about a privilege of hereditary Peers, it also seeks an opinion about a Bill. That is, properly, a matter for Parliament to debate, as it has already done and as those noble Lords who have been present for our extensive and—I would say—exhaustive debates on some of these subjects, will know. The Committee for Privileges is not the appropriate forum within Parliament to debate this issue and the Motion goes well beyond its established competence. I would ask your Lordships to consider this Question with the same: clarity as you would apply to any other Bill.
The Motion suggests that it is right for this House to invent a new step in the process of legislating—and that, I have to say, in the context of the self-interest of certain Members of this House. It suggests that it can ask the Law Lords to sit in judgment on a piece of legislation before Parliament has considered and finished its consideration. I find this a profound and disturbing proposal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, said that he was only seeking to help the Government by clearing up a matter on which doubt had been cast. He said that his purpose was limited to this useful, indeed neutral, end. Of course, there are conventional parliamentary methods of bringing such questions to the attention of the House, of having
1412
them debated and decided. They are called amendments to a Bill—amendments to any Bill. There have been many amendments tabled to this Bill and many, many debates.
On this particular subject my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn have replied patiently and conclusively, both in Committee and on Report. I refer your Lordships to Hansard at cols. 166 to 172 and 281 to 282 on 27th April, and cols. 222 and 232 on 15th June. They are the most prominent examples.
I do not intend to repeat the detail of those expert, legal and parliamentary opinions this afternoon. But, suffice it to say, briefly and once again—and perhaps for the benefit of those noble Lords who have not been present to hear these arguments put on several occasions—Clause 1 of the Bill is the operative clause. The Government are certain that it is effective. It does not concern Writs of Summons because they are only the mechanism which enables a Peer to take his seat in this House. The crucial issue is who is entitled to receive a Writ. The entitlement for hereditary Peers depends on inheriting a peerage. In future, that entitlement will only cover the so-called! "excepted Weatherill Peers", and that limited entitlement will soon be ended.
The Government, of course, understand the obvious point that, today, hereditary Peers may be in possession of Writs of Summons to this Parliament who will not be Weatherill Peers; indeed, the vast majority will in fact be excluded. That is the point of the Bill. They will be excluded because, once the Bill becomes law, they will have no right to their Writs because their rights to membership of this House is membership by virtue of an hereditary peerage and that will be removed. Perhaps I may use a straightforward, everyday analogy, which is slightly different from the very interesting historical example cited by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If someone loses his citizenship, he will have no right to use a passport even though that passport may not have yet expired.
It is interesting and, in view of the comments of my noble friend Lord Richard, relevant to this debate that, although the Motion before the House today stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, it was originally tabled in the name of the shadow Lord Chancellor, the noble, Lord, Lord Kingsland. Therefore it is a little unclear who are the true authors of today's proceedings. Are we indeed seeing genuine concern from a distinguished Back-Bencher, or are we seeing a deliberate ploy by the Opposition Front Bench trying yet again to spin out proceedings on the Bill?
We know that the Official Opposition did indeed table an amendment to Clause 1 in Committee. Then they withdrew it without pressing it to a vote. They have never themselves attempted to amend what is presently Clause 7 to explore the issues which are now supposedly to be addressed. Clause 7 refers to Writs which have been issued, whether or not they have been responded to. Nor, having listened to the

1413
views expressed by the Government on several occasions in the debate on their Committee stage amendment, did the Opposition Front Bench return to the issue on Report, as, of course, they would have been entitled to do. Instead they have chosen to pursue this novel device. I have to say that I am sceptical about their reasons for doing so.
Perhaps we discover reality in all this when we consider the comments made outside your Lordships' House rather than—if I may say so—the rather pious expressions of assistance to the Government that we have heard in the Chamber this afternoon. I draw your Lordships' attention to a small column in The Times newspaper of Friday 9th July. It was written by a reporter who in my experience is usually accurately briefed about the Opposition's intentions in relation to this Bill. The article stated, in part,
"The move is ostensibly helpful to the Government because it would clarify a legal uncertainty in the Bill. But, in practice, it forms the latest stage of the Tories' qualified opposition to the measure".
The Daily Telegraph on 22nd July similarly stated that the move was intended,
"to delay the Government's plans to reform the House of Lords".
I have no doubt that those are more accurate descriptions than some of the professions of help we have heard.
As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, this takes us all into dangerous waters. The Government have no intention of delaying this Bill. Equally, we have no intention of disrupting the important business before us in the last three days before the Summer Recess by seeking immediately to move Third Reading simply to stymie this particular manoeuvre. I must say again to your Lordships, as I have said consistently since last October, that the Government believe that all the legislation before us—including now the important food standards agency Bill, which will have its Second Reading on Friday 30th July—is at least as important as House of Lords reform. I am delighted to say that 12 Bills will be presented for Royal Assent later today.
I restate the Government's intentions. I do this particularly for those noble Lords who are present in such numbers this afternoon but whom we rarely see when we consider other aspects of the Government's legislative programme. The Government intend the House of Lords Bill to reach the statute book before the end of the current Session. We shall move Third Reading in the spill-over Session which starts in October.
I also state what the consequences will be if the Opposition seek to obstruct that Third Reading. I am careful to say this in my most reticent and well modulated tones. I seek to avoid being unjustly accused—as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been—of bullying and threatening. I believe that last week the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used the words "sulphur and brimstone". Therefore I say calmly, but definitely, that attempts to frustrate the Third Reading of the Bill by
1414
the Opposition will be seen by the Government as a clear breach of the understandings reached between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. For the candidate Weatherill Peers, all those hours spent last week discussing the method for their election may prove to be for nothing. All those election addresses, so despised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—who, sadly, is not present this afternoon—may well prove unnecessary.
In those circumstances—I say this simply for information—government Ministers in this House will advise our colleagues in another place to remove the new Clause 2 of the Bill. I must tell your Lordships that that will not be unpopular advice. Meanwhile we are faced this afternoon with this Motion which seeks to ask for an interpretation of a law which Parliament has yet to make; to challenge the basic constitutional arrangement that common law can always be overturned by statute—effectively, to challenge the sovereignty of Parliament. What your Lordships are being asked to agree to is unprecedented. It is frankly selfish and it is wasteful of public funds. Informed calculations of the legal costs alone are in excess of £100,000. I urge the House to show common sense, to be realistic and to reject the Motion.
But whatever happens, the Government will press on with our timetable for the House of Lords Bill. On this side of the House we become daily more certain that this is an essential, excellent Bill. It is long overdue and it will reach the statute book by the end of this Session.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I know that your Lordships wish to get on. I feel obliged to detain your Lordships only for a few minutes out of deference—if I can put it like that—to the speech that we have just heard from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. I rather hope that it is a speech without precedent from a Leader of the House because I found it rather surprising to be charged with being a johnny-come-lately in this issue when, as I thought I had tried to explain, I had raised this issue at the earliest opportunity in Committee on 27th April. For the noble Baroness then to say that I did not come back to it on Report was frankly wrong. I have the Report stage here. I know how unpopular it is to quote—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I obviously was not clear in what I was saying. Of course I realise that the noble and learned Lord has been involved in this matter. However, many of his colleagues were not present. I said that the Opposition Front Bench amendment which was moved in Committee was not returned to on Report.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says. I am grateful for her interruption. The point is whether this is a device—as has been alleged by the noble Baroness and her predecessor as Leader of the House—to delay this Bill, not to say to sabotage it, or whether it has been

1415
from the outset expressed as a genuine attempt to secure clarity. As she has referred to the Report stage, I wish to point out that I stated, in relation to applying for a Writ,
"It is common ground that until one has gone through that procedure one cannot fulfil one's duty to attend, speak and vote in this House. If one cannot fulfil the duties of a Member of the House of Lords there must, surely, be a sensible argument, to put it no higher, that one is not a Member".—[Official Report, 15/6/99; cols. 218–219.]
I believe that the noble Baroness may perhaps have done her cause better justice had she not made those aspersions. In my case—I speak for no others—this represents a genuine attempt to attain clarity in legislation where, if the present uncertainty is maintained, it will fall to the private expense, risk and stress of individual noble Lords to put it right in their own instance. Why is this made necessary? Why is this forced upon us? I venture to say that it is done only out of the most extraordinary commitment to language which could perfectly easily be changed if the Government only replicated the language of their own manifesto.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that the members of the committee were to have an interest in this matter. I feel that that is hardly a becoming point. He said—seriously, I thought—that the matter should be left to the courts. I suppose that is an argument that one might expect a lawyer to advance. But how much better to get the matter cleared up now in time for Third Reading, which need not be held up, than to put on the statute book something which is uncertain. The rest of the argument makes it self.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that I was a charming saboteur. I hope that I have dealt with that point. This has nothing whatever to do, incidentally, with the Weatherill amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, asked three questions. I think that the courts would be extremely unwilling at any stage to have anything to do with this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said a few months ago in the Select Committee for Privileges, of which I have the honour to be a member, that the courts would do well to preserve a decent reticence in matters parliamentary and that it ought to be a reciprocal reticence. I believe that that is the answer. This is not a hypothetical question. I do not know whether or not the committee can refuse to deal with it. I hope that it would not.
I turn to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I thank him for the kind remarks that he made about me at the outset. I was waiting with increasing tension for the "However" clause—and in due course it came, in that familiar style which must make him such a fascinating lecturer and so fearsome and terrifying a tutor. Unfortunately—and very uncharacteristically—he proceeded upon a wrong premise. I am not arguing that there should be a discretion as to whether a member of the hereditary Peerage should be entitled to a Writ; I am arguing that until one actually applies for and answers a Writ, turns up here and goes through all the business, one is not entitled to be a
1416
Member of the House of Lords. That is the point. The question is really: what is the position of a Peer who does not answer?
The Motion has been described as frivolous, irresponsible, revolutionary, without precedent and so on. One bears all those epithets with as much philosophy as one can. Having listened with gratitude to everyone who has spoken, I put the issue in this way: if there may be a doubt as to what the clauses mean and what the Bill does, surely it is better to have that doubt allayed now. The time has come to seek the opinion of the House. I believe the matter should be referred to the Committee for Privileges.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 353; Not-Contents, 203.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Burton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Buscombe, B.

Ailsa, M.

Butterworth, L.

Aldenham, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Aldington, L.

Byford, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cadman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Caldecote, V.

Annaly, L.

Calverley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Arlington, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carew, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Astor, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Attlee, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Chalfont, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Chesham, L.

Barber, L.

Chilver, L.

Barnard, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bathurst, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bearsted, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L,

Beaverbrook, L.

Clinton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cobbold, L.

Bell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bellwin, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belstead, L.

Coleridge, L.

Berners, B.

Colwyn, L.

Bethell, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Biddulph, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Biffen, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Birdwood, L.

Coventry, E.

Blackwell, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Blatch, B.

Cowley, E.

Boardman. L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Boston, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bowness, L.

Cranborne, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Braybrooke, L.

Crathorne, L.

Brentford, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Cross, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cunliffe, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Davidson, V.

Buchan, E.

De Freyne, L.

1417

De L'Isle, V.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Huntly, M.

Deedes, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Denbigh, E.

Ilchester, E.

Denham, L.

Inchcape, E.

Denman, L.

Inchyra, L.

Derwent, L.

Ironside, L.

Devonport, V.

Iveagh, E.

Digby, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Donegall, M.

Kelvedon, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Downshire, M.

Killanin, L.

Dulverton, L.

Kimball, L.

Dundee, E.

Kingsland, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dunleath, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Kintore, E.

Eccles, V.

Kitchener, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Knollys, V.

Elibank, L.

Knutsford, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Elles, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Elton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Erne, E.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Erroll, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Exmouth, V.

Lawrence, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Layton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Leathers, V.

Feldman, L.

Leigh, L.

Feversham, L.

Limerick, E.

Fisher, L.

Lindsay, E.

Fookes, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Forbes, L.

Listowel, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Long, V.

Forte, L.

Lucas, L.

Gage, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Gainford, L.

Luke, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Lytton, E.

Geddes, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Gisborough, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Glentoran, L.

McConnell, L.

Gormanston, V.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Grantley, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Gray, L.

McGowan, L.

Greenway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Gretton, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Grey, E.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Halifax, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Hambro, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Hanham, B.

Manton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Harlech, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

May, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Harrowby, E.

Merrivale, L.

Hawke, L.

Mersey, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Middleton, L.

Hayter, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Hemphill, L.

Milverton, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Higgins, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Hindlip, L.

Monson, L.

Hogg, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Holderness, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Hollenden, L.

Montrose, D.

HolmPatrick, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Home, E.

Morris, L.

Hooper, B.

Mountevans, L.

Howe, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

1418

Moyne, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Munster, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sandys, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Savile, L.

Napier of Magdãla, L.

Seccombe, B.

Naseby, L.

Selborne, E.

Nelson, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Newall, L.

Sharples, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norrie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Northbrook, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Northesk, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Norton, L.

Stockton, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Strange, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strathcarron, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Sudeley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Suffield, L.

Palmer, L.

Swansea, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinfen, L.

Patten, L.

Swinton, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Peel, E.

Tebbit, L.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Phillimore, L.

Teynham, L.

Pike, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Torphichen, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Townshend, M.

Plumb, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trenchard, V.

Polwarth, L.

Verulam, E.

Prentice, L.

Vivian, L.

Pym, L.

Waddington, L.

Quinton, L.

Waterford, M.

Radnor, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Weir, V.

Reay, L.

Westbury, L.

Rennell, L.

Wigram, L.

Renton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Willoughby de Eresby, B.

Romney, E.

Windlesham, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Woolton, E.

Rowallan, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Wynford, L.

Saatchi, L.

Yarborough, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Young, B.

St Davids, V.

Younger of Leckie, V.

St Germans, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Ahmed, L.

Borrie, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bragg, L.

Alli, L.

Brett, L.

Amos, B.

Bridges, L.

Annan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brookman, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Avebury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Bach, L.

Burlison, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Burns, L.

Barnett, L.

Carlisle, E.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Carrick, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Blackstone, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Blease, L.

Christopher, L.

1419

Clancarty, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNair, L.

Crawley, B.

McNally, L.

Croham, L.

Maddock, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Methuen, L.

Dholakia, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Effingham, E.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ezra, L.

Newby, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Geraint, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Puttnam, L.

Glanusk, L.

Quirk, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goodhart, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grantchester, L.

Rennard, L.

Gregson, L.

Richard, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Hacking, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Haskel, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sewel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hoyle, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Simon, V.

Hylton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Smith of Clifton, L.

Stallard, L.

Islwyn, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jacobs, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Tenby, V.

Jeger, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thornton, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Thurlow, L.

Laming, L.

Thurso, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tope, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Uddin, B.

Ludford, B.

Varley, L.

1420

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Whitty, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Walpole, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Warner, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warnock, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Warwick of Undercliff, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

Weatherill, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Royal Assent
4.49 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act,

Disability Rights Commission Act,

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act,

Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, Etc) Act,

Commonwealth Development Corporation Act,

Football (Offences and Disorder) Act,

Access to Justice Act,

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act,

Pollution Prevention and Control Act,

Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Act,

Employment Relations Act,

Local Government Act.

House of Lords Bill: Treaty of Union
Lord Gray Lord Gray rose to move, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, breach the provisions of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland be referred to the Committee for Privileges.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of consideration of the House of Lords Bill, we have debated amendments that address the question of the continuing statutory representation of Scotland in this House. None was acceptable to the Government, who argued that the right to such representation was spent.
I will not revisit the details of those discussions, but will briefly explain why I seek referral to the Committee for Privileges. There is a wholly reasonable case to answer. I submit that the House of Lords Bill breaches a fundamental element of the Union bargain. (That it may also deny the rights of individual Peers of Scotland is a subsidiary issue). The fundamental principle is the right of Scotland to continue to have specific representation in this House guaranteed by statute.
Without provision for Scottish representation in the Parliament of Great Britain there would have been no Union: hence provision was written into the Acts for both this House and another place. The mechanics of implementation were dealt with in subsidiary legislation which was, in turn, deemed to be part of the treaty. From

1421
1707 until 1963 representation was derived directly from the treaty. Sixteen Peers of Scotland were elected for each Parliament by holders of Scottish peerages.
They received no Writ of Summons but took their places by right of election as Article XXII of the Act of Union required as being:
"the 16 Peers by whom Scotland is to be represented".
In 1963, on grounds that the House had greatly increased in size and the number of non-representative Peers was small—at that time it was 15: today it would be 25— Section 4 of the Peerage Act admitted all Peers of Scotland and relevant repeals ended the elections. The 1963 Act—this is critical—in no way undermined the principle implicit in the Union Acts. But the House of Lords Bill will do so. The Government are using the actual wording which enlarged Scottish representation in 1963 to eliminate individual Peers via Clause 1 of the Bill.
When amendments were debated mention was naturally made of Scots life Peers. At Report stage amendments were moved which called for a guaranteed minimum number of Scots life Peers resident in Scotland to continue the effect of the Acts of Union in the interim House. The Government were not persuaded to have such a guarantee on the face of the Bill. Faced with refusal to acknowledge Scotland's statutory right to representation, I have tabled this Motion.
The question is less a matter of which Act of Union provisions may or may not be specifically entrenched. It is rather the question as to what the architects of the Union intended should endure while the Union exists— the broad purpose approach as opposed to emphasis on actual words. Various passages of the 18th century legislation and their interplay indicate both permissiveness and permanence.
The Government case has been that Article XXII is spent, because it was repealed via legislative house-keeping after the passages relating to this House were superseded—but this is wholly irrelevant. The words are still there for us to read and interpret. Incidentally, Article XXII also dealt with representation of Scotland in another place. To argue that its repeal ended the right of representation in this House is to argue that it ended the statutory Scottish right to be represented by Members in the Commons, which is ridiculous.
I said earlier that without representation in the Westminster Parliament guaranteed by statute there would have been no Union. The negotiators were not thinking just about 1707, 1709 and 1710, but about an ongoing arrangement. At this stage of our constitutional settlement it is singularly important that we respect the Union and the Acts which created it, and singularly inappropriate that a fundamental provision should be swept away as a side-effect of the House of Lords Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, breach the provisions of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland be referred to the Committee for Privileges.—(Lord Gray.)
4.57 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to my mind, it is unthinkable that hereditary Peers of Scotland should be treated differently from all the other Peers who would be affected by this House of Lords Bill. But a very strange technical position arises, and I think that my noble friend Lord Gray is right to draw attention to the rather strange position, technically, of the Scottish Peers.
To my mind, that position is due to the fact that, although some provisions of the Act of Union have been repealed, especially the repeal resulting from the Peerage Act 1963, other provisions have not been repealed and which seem to indicate that the Scottish Peers have certain constitutional rights. I will not weary your Lordships with all the detail, but I think I should just make a brief reference to the articles concerned in what is technically called the Union with Scotland Act 1906. Article XXII was repealed, but not until the Statute Law Repeals Act 1993 got rid of it. Therefore, our minds are at ease on that matter.
As far as concerns Article XXIII, that was only partially repealed. The heading refers to the privileges of the 16 Peers of Scotland. Since the Peerages Act 1963, the number has not been limited to 16. Without troubling your Lordships with all the detail, Article XXIII of the 1706 Act preserves various privileges for Peers of Scotland. The two other relevant provisions are contained in paragraphs VI and VII of Article XXV of that Act. The sidenote reads:
"Recital of Acts of Parliament of Scotland for settling election of the 16 Peers and 45 Members for Scotland".
Very strangely, that has not been repealed. The last reference reads:
"The said Act declared valid as if it had been part of the said Articles of Union".
Again, that refers to the 16 Peers and 45 MPs to represent Scotland.
If the Committee for Privileges had not been required anyway to consider the Motion that has just been passed by a majority of your Lordships, I would have been reluctant to support my noble friend Lord Gray. But as that committee is to consider the matter, perhaps even during the Summer Recess when it will have plenty of time to do so, it is only right that it should consider the unusual position, technical though one may think it to be, of the Peers of Scotland under the Act of Union of 1706. For that reason, I support my noble friend. The Committee for Privileges may well reach the conclusion that there should be introduced into the House of Lords Bill a schedule to repeal those parts of the Act of Union to which I have referred.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have discussed the issue of Scottish Peers and the interplay between the Bill to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships' House and the Treaty and Act of Union. My noble friend Lord Renton has just explained that in 1963 some provisions of the Act of Union were repealed, but I believe I am right in saying that there can be no repeals of the provisions of the treaty since the two bodies which were party to that

1423
treaty no longer exist. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Gray said, whatever Parliament might have done in 1963, or may do today, the words of the treaty remain. Clearly, Article XXII makes clear the position of Scottish Peers.
One of the questions that must be asked is to what extent the words in the treaty were entrenched. In the treaty and the two Acts which followed it, one passed by the Scottish Parliament—the Union with England Act—and the other passed by the English Parliament— the Union with Scotland Act—some matters were certainly entrenched; some were clearly not entrenched; and on other matters there is silence on whether or not they are entrenched.
Previously, I quoted the judgment of Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. I shall not recite all that I have quoted before because I do not believe that to be necessary. However, it is worth reminding noble Lords, and the Government Front Bench, of one sentence in the judgment of the Court of Session in 1953:
"Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provisions shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect".
The declaration in Article XIX setting up the Court of Session and the High Court of Judiciary states:
"That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom".
That is just a flavour of one of those areas where clearly something has been entrenched.
When we discussed this matter previously, the Government's case was that the provision for the 16 Scottish Peers was not entrenched. Interestingly, one can argue that the first part of Article XXII, which refers to the 16 Peers, is not related directly by non-entrenchment to the second part which is concerned with the method of election. Clearly, the method of election was not entrenched. One can argue that the first part dealing with the 16 Peers was entrenched.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who argued these matters so well at Committee and Report stages—I am glad that there is a measure of agreement from the Government Front Bench—pointed out that if the position of Scottish Peers had been entrenched, the 1963 Act would not have been possible. But the 1963 Act did not remove the right of Scottish Peers to sit here; it extended the right from 16 to whatever number then existed. There were not many more than 16 at that time, but the number was certainly greater than 16. Therefore, there was not a reduction, but an increase, in the number of Scottish Peers in your Lordships' House.
In this Bill we are faced not only with a reduction but the removal of that right in the Treaty of Union. There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament would not have agreed to the Treaty of Union if the position of Scottish Peers in this House and of Members of Parliament in the other place had not been entrenched.
1424
There are lots of Scottish life Peers in your Lordships' House. No doubt whoever answers the debate will point out that there are more than enough of us—perhaps sometimes too many—but that is not a very good argument. A future government may simply allow the Scottish resident life Peers to wither on the vine and may have a second Chamber composed wholly of Peers from England and Wales. I do not suggest that that will happen, but it could.
In conclusion, the Treaty and Acts of Union are not dull old documents of interest only to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and a few other historians; they are the foundation stones of this kingdom and Parliament. We must ensure that we do not breach them. A powerful party in Scotland, represented in considerable numbers in Labour's Scottish Parliament, is determined not only to breach them, but to tear them up. We must not give those people any succour. They will not go away and will continue to be argued with.
We should put beyond doubt the impact of the present Bill on the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, because other matters; are to come before the Committee for Privileges, it seems right and proper that noble Lords should agree with my noble friend Lord Gray and ask that committee to look also at this matter and to reach a judgment so that we may all know that the Bill is entirely consistent with the important building block that makes up the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is correct when he says that this Bill kicks away the guaranteed representation of Scotland. However, I have a slightly different concern. There is no doubt that this Bill removes the special protection that was negotiated with such difficulty during the spring and summer of 1706 with the English Whig government—I say this perhaps with a degree of surprise—led by the Earl of Godolphin.
Earlier in our proceedings on this Bill I tabled an amendment which called for a replacement group—in fact the amendment called for 8 per cent of life Peers to be domiciled in Scotland. It was rejected by the Government. I can express my concern in a single question: how much more of the treaty can be violated before it folds? I can think of no more central part of the treaty than the representation. I suppose that my watchword should be "no legislation without guaranteed representation". I hope to hear that there will be new treaty negotiations in the light of the successful passage of the Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long on the second Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. All that I have said in the previous debate about the dangerous precedent of the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, applies even more to this Motion. Indeed, I suggest that it is in itself an example of the dangers of establishing the idea that recourse to the

1425
Committee for Privileges during the passage of a Bill should be accepted as part of the consideration of a Bill—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and I apologise as the House wants to move on. The noble Baroness said that she had tried this argument out on the best minds of the Cabinet Office. That is a most impressive origin for this argument. But perhaps she might care to look at the argument again. After all, if I am right, she is implying that every Bill, no matter what its subject, would come within the remit of the Committee for Privileges if this precedent were followed. I thought that the remit of the Committee for Privileges was matters appertaining to Peerages in this House.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, although neither the noble Viscount nor I are lawyers, it is perfectly understandable to me—and I am sure that if it is understandable to me, it will be clear to him—that the role of the Committee for Privileges has heretofore been to consider individual claims of Peerage within the context of an existing law. The point relating to the present reference suggested by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is to establish the role of the Committee for Privileges in the legislative process and to consider a Bill, which, as 1 attempted to explain in my response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, is unprecedented. I do not believe that that is a matter which I need to refer again to the Cabinet Office. I shall ask it once more, but I believe that that is fairly well established.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that one of the problems relating to the second Motion is that it begins to follow a precedent while the result of the Division which achieved the first reference to the Committee for Privileges is still hot off the press. To that extent, it is in a sense even more inappropriate. To add the reference to the Scottish Peers and to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in his comments on his Motion, cannot be easily added to the Committee for Privileges' consideration of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She keeps saying that this is in character a total departure from anything that the Committee for Privileges has been invited to do in the past. But I draw her attention to the Companion, which says that:
"The Committee hears and makes recommendations upon any matter of privilege, or claim of peerage, referred to it by the House",
and on the preceding page, it states:
"The following are aspects of privilege of Parliament: Freedom from interference in going to, attending at and going away from Parliament".
1426
I can think of no more substantial interference with that than being told that you are shut out by an Act the validity of which you question.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry that I am evidently being extremely unclear in my point on that matter. All the points referred to by the noble and learned Lord relate to individual claims and not to a Bill, or, potentially, a statute passed by the sovereign Houses of Parliament. As I said in reference in my previous reply to the case of the noble Marquess, Lord Bristol, it was specifically stated in the ruling on that particular case that any interpretation of peerage law could be overcome by a statute of the sovereign Parliament. That is a simple point and it is one on which I rest. I do not believe that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, about individual cases is relevant to that point.
I should like to continue with a number of points I have to make relating to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. The first point is that we have extensively debated the issues which he now seeks to refer to the committee, both in Committee and on Report. We have calculated that we have already spent some four and a half hours discussing the question of the rights of Scottish Peers in relation to your Lordships' House. I must say that, having listened with attention to the points made this afternoon both by the noble Lord and from the Opposition Front Bench, I have not heard novel points which were not considered during those debates.
That form of debate is, of course, the right and legitimate way of raising those issues, as I have already commented in relation to the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I am certainly not complaining about that. However, I should remind the House that we have not only exhaustively debated the question, but we have voted on it. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, moved one of his amendments to a Division. It began with the words,
"In order to continue the effect of Article XXII of the Treaty of Union".
Are we now to establish a situation by these types of Motion where noble Lords who dislike the decision of the House, whether in Committee, on Report or at another stage of the Bill, are to be permitted to seek an opinion of the Committee for Privileges in an attempt to overturn a decision by the House?
Secondly, the reference in the Motion is extremely broad. At least the Motion which we discussed before, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, had the advantage of being fairly specific about the question which the Committee for Privileges was to discuss. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, simply asks whether the Bill as a whole is compatible with the treaty as a whole.
I believe that that unwarrantedly stretches the jurisdiction for the Committee for Privileges. It asks the committee of this House to decide whether a proposed piece of legislation is compatible with a treaty. He may say—and indeed, he did so—that the point on which that turns is on the rights of a branch of the peerage,

1427
although my recollection from our earlier debates is that the noble Lord has been very insistent that the rights of the Scottish Peers to membership of your Lordships' House have always been statutory and not established by custom or common law. But that is not the question which he seeks to put to the committee. He is effectively seeking a ruling from the committee of this House that this Parliament is not sovereign.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has explained at length, and on several occasions during the four and a half hours in which we have debated these points, that the Government are entirely confident that the Bill does not breach the Treaty of Union, and certainly cannot breach the Acts of Union, as the relevant provisions of those two Acts of Parliament have been repealed. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said on 22nd June that he was persuaded that what the Government are doing in the Bill does not infringe the Treaty of Union. On that basis, he withdrew an amendment in his name and that of the Opposition Front Bench. I am interested that he has now changed his mind on the matter. I wonder whether that goes back to the points which I was making earlier about the intent behind the Motions which we have before us this afternoon.
If the noble Lord, Lord Gray, insists on pressing his Motion to a Division, I hope that on this second occasion your Lordships will see the sense of not burdening the Committee for Privileges with the matter and will not support the Motion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, if I heard her correctly, she was saying that the treaty between England and Scotland in 1706 was a treaty between two countries, but not an Act of Parliament. But in the Union with Scotland Act of 1906 which I have obtained, as amended, from Volume 10 of Halsbury's Statutes, on constitutional law, we find that the treaty is embodied in that statute and is therefore still part of the law of the United Kingdom. We cannot escape that fact.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said when replying to the original points made, I am not a lawyer. I hear precisely what the noble Lord says. But I and the Government Front Bench are advised—it is a point we have made consistently throughout the nearly five hours of discussion on this issue throughout the stages of the Bill—that the relevant Acts and treaties are not inapplicable in relation to the Bill.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Renton, and for that: of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I am sorry that the accord that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I established on Amendment No. 77 at Report stage has not carried over to my Motion.
As regards the length of time we have spent on the issue, it would be fair to say that much of that time has been taken with speeches on representation in other
1428
areas of the country which were way off the amendments being discussed at the time, although perfectly proper within the general context.
I believe that the Committee for Privileges will be perfectly able to understand the Question I put. When the time comes, it will be for someone else to argue the case. I need say no more today. I think that it would be best if I merely say that I commend the Motion to the House.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 275; Not-Contents, 185.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Ailsa, M.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Adenham, L.

Clinton, L.

Aldington, L.

Cobbold, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Coleridge, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Colwyn, L.

Annaly, L.

Cope of Berkely, L.

Arlington, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Arran, E.

Courtown, E.

Ashboume, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Astor, V.

Cowley, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cranborne, V.

Attlee, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Crathome, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Barnard, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cross, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cunliffe, L.

Bell, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Berners, B.

De Freyne, L.

Biddulph, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Biffen, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boardman, L.

Deedes, L.

Boston, L.

Denbigh, E.

Bowness, L.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denman, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Derwent, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Digby, L.

Bridges, L.

Dilhome, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Donegall, M.

Bruntisfield, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Dulverton, L.

Buchan, E.

Dundee, E.

Burton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Buscombe, B.

Dunleath, L.

Butterworth, L.

Eccles, V.

Byford, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Cadman, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Caldecote, V.

Elles, B.

Calverley, L.

Elton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L,

Erroll, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Exmouth, V.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Falmouth, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Feldman, L.

Chesham, L.

Feversham, L.

Chilver, L.

Fisher, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Forbes, L.

1429

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Monson, L.

Gage, V.

Montrose, D.

Gainford, L.

Morris, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mountevans, L.

Geddes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Glentoran, L.

Moynihan, L.

Grantley, L.

Munster, E.

Gray, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Greenway, L.

Napier of Magdala, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Naseby, L.

Hanham, B.

Nelson, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Harlech, L.

Newall, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Norfolk, D.

Harrowby, E.

Norrie, L.

Hawke, L.

Northbrook, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Northesk, E.

Hemphill, L.

Norton, L.

Henley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Higgins, L.

Nunbumholme, L.

Hogg, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Holdemess, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Hollenden, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hooper, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Howe, E.

Palmer, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Patten, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Huntly, M.

Peel, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Pender, L.

Inchcape, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Iveagh, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Polwarth, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Prentice, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Pym, L.

Kimball, L.

Radnor, E.

Kingsland, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Reay, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rennell, L.

Kintore, E.

Renton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Romney, E.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rowallan, L.

Leathers, V.

Saint Albans, D.

Limerick, E.

St. Davids, V.

Lindsay, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Luke, L.

Savile, L.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lytton, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Selsdon, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sharpies, B.

McConnell, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McGowan, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Stevens of Ludgate. L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strange, B.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sudeley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swansea, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Tebbit, L.

Middleton, L.

Teviot, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Milverton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Torphichen, L.

1430

Townshend, M.

Westbury, L.

Trefgame, L. [Teller.]

Wigram, L.

Trenchard, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Verulam, E.

Willoughby de Eresby, B.

Vivian, L.

Windlesham, L.

Waddington, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Wynford, L.

Waterford, M.

Yarborough, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Young, B.

Weir, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ahmed, L.

Goudie, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Alli, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Amos, B.

Grantchester, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gregson, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Grenfell, L.

Avebury, L.

Hacking, L.

Bach, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barrett, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Haskel, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayman, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hogg of Cumbenauld, L.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Borne, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bragg, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brookman, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hylton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Burlison, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Burns, L.

Carlisle, E.

Islwyn, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jacobs, L.

Christopher, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Clancarty, E.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Lockwood, B.

Croham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Longford, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Diamond, L.

Maddock, B.

Dixon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Marsh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Methuen, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mishcon. L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gilbert, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Newby, L.

Glanusk, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

1431

Peston, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Puttnam, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Quirk, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tenby, V.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Rea, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Redssdale, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thornton, B.

Rennard, L.

Thurlow, L.

Richard, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Rochester, L.

Tope, L.

Rodcers of Quarry Bank, L.

Tordoff, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Uddin, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Varley, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sandberg, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sawyer, L.

Walpole, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Warner, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Warwick of Undercliff, B.

Serota, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Sewel, L.

Weatherill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Whitty, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Simon, V.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Political Parties: Funding
5.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home. Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the funding of political parties.
"We came into office committed to reform. Our three commitments were: first, to require large donations to political parties to be disclosed; secondly, to outlaw foreign funding of political parties; and, thirdly, to invite the Committee on Standards in Public Life to look into the wider question of the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom.
"The committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Neill of Bladen, was given this remit in November 1997 and reported in October 1998. The committee's review was comprehensive and authoritative.
"Because of the range of matters covered, it was not practicable to legislate in the current Session of Parliament, but I promised to publish a draft Bill before the Summer Recess. I am doing that today. The draft Bill is contained in a White Paper which provides the Government's overall response to the Neill committee's report. We intend to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible, taking full account of comments received by 15th October.
1432
"Let me now summarise the main points of the White Paper and draft Bill. The Bill takes forward the two specific manifesto commitments I referred to earlier. These were endorsed by the Neill committee. Donations to political parties of £5,000 or more at the national level, and of £1,000 or more at the local level, will have to be made public; and, it will be unlawful for a political party to receive donations from an individual who is not registered to vote in the United Kingdom, or from companies which are not incorporated in the European Union and carrying on business in the United Kingdom. Provision is also made for shareholder approval for donations.
"There has also long been concern over the amounts political parties are able to spend nationally at election times. The existing law, developed in the last century, already regulates very closely what can be spent by or on behalf of candidates at elections at constituency or ward level. But today a large part of the effort—and money—devoted to winning elections is spent by parties nationally and not on behalf of specific candidates.
"The Bill therefore provides for new national spending limits on election expenditure and agrees with the Neill committee that the limits should he set at a level substantially below the amounts spent by the two main parties in 1997.
"On this basis, Neill recommended a limit of £20 million for the main parties involved in a UK general election, with lower limits for parties which do not field full slates of candidates, and for other elections. The Bill therefore provides for new national spending limits. When the Bill is introduced, it will also contain provisions for regulating 'third-party' spending at the national level, as recommended by the committee.
"To enforce the restrictions on donations and expenditure, the draft Bill puts obligations on the parties at a local and national level to keep and submit accounts. This will apply particularly to the recording of donations. The scheme in the draft Bill which sets a de minimis level of £50 for internal reporting follows the Neill committee's recommendations.
"All political parties will wish to study these detailed provisions carefully over the forthcoming months. If the object in view can be served with some simplification or easement, the Government are open to suggestions.
"The White Paper contains a detailed chart in Annex 1 setting out each of the committee's recommendations and our response. The one recommendation we have not pursued is that income tax relief should be allowed on donations to political parties. The Government take the view that this would amount to state aid by another route, and would divert expenditure from other priorities.
"Some political donations are made not to a party as such but to groups within a party or individuals, including honourable Members of this House. We agree with the Neill committee that comparable requirements should be imposed in respect of such donations and we propose that the Bill as introduced

1433
should cover this. We would welcome views on whether the obligation to report such donations should fall on the party in question or on the person who receives them and/or whether such donations which at present are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests should be put on to a statutory basis.
"I turn now to referendums. The Neill committee made a number of suggestions for change in this area. The Government accept them all. It is important to ensure that the two sides in a referendum campaign have a fair opportunity to put their case. We therefore propose to include cash state support on an equal basis for the two umbrella campaign organisations, with free mailing and access to referendum broadcasts, as the committee suggested.
"The committee also made a set of recommendations concerning the position of the government of the day in a referendum campaign. As the committee indicates, a government are almost bound to be closely engaged in the subject matter of a referendum. There is, however, a point where the Government should step back and leave it to the political parties and other campaign groups to make their case to the electorate. The draft Bill therefore provides for a 28-day period running up to the referendum poll in which the government of the day will not issue material to the public on the subject matter of the referendum, and other rules similar to election purdah periods will apply.
"There is, however, one area where the Government have gone further than the Neill committee's recommendations. It would plainly be unfair and inconsistent with everything else proposed if referendum campaigns could be skewed by the injection of disproportionately large funds which happen to be at the disposal of a particular party or campaign group. We are therefore proposing to set limits on all organisations involved in referendum campaigns. In the draft Bill they are £5 million for the two designated 'umbrella' organisations and for political parties with two or more Members in this House, and £500,000 for other political parties and campaign organisations. These restrictions would run from shortly after the date when a Bill providing for a referendum is introduced in Parliament. Referendum organisations will also, as Neill recommended, be subject to the same requirements as political parties on foreign donations and so on.
"I have left until last one of the most important provisions of the draft Bill. The Neill committee recommended, as have many others, the establishment of an electoral commission. The Government agree. The commission's first function will be to oversee observance by political parties and others of the new regulatory regime. But I want to go further.
"The commission will therefore be charged with making recommendations on changes to electoral law and we also see the commission having, in the wider sense, an important role to play in 'voter education'.
1434
I want the commission to encourage people to vote in elections and referendums and to help to explain the democratic system in a wholly non-partisan way.
"The draft Bill also provides for the electoral commission to take over, at a later date, the functions of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and of the Local Government Commission for England.
"It is of paramount importance that the electoral commission should be wholly independent of the government of the day. The draft Bill provides the strongest safeguards of this kind which our constitution can provide. The commissioners would be appointed by Her Majesty on an address from this House, and a Speaker's Committee would be established to oversee the commission's budget.
"The Neill committee's report rightly emphasises the vital contribution which political parties make to this country's democratic life.
"For too long public confidence in the political system has been undermined by the absence of clear, fair and open statutory controls on how political parties are funded. All of us here want to encourage citizens to play a full part in this country's political system and that must include encouragement of voluntary donations to political parties.
"The report of the Neill committee gives us all the chance to make significant improvements in this vital area of our national life. The publication today of the draft Bill and White Paper provide the detail of the Government's intentions. By providing honesty and openness to our political system, we hope to restore public trust and to promote greater confidence in our democracy".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. From the outset, perhaps I may say that we support the main thrust of the recommendations of the Neill committee, the White Paper and the proposed Bill.
We support the principle of state funding for referendums. I have had only a brief opportunity to see the White Paper. It was available to my colleagues in another place this morning, but I managed to see it only in the past half-hour. The key is: is the question posed in the referendum fair? I believe that the referendum commission should consider that issue also. Can the Minister say whether the referendum commission will look at the question to be asked in the referendum?
In the light of the proposal in the draft Bill, will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be no more referendums in this country until the Bill is in place? The Government should be neutral. The White Paper recommends that, but limits the requirement for such neutrality to a period of 28 days before a referendum. We feel that that is very short and gives an enormous advantage to the Government. I realise that that 28-day limit is taken from similar limits in elections. However, in the case of referendums, where there is a long

1435
build-up, we shall certainly want to consider that point carefully when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
We support the proposal of the creation of an electoral commission which will be charged with making recommendations on changes to electoral law. It is interesting that the Government supported all the main recommendations of the Neill report except one; that is, tax relief on donations. It is interesting to speculate on why that was not agreed, particularly when, by the Government's own admission, it would cost less than the amount that the Government currently spend on special advisers. There are twice as many as there have ever been before.
It is somewhat extraordinary that the unions can use money, which is given to them under favourable tax regimes, to fund the Labour Party, but that individuals who want to fund any other party will not he able to obtain tax relief.
I turn to another area of concern; namely, Northern Ireland, which I recognise is addressed in the White Paper. I note that citizens of the Republic will be able to make donations to political parties in Northern Ireland. That is intriguing. That makes them entirely separate from any other citizens. The Government are saying that foreign nationals—citizens of another country—should not be allowed to make donations to political parties, yet citizens of the Republic may be allowed to do so. There may or may not be good reasons for that. However, what worries us is what checks will be made. How will that work? Will Sinn Fein be considered as a political party? How will we know whether money which comes from the Republic is coming from the right place and what it is buying? What special provisions will be put in force?
We welcome the Government's views on blind trusts. I believe that this is a U-turn for the Government. Prior to the election, they used blind trusts in a way in which they had never been used before in this country. I do not seem to be able to find the relevant clause in the draft Bill. I understand that parliamentary counsel ran out of time. I am not sure whether they ran out of time or enthusiasm. Blind trusts were a pretty disgraceful way of giving secret funding to political parties. It would be interesting to know how many Ministers in this House benefited from funding from blind trusts.
As I have said, we support all the recommendations in this report. It is a pity that the Government do not support all the recommendations in the Neill report. We support the premise on which the Neill report is based; that is, that if you can vote in this country, you should be able to donate money to a political party.
We have concerns about whether the £50 limit above which donations have to be registered is too small, but that is a minor point that we shall discuss in the future.
The Conservative Party has been accused in the past about political donations, but there is one major difference between us and the Labour Party. We have never changed our policy or attempted to change government policy because of a £1 million donation from Bernie Ecclestone. We have never brought forward a commitment because of lobbying from the
1436
International Fund for Animal Welfare. We have never given positions in government to major donors to our party.
I welcome the Neill report and the fact that the Government have accepted almost all the recommendations. It is a pity that they have not accepted the others, but we look forward to dealing with the Bill carefully.
5.50 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, with those words from repenting sinners echoing in our ears we can look forward. I assure the Minister that we welcome the Government's response to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill. We particularly welcome the role given to the electoral commission. Democracy needs democrats to make it work. The Government's response is an active rather than a passive way of revitalising our democracy. After 20 years of slamming stable doors, the proposals allow Parliament, politicians and political parties to get ahead of the game.
Hitherto, state funding has been based on expediency or opportunism. I well remember that when the short money was introduced in 1974, a lot of the debate revolved around how money could be given to political parties without it getting into the hands of Mr Wedgwood Benn, who was then operating an unofficial opposition at Transport House. We have tinkered with allowances, increased expenses and increased Opposition support for parliamentary purposes. All of those measures were good in their way, but they were piecemeal and ad hoc. This response is more coherent and wide ranging, but it still refuses to bite the bullet of state funding for political parties.
Does the Minister agree that the £40 million fund-raising cap for the two main political parties still represents a substantial sum to be raised by voluntary means? Let us not forget that money will have to be raised against a background of limits on company and individual donations. The treatment given to companies and individuals by the media for their donations to political parties in recent months will not make it a popular exercise. If parties are forced to raise funds from private sources, they are forced into temptation Should not the electoral commission be charged in its review with looking at specific proposals for the state funding of political parties? We believe that that is the best way of cleaning up our democracy.
The income tax check-off is only one way of introducing state funding. There are many other systems, including matching funding and cash on the basis of votes in elections. Many countries have state funding and operate it perfectly well. It makes for a healthier democracy.
I should like to raise one or two specific points about the Statement. Clause 52 of the draft Bill refers to political activity by those on the electoral register. Does that imply that donations or political activity by those under 18 will be restricted? It would be a pity if people under 18 were not encouraged to give to political parties. I gave my first donation to a political party at the age of 16. It was not my last donation or my last political party, but that is another story.

1437
Is there sufficient recognition in the structure set out by the Minister of the devolved nature of British politics? A lot of the funding seems to go to the central London-based party machines. Is there a need to look at the nature of control over expenditure by individual candidates at constituency level? I have long believed that the provisions are too nit-picking and too open to genuine mistakes, and that the system could be simplified.
I welcome what the White Paper says about the control of party political broadcasts. It is very important that we retain party political broadcasts and that they remain under party control; otherwise, the door is open to the grotesque expenditure on television broadcasting that we see in other countries.
The activities of the Government's propaganda machine could usefully be referred to the electoral commission. Does the Minister agree that the Government's annual report comes very close to party political propaganda? I wonder whether it would benefit the electoral commission to look at government publications. Do the Government plan to publish an annual report in general election year? That would certainly be an abuse of public funds.
How do the Government intend to reflect the views of policy holders in insurance companies, who may use their vote to influence political donations by public companies in which they hold shares? Insurance companies have a responsibility to policy holders who do not wish their money to go to political parties.
Finally, why is there to be no cap on personal donations? Surely the Minister agrees that there comes a point at which an individual donation ceases to be public-spirited and becomes obscene. We shall be looking for a cap on individual donations.
Overall, it would be churlish not to say that the proposals are an imaginative and forward-looking response to the problem of sleaze that has bedevilled our politics for a decade or more. They will do much to restore public confidence in our political process.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for their general welcome. The noble Viscount said that his party supported the main thrust of the proposals and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was very generous in his concluding remarks. He and his party are entitled to a good deal of the credit for the outcome. They have agitated for proposals such as those on electoral commissions for a long time. Being as objective as I can, I think that it is fair to say that we have given full effect to the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill.
The £40 million cap for the two main political parties is substantial, but election expenses are very high and if we want elections in a modern democracy to be educative as well as soliciting people's votes, the cap that we are considering is not out of kilter with what most large parties would recognise as legitimate expenditure for election purposes.
1438
I want to stress again what I said in repeating Jack Straw's Statement. We have put this out with a view to receiving comments by 15th October. I repeat again what was said in the Statement. Any suggestions consistent with the general thrust of the draft Bill we genuinely welcome. But I do not pretend that there may not be room for some improvement on detail.
Under-18s can still be members of political parties and therefore they could contribute. The maximum prohibition on them would be £50. For most under-18s—I say "most" in deference to the noble Lord, Lord McNally—that is a good deal more than they would want to contribute to a political party, even one such as New Labour which I am sure will have many children of 16 wanting to contribute perhaps £75 or more.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, said, rightly if I may say with respect to the quality of his report, that one has to look differently at Northern Ireland. The circumstances there are different. At the moment people genuinely fear that if they make donations and their identities are known, there may be dangerous consequences. In relation to Northern Ireland—we specifically dealt with this in Clause 63—parties will still need to report donations to the electoral commission, but the details will not be disclosed. That is because of the sad truth which we all recognised in our recent debates that Northern Ireland and its political arrangements are not the same as those that we are fortunate enough to have in England, Wales and Scotland.
The annual report is a reasonable document. For instance, the one produced this week concedes that, despite outward appearance, the Government have not been perfect on every occasion. It says what we have and have not achieved and that is part of the legitimate, educative process in which any government are entitled to indulge, as are any opposition.
The question of policy holders in insurance companies is rather remote. I do not see that, if one is a policy holder with, for instance, Norwich Union which has a portfolio of perhaps 500 different shares, adverse consequences would necessarily follow if one were not able to say to Norwich Union, "By the way, you must examine the accounts of every one of these 500 share companies and see whether or not they are making donations". The way to deal with this is the direct route; namely, shareholder approval of political donations.
I take the noble Lord's point about no cap on overall personal donations. I simply say that to some—I cannot put my finger on a name at the moment—a donation of £3 million is not of great significance, whereas a donation of £3,000 would be of considerably more significance if I were to make it.
Those were the points helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I turn to the points raised by the noble Viscount, with which I found it difficult to credit him. He said that blind trusts were always pretty disgraceful. How strange that is. The evidence that the

1439
Conservative Party gave to the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, on 27th February 1998 was,
"We believe there is an argument in favour of a form of blind trust. That should be examined by the committee".
Were those words "pretty disgraceful"? Perhaps I misheard. Then the noble Viscount, to my pleasure as well as surprise, raised the question of donations. He said that the Labour Party was given £ 1 million by Mr. Ecclestone. That is true. And it was returned. My noble friend Lord Sawyer wrote to the committee. He received the advice that return would be more suitable, more scrupulous, and the money was returned. I contrast that with the case of Mr Ma. Jack Straw wrote on 2Ist January 1998 to the Leader of the Conservative Party saying,
"Dear William, you have accepted that the Conservative Party received I million from Mr. C. K. Ma in 1994. Let me ask some questions. Why did Mr. Ma give the money? Who negotiated it? Was he promised that charges against Mr. Ma for drug trafficking would be dropped? Why is he now saying he wants his money back because expectations had not been met? Were you or your party aware of the Ma family's alleged links with drug trafficking? In the light of this information do you think it is appropriate for the Tory Party to keep this money? Would not the best outcome be for the Tory Party to donate the £1 million to anti-drug charities?".
It will not surprise anyone in this House that we are still waiting for any sort of substantive reply to those questions. But Jack Straw, being diligent, did not leave it there. He sent a letter which your Lordships will relish. It is dated 20th March 1998 and concludes with these prescient words:
"The Tory Party will continue to be dogged by the scandals and sleaze that characterised it in government".
It is true that PAL gave the Labour Party £1.1 million, which is public knowledge. It is true also, as I reminded your Lordships, that up until two or three years ago it gave a figure of around £170,000. The question is openness, reportability, accountability and an outside objective body such as the electoral commission. I repeat what Jack Straw said in his Statement: we have built in every possible, copper-bottomed constitutional guarantee of that body's independence. It is fair to say that we have produced an open, candid response to an extremely powerful authoritative report. The next time the noble Viscount raises complaints about the Labour Party—I do not blame him; there was not much to complain about—I shall have a few more bits of correspondence available.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he did not cover my question in relation to referendums. 1 would be grateful if he could quickly cover that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right. It is my error for overlooking that. As always, a referendum Bill will need to be authorised by Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide on the nature of the question. The noble Viscount asked a further question and I ought to have answered this as well. I apologise to him personally as well as to the House. The question concerned what would happen to referendums before this Bill came into effect. We do
1440
not envisage that there will be any referendums to be held before this Bill comes into effect. I can certainly say that if there was to be such a referendum, it would be only right in the discussions on that Bill to give full consideration to the sort of questions we have discussed briefly today and which are more fully discussed in the White Paper.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord's halo of innocence disappears, which came about during his last few remarks, can he say whether the Government have checked that the differentiation made between what the people in the south of Ireland can do and what other people in the European Union can do is in order according to European legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe it is. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library. It is well known that the relationships we have electorally with those who come from the Republic of Ireland have always been different from those in the rest of the European Union. That is relevant in response to her question.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend not only on repeating the Statement, which he had to do anyway, but also on his responses to the two Front-Benchers.
Perhaps I have this wrong, but is it right that donations which come from Ireland will still be allowed to be uncapped and be regarded purely as personal donations? If so, what justification is there for that situation? Having embarked upon a programme of ensuring that we have much more clarity and openness about the situation which has been hidden for years by the Conservative Party, why have that situation relating to Ireland? Money could still be filtered through rather furtively and to the disadvantage of our political system.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are dealing with a different relationship, first, between the Republic and the United Kingdom generally and also in particular in the context of Northern Ireland. No donations of any sort will be capped. The question of disclosability in the Northern Ireland context is that donations will have to be reported to the commission but will not then need to be published. At the moment people are genuinely fearful that, if their donations are attributable to them as individuals, they may be under justified fear of physical attack or other reprisals.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Neill committee, although I do not of course speak on behalf of the committee, except perhaps in one respect—which is to say how much all the members of the committee owe to the personal efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, which were crucial in achieving the success that the report has had. He is not here today, but I am very glad to see that two other members of the Committee are present.

1441
The Neill committee will of course consider the draft Bill and submit its comments to the Government. It would therefore be inappropriate for me today to say anything on the specific issues. However, I am delighted that the Government have accepted so much of the committee's report. The committee strongly believed that it was a matter of the greatest importance to encourage participation in politics by as many people as possible, and the Government have accepted that principle. At a time of concern about a small number of individuals giving very large donations, I wonder whether the Government also agree that it is more than ever important to do everything possible to get a larger proportion of funds from more small donations.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord on at least two bases. He has given me the opportunity, which I did not earlier have, to express everyone's gratitude for the work done by the committee. I absolutely agree with him that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, if I may say so without appearing patronising, is in a distinguished, long line of public servants—one thinks also of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, for instance—who have contributed an extraordinary amount to the quality of public life and to public discussion of these issues, which should be taken out of the political, partisan arena.
I very much look forward to the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has indicated will be forthcoming by 15th October, because I am sure that there is a useful continuing dialogue to be had. I agree with his proposition that it is welcome that individuals are personally involved, and that they personally demonstrate that commitment by what might be quite small donations—but which are important to the individual—as that is a significant part of a functioning democracy.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I very much welcome the White Paper and the Statement, and apologise if some of the points I raise are covered in the White Paper, but I have not had time to look at it. I was interested that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, did not refer to the question of provision being made for shareholder approval for donations when he said that he supported the recommendations, because in the evidence that the Conservative Party gave to the Neill committee it said that it was opposed to the idea of getting shareholder approval for making political donations. I very much look forward to that debate.
I should like to raise two specific points: one on referendums and one on the electoral commission. On referendums, I assume that the restrictions and criteria laid down in paragraphs 8 and 16, in relation to elections and donations, would also apply to referendums and that they would be overseen by the electoral commission. Little is said about local referendums, which will be on the increase, and I wonder whether the same restrictions would apply pro rata.
I have long been an advocate of an electoral commission and I especially welcome that section. It is crucial that there is an independent election watchdog.
1442
At the moment, we seem to have a mish-mash of responsibilities, with too many bodies and too much left to the vagaries of custom and practice, and to the courts if one can afford that. I especially welcome the reference to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission. There has always been a conflict, with the two things happening at different times and creating confusion. To try to co-ordinate those two functions is very important.
Last week, we had the recommendations of the Howarth committee. How will those proposals, for postal votes, electoral registration and so on, fit into the proposals before us, in relation to timing? Will the commission be responsible for overseeing the conduct of elections, not merely for considering electoral law and finances? At some point, is it envisaged that it will take on the registration of political parties?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's welcome. I share her view on shareholder approval. It has always struck me as a nonsense and, indeed, rather insulting to those who have shares in companies that their money could be disposed of without the necessity for shareholder approval.
The answers to my noble friend's central questions are to be found in Part VI of the draft Bill which follows on from page 85 of the White Paper. Clause 77 of the draft Bill describes a referendum as one held in the United Kingdom, in one or more of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or in any region in England specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. The reference to "a referendum" relates to any of that type of referendum.
The electoral commission will take on the function of the registration of political parties. It would be helpful to have submissions by 15th October and then to have a wide-ranging debate about how we see the functions of the electoral commission as it should develop in the future. My noble friend is right about the boundary commissions. Our general approach to that issue has always seemed to lack symmetry.
On the proposals by Mr Howarth's group, I am not in a position to anticipate what might be in the Queen's Speech. I can only repeat that in the context of this draft Bill we intend to treat it as a matter of importance. Jack Straw's Statement says, "We intend to get on with this as quickly as possible".
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Astor said, we welcome many points in the Statement. As an ex-treasurer of the Conservative Party, I can confirm that under no circumstances was policy affected by any donation.
I ask about the election expenses cap. When will elections expenses start? The annual report of the Labour Government is really an election address. Will that happen every year? The Minister said that the document was educative and that it was available to the Opposition, but it was taxpayers' money that produced it. What will be the position of expatriates of British extraction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful again for the noble Lord's general welcome for the

1443
Statement. The requirement is that one should be registered to vote for a relevant election. The entitlement for registration—I speak from memory—is extensive and lasts for 20 years. An expatriate who is entitled to vote—who is registered on the appropriate register—is still entitled to contribute.
On election expenses for Westminster general elections, the limit on expenses will apply in the 365 days before the poll and, in terms of control of campaign expenditure, the noble Lord will find some definitions in Clause 64 of the draft Bill.
The point that I was seeking to make about the Government's annual report was that it is the Government's proper duty to hold themselves accountable to those whom they serve; namely, the public. I think that all governments have put out various documents at government—in other words, state—expense. I do not see any qualitative difference in what has been done under this Government from what was done under previous governments. I take the noble Lord's point that an Opposition, in trying to make their case, do not have state funding. I think that has been the case for the past 18 years. Occasionally perhaps one should bear such discrepancies with such fortitude as one can presently muster.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord enlighten me on two points? First, did I understand him to say that the last question in a referendum would be with the Government? If so, that would be bad. I understand that in some of the Quebecois referendums, the question actually put was, "Do you want to be rich and famous and independent in Canada?", which is not a good basis.
My second question concerns American money coming into Northern Ireland. What is the situation when large gifts come in? Are they disclosed, forbidden or welcome?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that the wording of the referendum question would be a matter for the Government. I said, I believe carefully, that every referendum would still need to be authorised by an Act of Parliament. Therefore the question to be asked in the referendum is a matter for Parliament to decide and not the Government.
I agree that the question put to me by the noble Lord on the lines of, "Do you want to be rich and famous and possibly marry Marilyn Monroe?", is likely to secure a majority rather larger than that in favour of a Welsh Assembly. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord about the question of Northern Ireland. I do not have the answer immediately to hand. As always, I shall put a copy of my response in the Library. I shall do that tomorrow.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a member of the committee. It gives me great pleasure to welcome my noble friend's Statement. I have not always been able to agree with everything he has said in the past, but I welcome the Government's response to the report.
1444
The referendum procedure, in spite of some of the criticisms that have been made, certainly deserves very close study. However, I am sure my noble friend will agree that a much fairer procedure is now being recommended than that which we had to endure more than 20 years ago in the 1975 referendum. The government then took an active pad, right clown to polling day, but pretended that they were an independent factor in the voting procedure. There was a "Yes" campaign, a "No" campaign and a "Government Yes" campaign. That is now being eliminated, I believe to the benefit of and much greater fairness in future referendums.
I have one minor question. Some of the recommendations will discourage large donations. They will not be as forthcoming because people do not always wish to declare them. Therefore, it is important to encourage small contributors to political parties. Have the Government accepted the recommendation that the first £500 of a donation should be tax free?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords, we did not accept that recommendation because we thought that that would be state funding under another guise. I believe I repeat the phrase accurately when I say that we have other priorities in that context. I do of course appreciate the argument. However, I believe that sometimes it can be taken too far, as in the context of the United States, where the availability of tax relief can quite significantly distort the political process. I say that as a personal observation and not as a governmental criticism of what is done in the United States.
The fact that we have accepted virtually everything in the report is a tribute to the quality of the work done on it. The arguments and the marshalling of them were so compelling that it was only reasonable to accept them. It is also fair to take a modest degree of criticism—not the halo effect. I think that the noble Baroness has left the Chamber. She thought that my halo had diminished. It is still there. It is a tribute to the Government that we said we wanted to improve the quality of political life in this country and that we were not looking at the matter on the basis of party political advantage. That is the theme of the Statement. The referendum procedure needed to be looked at. Recently we have had more referendums of great constitutional importance, and we were extremely grateful for the recommendations which were brought forward and which we have accepted.
Lord Monson: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will the Minister assure the House that no individual or group in the Republic of Ireland will be allowed to fund political parties in the north of Ireland if the Republic's territorial claim on the north has not been formally renounced by the time that the proposed Bill becomes law?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is significantly outside the ambit of the White Paper and draft Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who has a keen interest in these matters, knows what has

1445
happened so far in the Republic of Ireland. I do not believe that he and I could have had this discussion 10 years ago about the surrender of the constitutional claim of the Republic. We should all be extremely supportive of those in the Republic who are modernising their constitution and, much more important, modernising their ways of political thought in an extremely flexible way. They deserve every credit and I believe that those in other parts of the United Kingdom might learn the lesson of flexibility and open-mindedness which our colleagues in the Republic sometimes offer us.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, what will be position of large donations coming from within continental Europe where organisations will be keen to support both referendums and elections with regard to one party or another in the European Union?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I appreciate that there was a good deal of detail in the Statement. The position is that if a company is incorporated in the European Union and trading within this jurisdiction, it will be able to make donations. Those are the dual limits. If the noble Viscount or anyone else feels that an earlier sight of the White Paper would be helpful on similar occasions in the future—sometimes it happens and sometimes it does not—they have only to get in touch with my office and I will do my best to meet their requests.

Greater London Authority Bill
6.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Turner of Camden) in the Chair.]
Clause 264 [The spatial development strategy]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 369A:
Page 141, line 27, leave out ("must") and insert ("may")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 369A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 396B and 420A standing in my name and that of my noble friends. Grouped with the amendments is Amendment No. 424, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will no doubt speak.
Clause 264(7) provides that the spatial development strategy must contain diagrams and so on,
"as may be prescribed by regulations under section 274".
Our amendments aim to give the mayor some discretion or, one might say, flexibility, with regard to the presentation of the spatial development strategy. The amendments do not at this point seek to deal with the content but seek to allow him or her to present the strategy as he or she wishes, rather than having to comply with regulations as regards the detail of presentation. I have to say that it is very likely that a spatial development strategy would contain diagrams or some other form of illustration, in the narrow sense of illustrating a policy or a strategy, and clearly would have to include some descriptive or explanatory matter. However, I believe that it is for the mayor—and that is the point of the "may" rather than the "must"—to determine how the strategy is presented.
Clause 274 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the form and the content of the spatial development strategy. Amendment No. 420A is designed to delete the reference to "content" in those regulations. Having read the debate in another place, I am not entirely sure what "content" means in this context. Clause 274(1) is expressly without prejudice to any other provisions of this part. That seems to be very sweeping and appears to allow the Secretary of State to override primary legislation as to content, which I hope is not the intention. Even if that is not so, it seems to me that it must be a matter for the mayor to determine, within the provisions of the Act, what the content of the spatial development strategy should be.
In another place the Minister in the debate on Clause 274 said that this was in line with the procedures and publicity for structure plans and argued in support of the provision as drafted on that basis. I believe that a reference to "content" takes the matter much further than that. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 424 is grouped with these amendments. It raises a somewhat separate point. Clause 274 deals with regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State regulating the form and content of and the background to the spatial development strategy. Apart from the principle of the matter, which follows from what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, I have no difficulty at all about the Secretary of State regulating to determine what form the spatial development strategy should take. That seems to me to be perfectly straightforward, even if I do not like it.
Clause 274(2) states:
"Regulations under this Part may make different provision for different pans of Greater London".
I have some difficulty in understanding what different provision for different parts of London has to do with the form and content of the strategy, which is to cover the whole of London. That is why I have put down this amendment, which is in essence a probing amendment, suggesting that the Bill could perfectly well do without Clause 274(2). I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. I feel

1447
that this, in terms of a strategic Bill, is much too detailed to specify how the mayor is to present the strategy. Indeed, it might even be regarded as fairly old-fashioned in the sense that, with advances in technology, one could have a strategy which is entirely on line and which deals with a virtual reality presentation of the strategy, with no diagrams, illustrations or other descriptive or explanatory material. It might be entirely visual.
Perhaps the Minister could also tell me whether, if it specifies that it must contain diagrams, illustrations and so on, it states anywhere that it must contain any words.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I often feel that the proceedings of this House could be greatly enhanced were we to have illustrations rather than words!
I deal first with the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We do not say in response that we do not propose to prescribe in great and precise detail the type of diagram and explanatory material to be included in the spatial plan. We do, however, believe that it is important that there should be a measure of consistency with other parts of the planning system. This applies in particular to the inclusion in the SDS of a key diagram, along the lines that we expect to be included in structure plans and in the new form of regional planning guidance. That is the reference that the noble Baroness made to the explanation given in another place.
This is required and it is particularly important because in London we have the UDPs which provide the development plan for London boroughs, which need to be in general conformity with the SDS. A similar provision can be found in existing planning law in relation to the Secretary of State's ability to prescribe the content of development plans. I hope, therefore, that it explains the reference to diagrams and explanatory material, which will doubtless contain the odd word.
I turn to Amendment No. 420A. This amendment, taken literally, would prevent the Secretary of State from saying anything about the content of the SDS. I need to make it clear that we do not intend to prescribe here what policies the mayor should follow but only the general matters that should be addressed.
We believe that it is important to set out in very broad terms the scope of the SDS. This is necessary because of the important place that it will occupy in the totality of the planning system in London and for consistency with the system that exists in the rest of the country.
To take one example, the SDS must say something about the provision of land for housing in London. Noble Lords will be aware that at present a fair amount of debate is taking place about providing for the increased numbers of households that are projected in the south-east. It is conceivable, though I accept unlikely, that a future mayor may find it expedient not to deal with the issue of housing land within the SDS. That would not be a satisfactory state of affairs either for the boroughs or for the south-east as a whole.
Equally, the setting out of the broad scope of the SDS will be an important matter of defining more clearly what kind of animal it is. We have previously discussed the fact that this is a new type of planning instrument.
1448
Some noble Lords opposite have sought more: detail on what it means. We have had other Opposition amendments which have sought to prescribe on the face of the Bill that the SDS should address such issues; as land requirements for transport, protection of the green belt and regeneration of brownfield sites. I said during those debates that I did not believe that it was sensible to put those on the face of the Bill. However, they are examples of the kind of areas that would sensibly be covered in secondary legislation and would therefore help to define the scope of the SDS.
In relation to Amendment No. 424 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, this proposes the removal of the subsection which allows the Secretary of State to make different provision in regulations for different parts of London. It is linked to the provision in Clause 264(8) which allows the mayor's SDS to make different provision for different parts of London, on which we have already had some debate.
If I may repeat the arguments that took place at that time, the provision is necessary in the event that the Secretary of State in regulations wanted to specify that the mayor should in the SDS address strategic problems of a particular area of London. In response to an earlier amendment from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I used the example of the River Thames, where we currently have a regional planning guidance in force that is produced by the Secretary of State. When we discussed the question of the Thames in the context of Part II of the Bill, there was consensus that the mayor should seek to continue to replicate specific strategic planning guidance for the Thames and the banks of the Thames. This clause would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe matters such as this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, addressing the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated that she believed that the power to prescribe content went beyond the equivalent position in similar provisions for structure plans. That is not in fact so. Section 53 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides:
"Without prejudice to the previous provisions of this Chapter, the Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the form and content of structure and local plans".
It is therefore almost exactly the equivalent power that we are providing for the mayor in London.
I therefore think that this clause reflects the need for consistency both in London and between the London arrangements and those which apply in the rest of the country. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that response. I think that the last point he made on Amendment No. 420, and my reference to the section being without prejudice to the other provisions of the Act, was helpful. I shall check the reference in the other legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 369B to 372A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 372B:
Page 141, line 31, at end insert—
("() In preparing the spatial development strategy, the Mayor shall consult and have regard to the views of the London and the South East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) and its successor bodies.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would add to Clause 264 an obligation for the mayor to consult SERPLAN (the South East Regional Planning Conference), or any "successor body" to it, in the preparation of the spatial development strategy. We have spoken a little in the debates on this Bill—my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and I said a good deal more during the proceedings on the legislation for the regional development agencies—about the importance of the area's relationship with its surrounding areas; or, as my noble friend described it, its hinterland.
I am sure that it is entirely obvious to all Members of the Committee that London has a very close and, in some ways, tense relationship with its hinterland. Issues relating to transport provide one example. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would remind us of the matter of waste, coming as he does from Essex. Issues of employment also arise. As regards transport, I have in mind the apparently inexorable radial effect, one might say, that London seems almost to be something of a centrifugal force. I know that people in areas around London would prefer more emphasis to be placed on orbital movement.
It is important that there should be a direct dialogue. It should not be left to the Secretary of State to make assumptions about the views of either area and act as a sort of middle-man in passing on messages from one to the other, as to nature of their concerns. In another place, when responding to a similar amendment, the Minister said that it would be inappropriate to refer to SERPLAN because it is not a statutory body. This amendment builds a little on the one that my honourable friends tabled in another place, by adding a reference to "successor bodies". The Minister also said:
"Alternative arrangements may emerge to ensure proper co-ordination between the mayor in London and the areas outside … in secondary legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee A, 18/3/99; col. 1379.]
I take the opportunity of moving this amendment to ask the Minister whether the Government have made any progress in dealing with any such alternative amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Although I can appreciate the thinking behind Amendment No. 372B, I am afraid that we cannot accept it for a number of reasons. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to create a formal requirement in primary legislation to consult SERPLAN, because, as the noble Baroness recognises, we have already said that it is not a statutory body. It is a group of local authorities and one which may in due course be subject to some rearrangement in the light of new developments, such as the setting up of RDAs. If so, we hope and expect that new arrangements would be devised to ensure the proper co-ordination of
1450
planning across the broader South East, but it is not yet clear—this answers some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness—what those might be.
In the mean time, Clause 265 requires the mayor to consult councils in areas adjoining London on his or her SDS proposals. Clause 274 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations additional consultees, which might include any existing or new body that may be set up to co-ordinate regional planning in the South East.
Given those uncertainties, we feel that it is better to deal with such matters in secondary legislation, although I must stress that it seems inconceivable that the mayor would not in any case wish to do what this amendment seeks to prescribe. In short, this amendment is pushing at an open door. We shall see what can be done to reflect its intent in secondary legislation. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: This seems to be another example where, if it is "inconceivable" that the mayor would not do something, we should not try to spell it out on the face of the Bill. There seems to me to be an awful lot in the legislation that the mayor could not conceivably avoid doing.
However, although Clause 265(3)(c) refers to consultation by way of councils outside London, that relates only to councils for areas which adjoin Greater London. My concern is much wider. When one is looking strategically, one has to take a much broader approach. I should certainly welcome a relationship between the "chambers" supporting regional development agencies and any regional assembly, rather than the RDAs themselves. As the Minister knows, I do not believe that the RDAs should take a leading part in setting planning policy.
Nevertheless, as the Government have said both here and in another place that they are looking at the particular arrangements which might be put in place, perhaps the Minister could write to me between now and the next stage, sending a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with regard to what provisions will be put in place through regulations. The noble Baroness nods her head in assent, so she need not reply in order to put that on the record. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 372C:
Page 141, line 31, at end insert—
("() The spatial development strategy shall include a strategic environmental appraisal of its policies and proposals.")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment, which is tabled in the names of my noble friends. The amendment seeks to ensure that the SDS,
"shall include a strategic environmental appraisal of its policies and proposals".

1451
It is possible that the Government currently feel that the state of the environment report will adequately cover the effect that the SDS would have on the environment. However, we certainly do not believe this to be the case. I think that it has become more widely recognised in recent years that it is important to have environmental appraisals that, in current jargon, ensure an iterative process. As one is bringing in long-term plans, it is important that there should be a very specific requirement as regards what their environmental impact will be. That is very different from the state of the environment report; indeed, I believe that the two functions differ widely.
The SDS will be concerned with many issues, such as the impact on economic development and how it will feel to live and work in the city. However, that does not automatically mean that the sort of things that an environmental impact scheme assessment would take into account would be covered, unless there is a specific requirement for such an assessment to take place. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has obviously had a very similar thought. The large schemes developed in recent times, for which there has been a requirement for an environmental impact assessment, have allowed people to take a different view of what the planning system as a whole is supposed to achieve.
I hope that it will not be felt that the state of the environment report will fulfil this function, because it most certainly will not. Without this amendment, I feel that the environmental appraisal part of the policy and the proposals will be totally lacking. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It appears that there is an element here of dotting "i"s that have been heavily dotted and crossing "t"s that have been heavily crossed. I should have thought that all this is subsumed in what is already provided for in the Bill. I assume therefore that what is proposed is otiose. If I am wrong about that my noble friend will, of course, correct me.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 380 and 381A which stand in my name are grouped with Amendment No. 372C. It remains to be seen whether they are otiose. In any event that is a matter of opinion. However, what is certain is that however perfect the Bill may be by the time this Chamber has finished with it, it will still not be perfect. That may also be a matter of opinion. I do not intend to repeat what has been said because the two amendments I have mentioned which stand in my name are aimed at precisely the same point as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has proposed.
However, there are two points which are worth making. First, in Standing Committee in the Commons the Government said that they expected the mayor to carry out a full appraisal of the environmental impact of the spatial development strategy. However, for the life of me I cannot see why we should be afraid of spelling that out on the face of the Bill. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us on the matter.
Secondly, the Government have also proposed introducing environmental appraisal into regional planning guidance. Those are two strong reasons for
1452
supporting the suggestion that has been made. I do not know which amendment is superior or whether any of them are adequate for the purpose that is intended. However, I would be happy to be guided by the Minister if he can produce a better formulation. I await his reply with interest.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talked about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. However, it has to be said that this is a fairly dotty Bill already. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in arguing for these amendments or something similar, mentioned the Government's proposals on sustainability appraisals. The Minister in another place argued that the Government could not be specific about a sustainability appraisal because as yet,
"there is no national guidance on what such an appraisal might comprise or on how it should be conducted".
That seems to me to be remarkably unambitious for London. As and when national guidance is in place the mayor will no doubt have to have regard to it. However, I believe that that should not hinder the substance of what happens in London.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 372C, 380 and 381A would require an environmental appraisal of the policies and proposals of the spatial development strategy during its preparation.
It is the Government's intention that the mayor should carry out a full appraisal of the environmental impacts of the emerging SDS, as was recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this would form only one element within a wider sustainability appraisal which also considered the economic and social impacts of the policies and proposals of the SDS. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this is in line with the approach now proposed for the new forms of regional planning guidance as set out in draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 published for consultation a few months ago.
Consultants have recently reported to the department on the feasibility of carrying out a sustainability appraisal in this context and how it might be undertaken. We intend to embrace the findings of this emerging work in our guidance to the mayor on the SDS on which we shall consult later this year.
This is a new and emerging concept and one which we therefore feel is not best dealt with on the face of the Bill. We believe that the appropriate way forward would be to make reference to the need for a sustainability appraisal—which includes an assessment of environmental impacts—in non-statutory guidance on the SDS. This would allow the guidance to be revised and refined as we develop this new method of assessment. I hope that these assurances will enable noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that the Government appear to have recognised that this is an important area of emerging work and that consultants are assessing the feasibility of carrying out a sustainability appraisal and

1453
how it might be undertaken. I shall read her comments with care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 264 agreed to.
Clause 265 [Public participation]:
[Amendment No. 373 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 373A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 374 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 375:
Page 141, line 35, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 375 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 376 and 377 which are grouped with it and which also stand in my name.
The current text of the Bill obliges the mayor to consult the assembly and the functional bodies on the first draft of the spatial development strategy. That is absolutely fine. The amendment extends this initial consultation. We believe that the mayor should consult the London boroughs and the relevant representative bodies at that stage. The Association of London Government is concerned that the boroughs are included only in the second stage of the process and yet the boroughs will be vital to the spatial development strategy. Although in some ways it will form a new dimension for London, it will also comprise their unitary development plans. The amendment seeks to involve the boroughs and the functional bodies at the first stage. One thus would stand a greater chance of bringing all these plans together in a unified way at the earliest possible moment. This should not impose any delay. The boroughs and other consultees can be subject to exactly the same time limits as the assembly. Therefore no problem should arise in that regard.
The Minister responsible for London recognised in the Commons that any sensible mayor is likely to consult the boroughs and others from the outset. Once again I suspect that there is no disagreement between us on this matter, except that we believe that it would be useful to have this provision on the face of the Bill. I have an awful suspicion that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong in that respect. However, that is fairly normal. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 377A which stands in my name is grouped with the amendments we are discussing. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said as my amendment makes the same point in part. I propose that the bodies and persons who are listed in Clause 27(2) of the Bill should be consulted at this stage. The spatial development strategy is excluded in the early part of the Bill under Clause 33 because of the rather different approach to consultation and some other matters. The spatial development strategy will be the poorer if the mayor is not allowed to consult and to learn from the experience of the boroughs in the preparation of development plans. The
1454
mayor should set a good example by drawing people into the process of building planning—not least in order to avoid at a later stage too many questions along the lines of, "How on earth did that happen?". We would like to see on the face of the Bill a greater provision for consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The arrangements set out in Clause 265 are intended to provide clear and open consultation arrangements consistent with the requirements of the planning system and with the objective of avoiding over-lengthy and complex procedures.
Amendments Nos. 375, 376, 377 and 377A would have the effect of requiring the mayor to carry out two full and separate consultation exercises by requiring consultation with the boroughs and other external interests at the same time as an initial draft SDS is put to the assembly and functional bodies. These added consultations would be in advance of those anticipated at subsection (2) of this clause.
We believe that this is not necessary and could be a recipe for delay. We want the mayor to be able to produce the SDS relatively quickly and not get bogged down in over-bureaucratic consultation procedures that would require him first to undertake a full external consultation on an initial set of proposals and then again on a draft SDS.
Subsection (1) of the clause seeks to ensure that the assembly and the GLA functional bodies have an input into the development of the mayor's proposals before the more formal consultation procedures set out in the remainder of the clause come into operation. That provision simply deals with the internal arrangements within the GLA. It ensures that the assembly in particular is involved in, and associated with, the published proposals before they go out to full external consultation and is not treated like any other consultee and expected to appear at the examination in public.
Of course, it seems likely that any sensible mayor will take care to consult the boroughs and other stakeholders from the outset in developing his or her proposals. Securing their co-operation and participation in developing the mayor's ideas is certainly the best way to ensure that they are implemented as rapidly and effectively as possible. But we cannot see any merit in requiring a two-stage formal consultation procedure. It would be over bureaucratic and lead to unnecessary delay.
However, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, some cause for optimism. I note that Amendment No. 377A proposes adding to Clause 265 the consultation of those bodies mentioned in Clause 27 of the Bill whom the mayor is required to consult on other strategies. It might be helpful if I flag up now that, when we debate Amendment No. 381AA which similarly would also require the consultation of those bodies mentioned in Clause 27 at the "external stage" of the process, we will be saying something positive and

1455
explaining why we wish to take away and consider that amendment. With those words I hope to encourage the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall need to study with great care what the Minister has said. It seems passing strange to me that the mayor is obliged to consult the assembly—although, of course, that is the only function the assembly has; the assembly can do nothing if it disagrees with his strategy—he is not obliged to consult the boroughs. They will be intimately affected by the strategy and must play a vital part in its formulation.
The Minister has expressed a difference of view. I am not sure that she has given me a reason for withdrawing the amendment. Nonetheless, I shall look carefully at what she has said. It may be that we shall need to return to this issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 376 to 380 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 381:
Page 142, line 1, after ("inspection") insert ("on the internet and")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 381 returns to a familiar theme. Clause 265 deals with public participation in the development of the spatial development strategy. Once more we return to the issue of the mayor making his proposals available on the Internet to enable the widest possible participation in the preparation of the document. There is sure to be the widest possible public interest in the subject. Although we have tried to insert into the Bill the little matter of consultation on the Internet, we have not yet succeeded. However, the case is no less valid and we will continue to press the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 381 concerns a debate we have had before in the House. I am sure that we all want the mayor to make full use of modern communication methods and up-to-date technology. But the very pace of change in this area makes it inadvisable to cement such matters in primary legislation.
Of course, Clause 274 also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover the preparation and publication of the strategy in line with usual planning practice. That might be a more appropriate place to flag up the possibilities offered by the Internet. We will certainly look at this matter when we come to draft the regulations. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I will study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 381ZA and 381A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 381AA:
Page 142, line 14, after ("strategy;") insert—
("() the bodies and persons referred to in section 27(2);")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 381AA I shall speak also to Amendment No. 381B. The Minister has trailed a positive Government response in respect of Amendment No. 381AA. We have already debated what the Minister described as the "public" or "second" stage and I shall not waste the Committee's time by repeating the arguments.
Amendment No. 381B seeks to provide that the mayor or assembly has the opportunity to consult such persons and bodies as he or it considers appropriate. The amendment seeks to provide an assurance that the mayor can add to the list persons and bodies other than those directed by the Secretary of State in regulations and, secondly, seeks to indicate the role of the assembly in assisting the consultation process.
I believe that the Government have commented that this amendment—or a similar one—is not necessary because the Bill does not have to be specific. However, the Government have chosen to be specific in the Bill about a number of matters. Can the Minister give an assurance—without it being specific in the Bill—that the mayor will be able to undertake consultations with bodies and persons outside the list? I beg to move Amendment No. 381AA.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Baroness said, my noble friend has already trailed the fact that we have sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment. We are not sure that the drafting is necessarily appropriate; nor that its purpose could not be better achieved by amending Clause 33 of the Bill rather than this one. However, with those caveats, I am happy to take the amendment away and consider it further.
Turning to Amendment No. 381B, if we decide to go along with a proposal along the lines of the previous amendment, that may well incorporate the words proposed here in respect of the mayor. Indeed, it might well do so automatically were the amendment to be aligned with Clause 33. However, the other point of Amendment No. 381B is to provide that the assembly should be able to determine the mayor's consultation arrangements. That would not be consistent with the approach that we have adopted in the rest of the Bill on the division of powers between the mayor and the assembly. Therefore, that aspect will not be reflected in any proposal that I may bring forward. However, I hope that the positive response to the first of the amendments will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: One learns that one's drafting is never adequate, but I welcome what the Minister has said in that regard. One has also learnt that the role of the assembly is not as we should like it to be. However, I continue to make the point at this stage, where appropriate, so that it is on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 381B not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved amendment No. 382:
Page 142, line 27, after second ("period") insert ("which shall not be less than six weeks from the date that copies are made available under subsection (2) above")
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill a minimum consultation period for the public, the London boroughs and others to respond in regard to the draft spatial development strategy. It may seem superfluous to lay down a minimum period in regard to a matter that is to be dealt with by regulations. However, the amendment merely imposes a minimum limit. The regulations can then include any reasonable period above that limit. On a matter of consultation, it is important that the public and all the relevant bodies that are being consulted have a sufficient—although not excessive—time in which to respond. We believe that six weeks is an adequate minimum. If the Minister were to choose to set a longer period, that would be entirely down to him. But we do not think it unreasonable that this minimum period should be on the face of the Bill.
To give an absurd example, under the terms of the Bill, the Minister could make regulations stating that there should be a two-week consultation period. London would very properly explode if that were suggested, so no sensible Secretary of State would be likely to do so. But under the Bill as drafted such a decision is possible. That is not sensible, and that is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The amendment seeks to insert an unnecessary level of detail into the Bill. It is not normal for primary legislation to specify the consultation period. Secondary legislation is normally used for that purpose. It does so in relation to unitary development plans, structure plans and so on. That is the situation with most planning legislation at present. We see no reason to depart from that. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I must study the position. If that is custom and practice and is the normal way of dealing with these matters, we shall have to watch with care when the appropriate regulations are brought forward. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 265 agreed to.
Clause 266 [Withdrawal]:
[Amendments Nos. 383 to 386 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 386A:
Page 142, line 38, leave out from ("to") to end of line and insert ("each of the bodies and persons specified in subsection (4) below")
The noble Baroness said: This group includes my Amendment No. 387A and also Amendments Nos. 386B and 404A in the name of the Minister.
Clause 266 relates to the withdrawal of any draft spatial development strategy. Our amendments relate to notification of the withdrawal. The government amendments are much the same as ours. They were tabled in response to points made by my honourable
1458
friends in another place, and I have no doubt that they are better drafted than ours. I look forward to agreeing them. I need not say more in support of my own amendments. Once the Minister has spoken to the government amendments, I shall withdraw mine. Also, I shall not seek to oppose the Question that the clause stand part, which I hope will help to move the proceedings forward. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I shall speak to government Amendments Nos. 386B and 404A in this group. As she says, they arise from an agreement by my colleague in another place, the Minister with responsibility for London, to consider an amendment from the Liberal Democrat Opposition there.
The amendments will place a duty on the mayor to notify any withdrawal of the draft SDS to all those who are consulted during the preparation of the strategy and on the draft. The Bill as drafted requires merely that those who have made representations regarding the SDS—11/8/2006rather than all those who have been consulted—should be informed.
The approach suggested in the Commons seems to us constructive and sensible, and we are happy to accept it. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore withdraw her amendment, as she indicated. I am grateful also for her indication that she will not oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 386B:
Page 142, line 38, leave out ("person who has made representations about it") and insert ("body or person falling within subsection (2A) below.
(2A) Those bodies and persons are—

(a) the Assembly;

(b) each of the functional bodies;

(c) each of the bodies and persons specified in section 265(3) above; and

(d) every body which, or person who, made representations in accordance with the regulations.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 387 and 387A not moved.]
Clause 266, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 267 [Publication]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 388:
Page 142, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a very small matter and relates to a question of drafting taste. Clause 267 deals with the publication of the strategy. Subsection (1) states:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Mayor may publish the spatial development strategy".
"May" always sounds optional. In our view, the mayor must publish the strategy; therefore, we prefer the word "shall. It is a small point. However, I must admit that I should consider it to be a great triumph if the amendment

1459
were to be accepted. I suspect that I shall be told that the custom and practice is that "may" is the word that is normally used. If not, I suggest that "shall" is a better word. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 388 seeks to change the wording of Clause 267 from "may publish" to "shall publish". As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has explained, the intention behind that is to ensure that the mayor publishes a final SDS. However, that is already covered by other provisions under Part VIII. In particular, Clause 264 states that,
"The Mayor shall prepare and publish … the 'spatial development strategy'".
The permissive term "may" is used in this clause because the subsequent subsections set out a series of conditions and requirements which the mayor must meet before he or she can publish the SDS.
I should also add that even if the mayor, following consultation and the report of the examination, felt the need to withdraw the strategy and rethink his or her plans, Clause 266 makes it clear that this does not affect the overall duty to prepare and publish the SDS. I am certain that in the light of this assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With the greatest respect, I do not think the noble Baroness can get away with that. Either the mayor has to publish it or does not have to publish it. This in fact conflicts with the other clauses that the noble Baroness has mentioned. I have worked with advisers in government myself, as she has, and I can quite understand that you ask your advisers, "What is this all about?" Then they give you an explanation and a reason. However, this is simply not a good reason and I would suggest to the noble Baroness that she looks at this before the next stage and perhaps even makes this clause match the other. I did not feel that her argument held water at all.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am dreadfully sorry not to have given an explanation, because in this case the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is raising an issue which I feel is totally covered by the reply that I gave. This part of the Bill deals with the circumstances that must apply before the mayor shall, has to, is required to or has the duty to do this. So this is merely a question of a certain point in the Bill. We are in agreement, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and myself, and he is in agreement with the Government, that the mayor shall be required to do this and we are discussing the wording that is needed to achieve it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her support in this matter. I must admit that I listened to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and it seemed to me that in her answer she was giving me a perfect reason why she should accept the amendment. However, it is a matter of opinion. I will study what the noble Baroness had to say and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 389 to 391 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 391ZA:
Page 143, line 4, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this amendment and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 393D, 395A and 397A. These amendments are grouped with the Government Amendments Nos. 393C and 393E.
The first of my amendments is a "paver" for Amendment No. 395A, and in fact my amendments as a whole seek to leave out subsections (5), (6) and (7) of Clause 267. Clause 267(6) allows the Secretary of State to give a direction to the mayor to leave out of the special development strategy matters that he considers to be "inconsistent with", to quote the wording of the Bill,
"current national policies or relevant regional planning guidance",
or to be detrimental to areas outside London. It seems to me that the Secretary of State will again have very wide powers and I do not understand how they could properly be exercised in the context where there has been a public inquiry. I appreciate that it is to be advisory and is not the same as other sorts of inquiries, but there will have been a very full investigation into the proposed strategy. I am concerned about the possible reserve powers that the Secretary of State will retain.
Relevant regional planning guidance is guidance for areas outside London which in other words I understand will take precedence over arrangements for London. I am unclear as to what input London will have. I hope it has been clear from my earlier comments today that I would not want to see London's interests riding roughshod over those of areas outside and around London, but equally I would not like to see London sidelined in any way in the balance of various other interests being considered.
Lord Whitty: The effect of these amendments will be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct the mayor to amend the special development strategy where he considers it is inconsistent with current national policies or regional planning guidance or has a detrimental effect on interests outside Greater London.
The noble Baroness says that she recognises the mayor should not do things to the detriment of other aspects of national policy in other parts of the country. Nevertheless these amendments, taken together, would exclude the power of the Secretary of State to come in and alter that. The mayor is placed under a duty to have regard to such matters under Clause 33 to start with and then under Clause 273. We fully expect the mayor to act responsibly in that regard, but it is possible that agreement would not be reached and the Secretary of State needs to have some way of protecting wider interests.
The proposals are based on normal planning provisions which would allow the Secretary of State to deal with development plans elsewhere in the country, with one qualification. It must ensure that the Secretary of State's powers cannot be used on matters which will solely be the responsibility of the mayor. The circumstances in which that power can be exerted have

1461
been limited in subsection (5) to defined circumstances. That limitation does not apply elsewhere in the country: hence our proposal for giving the mayor responsibility for London to a greater extent than planning authorities elsewhere will have. Nevertheless we wish to ensure that where there are conflicts with wider interests there is a means whereby the Secretary of State can intervene. My own amendments in this group, Nos. 393C and 393E, clarify the circumstances where that could happen.
If I may refer to Amendment No. 393E, the Bill currently provides for the Secretary of State to be able to direct the mayor to amend the strategy if it was inconsistent with these wider aspects. However, we need clarification, and for the avoidance of doubt the Secretary of State's powers to direct amendments can be made at any point before the final publication of the strategy and not just, as it could be read at present, on the initial consultation draft. It is possible that the mayor might seek to put in a later version aspects which were not there originally and which would have a detrimental effect on wider aspects of national policy in other parts of the country.
Similarly, Amendment No. 393C seeks to clarify and avoid doubt on procedures regarding the SDS under Clause 274, the main procedures for the mayor to follow, to ensure that the Secretary of State has an opportunity to exercise the power of direction to which I have referred. At a later point I should like to move those amendments to clarify these powers, but in the meantime I hope that the noble Baroness recognises that to remove these powers would lead to a situation where we could not resolve these difficulties.
Baroness Hamwee: I did talk about balance and I had hoped I had made it clear that in moving the amendment I was well aware of the comments I had already made regarding the interests of areas outside London. The Bill talks about avoiding any detriment, and I am concerned about the situation where, for instance, there may be a detriment but also some counterbalancing advantage. I am not sure that I recognise the need as it is dealt with in the Bill, but I do recognise the Government's concern to retain these powers as drawn. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 391A is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 392.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 391A:
Page 143, line 5, leave out ("findings") and insert ("recommendations")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 391A is grouped with Amendments Nos. 392, 402A and 403. I advise the Committee that Amendments Nos. 391A and 392 have the same effect. My filing system may
1462
have slipped slightly because virtually the same amendment appears twice. However, there is a marginal difference in wording, which explains why the Clerks accepted it. I apologise for taking time to give that explanation.
I begin with Amendments Nos. 402 and 402A. All of these matters relate to examination in public and the consequences of it. The present wording of the Bill suggests that the examination in public can make findings. If one has an examination in public of any other planning document it finishes up with the panel making recommendations. I do not believe that "findings" has quite the same force. I do not see the purpose of having an examination in public if all that it does is report its findings. It should be incumbent on the mayor to do something about what is found and I believe that the word "recommendations" is superior.
The Bill deals with publication of the spatial development strategy before the examination in public. However, the amendments to change "findings" to "recommendations" in Clause 267 in relation to publication do not make sense without the amendments relating to examination in public in Clause 268. Therefore, the grouping is essential and the amendments are consistent. I commend this matter to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I admit that the noble Lord has a point. Our initial intention when drafting the Bill was that the term "findings" should be broader than "recommendations" but would clearly include the panel's recommendations on which the mayor would have to give a response. I am advised that in similar provisions in planning Acts and associated legislation relating to development plans the terms "report" and "recommendation" are found more often than "findings". The use of both terms may be a possibility. I am also advised that there is another reference to "findings" in line 17 on page 143 of the Bill which has not been picked up in these amendments. In response to the noble Lord, I shall take away all of these amendments with a view to considering whether at Report stage the Government should provide clarification of all the references in this part of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. I look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 392 and 393 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 393A:
Page 143, line 12, after ("with") insert ("this Act and")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 267(4) provides that before publication the mayor must consider representations made under the regulations. Amendment No. 393A is a probing amendment to discover what obligation is on the mayor to consider representations made under the Bill, for example those made before publication under Clause 265(2)(e). There may be a

1463
drafting error in my amendment, in that I believe that the "and" should be "or". However, the substantive point remains. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that I now understand a little more the purpose of Amendment No. 393A, but its meaning is still a trifle obscure. It would require the mayor to consider representations,
"made in accordance with the Act".
Clause 267(4) of the Bill imposes on the mayor a duty to consider representations. Clearly, there needs to be a definition of what is a valid representation. That is the intention of Clause 265(6). It provides for regulations to define the period within which representations can be made and how they should be made: for example, whether they should be made in writing. It is only those representations,
"made in accordance with the regulations",
that the mayor must consider.
Amendment No. 393A introduces the further concept of,
"representations made in accordance with the Act".
Yet that phrase can have no meaning. The Bill does not prescribe, for example, whether representations must be in writing, or within what period they must be made. For these reasons, the amendment risks creating confusion, and we are unable to accept it.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If as a result of my explanation the position remains unclear, perhaps for the sake of clarity it would help if I wrote to the noble Baroness and other members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that response. She said that the form of representations must be in accordance with the regulations. My concern is that in some way this provision will exclude the substance of representations, because the reference to regulations appears to override other provisions that may be found elsewhere in the Bill as currently drafted. But if the point is that the representations must be in a particular form, or that they should be made within a particular period, I am happy to accept that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 393B:
Page 143, line 15, at end insert (", or
() he has discussed any representations with the Assembly")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 267(4) prevents the mayor from publishing the spatial development strategy until certain steps have been taken. Amendment No. 393B proposes that at that stage there should be a discussion with the assembly. The Minister is well aware of our concern that the assembly, which in shorthand is referred to as a scrutiny body but, according to the Government's definition of that term, includes
1464
scrutiny in advance, should have a role of which the mayor can usefully take advantage. We are concerned that the assembly is resoundingly left out of the process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have little doubt that there will be a dialogue between the mayor and assembly at various stages in the production of the SDS, and for all the strategies. However, for the most part we have not sought to prescribe on the face of the Bill precisely how the working relationship between the mayor and assembly will operate. On the contrary, we are sure that it is right that some discretion should be left with them to decide how they will work together and at what points discussion will take place on emerging strategies.
The amendment would require the mayor to discuss with the assembly each and every representation he receives, which, I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree, would indeed be an heroic task. We therefore cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall consider what she has had to say as part of our general review of the whole issue of the role of the assembly when we have come to the end of this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 393C:
Page 143, line 19, at end insert—
("() The provision that may be made by regulations under section 274 below includes provision prohibiting publication of the spatial development strategy until such further procedures as may be prescribed have been complied with.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 393D not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 393E:
Page 143, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—
("(5) if at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding—

(a) any inconsistency with current national policies or relevant planning guidance, or

(b) any")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 394 to 399 not moved.]
Clause 267, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 268 [Examination in public]:
[Amendment No. 400 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 401:
Page 144, line 2, leave out from ("shall") to ("cause")
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a small matter in Clause 268 which I must admit I find rather difficult to understand as drafted. Therefore I am again on a fishing trip, and I look forward to what the Minister will tell me.
Clause 268(1) States:
"Before publishing the spatial development strategy, the Mayor shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, cause an examination in public to be held".
I find the words, "unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs", odd. It seems to me that if there is to be a spatial development strategy, and if it is to go through anything like the normal planning procedures, there must be an examination in public. I find it rather strange that the Secretary of State seems to find it necessary to add this holding arrangement or insurance policy into this subsection. I cannot think of anything that the Secretary of State might otherwise direct, because the only thing that he could otherwise direct was that there should not be an examination in public. It seems to me that that simply would not be proper. I have tabled the amendment to find the answer to that particular conundrum. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment 401 would remove the Secretary of State's power to waive the duty on the mayor to hold an examination in public on any proposals to make or amend an SDS.
The examination in public is an important part—as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised—of the procedure for developing the SDS. It ensures that the issues raised are properly debated and that those most affected have an opportunity to air their views before an independent panel. That is why we have now introduced it into the new procedures for producing regional planning guidance and why we have incorporated it here too.
But it is a resource-intensive process. We therefore think it sensible to allow for the possibility of a relatively minor or uncontentious amendment or amendments to the SDS where a full-scale EiP could not be justified.
On the other hand—I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that we considered this point—it would be wrong to give the mayor an unfettered right unilaterally to waive the EIP requirement. In order to satisfy the public's expectation of an open and fair process, we need to ensure that the discretion rests elsewhere. That is the purpose of giving the Secretary of State that power. The mayor would need to convince the Secretary of State that in any particular case the amendment proposed did not merit holding an EIP. We do not believe that any Secretary of State would grant such a waiver lightly and anticipate that we shall say so in any accompanying guidance that we issue.
Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept this common sense provision and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, I think that that was a very interesting exchange. Obviously this is an important matter, but I believe that the wording as it stands might well be misunderstood in the way that my noble friend misunderstood it, and I am bound to say I also did.
1466
I thought that the noble Baroness was perhaps going to tell the Committee that the Secretary of State might want to stop the mayor doing something that he was planning to do because he did not like what the mayor was putting forward for public examination. Perhaps she will look at the wording to see whether it might be more clearly put so that one could understand that, before publishing the development strategy, the mayor shall cause an examination in public unless the Secretary of State agrees to the mayor's request that it need not be held, because that is what she is in fact saying. It is not quite the same as what is stated in the Bill. It is only a small point but it might be misunderstood by the public. I certainly wondered what it meant, for what that is worth.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps it would help the noble Baroness if I gave her an assurance that any point raised relating to clarity is of course given consideration.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Once again I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am bound to say that I have some doubts about the adequacy of the response from the noble Baroness. Clause 268(1) does not discuss minor amendments to the spatial development strategy. What it says is, "Before publishing the spatial development strategy". It is quite specific. Therefore my concern is still there. I accept the case in logic which was made; that if the mayor simply proposes a small amendment which does not affect the strategy in a major way, it would of course be unreasonable to commit the mayor to having an examination in public. However, the way in which the Bill is drafted implies that it could produce something else.
I hope that the Government may feel that they could consider that with some care and perhaps come up with some words that are, shall we say, superior to what is already there. If they fail to do so, I fear that I shall be put to the necessity of attempting to do it myself.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope that it will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, if I explain to him that the proposal here is neither new nor outside the planning procedure. Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has a similar provision which enables the Secretary of State to waive the requirement for an examination in public into structure plans.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am once again grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall study her response with interest. However, at the moment, I must tell the Committee that I am not satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 402 to 403 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 403A:
Page 144, line 18, at end insert ("(including any London borough which wishes to make representations with regard to its adopted unitary development plan)")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 268 refers to examinations in public. The amendment seeks to allow a London borough which wants to make representations with regard to its adopted unitary development plan the opportunity to take part in the examination.
The boroughs have no right to be heard, but they clearly will have an interest. The amendment seeks in part to clarify the borough's formal position in this process. I hope that the Minister will be able say a few words on that. The boroughs may have points to make about their adopted unitary development plans. Those documents have statutory and practical force. I appreciate that boroughs may be invited to the EIP. However, I should like them to have a formal position in order to be involved in the resolution of any conflict which might arise between documents. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The main purpose of the examination in public of the draft strategy is to provide an informal opportunity for discussion and testing, in public and before a panel appointed by the Secretary of State, of selected matters. It is not an examination of the whole of the submitted proposals; nor is it a hearing of the totality of objections. This will ensure a streamlined and focused debate of the key issues.
It is clear to us that the views of London boroughs on the SDS should be regarded as very important. Any London borough can submit representations on any element of the SDS and the mayor must take these representations into account. But we contend that it would be entirely wrong to fetter the discretion of the panel on the selection of those parties invited to attend the EIP. If all 33 boroughs were entitled to attend all the discussion sessions, it would be more difficult to ensure a representative cross-section of parties and still keep the number of participants to a sensible number.
Moreover, the amendment makes specific reference to boroughs raising concerns about the SDS having regard to adopted unitary development plans. This has the flavour of looking in the wrong direction. The SDS sets the overall framework for London. The UDPs—which are far more detailed and specific documents—must be in general conformity with the SDS. That is the relationship between them. It is the proper and logical relationship between them. The way in which the amendment is drafted suggests almost the opposite. I hope that the noble Baroness will allow some flexibility. She has on record the importance of taking into account the views of the London boroughs in relation to the SDS, but prescribing the actions of the panel in this way would not be appropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I acknowledge that the Government recognise that the boroughs have an interest. In drafting the amendment in this form, I attempted to limit the scope of their requests or demands to be heard.
No doubt I should know this answer, but I fear I cannot remember it. Will those conducting the examination in public be required to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State as to the people to be invited? That might be a basis for ensuring
1468
that proper views are received. I, too, look forward and not simply backward. However, one has to build on history. Guidance might present the opportunity of ensuring that the boroughs' interests are covered.
Lord Whitty: The panel would be required to have regard to guidance with regard to which interests should be given the opportunity to make representations. The measure does not prescribe exactly how the hearings should be structured.
Baroness Hamwee: That reply is helpful. I hope that I may assume that regard would be given to those concerns which I have voiced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 268 agreed to.
Clause 269 [Duty to notify London borough councils of publication or withdrawal]:
[Amendments No. 404 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 404A:
Page 144, line 33, leave out subsection (2)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 405 not moved.]
Clause 269, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 270 [Review of matters affecting the strategy]:
[Amendment No. 406 not moved.]
Clause 270 agreed to.
Clause 271 [Reviews of the strategy]:
[Amendments Nos. 407 and 408 not moved.]
Clause 271 agreed to.
Clause 272 [Alteration or replacement]:
[Amendments Nos. 409 and 410 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 410A:
Page 145, line 9, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Baroness said: Clause 272 refers to alteration or replacement of the spatial development strategy. Under Clause 272(2) the Secretary of State can direct the mayor to publish,
"such alterations of the spatial development strategy as the Secretary of State directs; or…a new spatial development strategy to replace it".
I should feel less concerned if the subsection were confined to subsection (2)(b): a direction to prepare a new strategy. I am concerned that the Secretary of State has power to direct the mayor to make any alterations that the Secretary of State may decide, either after full consideration and consultation or almost on a whim.
Amendment No. 413, grouped with this amendment, restricts the directions which can be given. I believe that similar concern is expressed there. If my amendment fails to succeed, I shall support Amendment No. 413. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 410A is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 411 to 413.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I speak to Amendment No. 413. It is somewhat similar in intention to Amendment No. 410A but is not limited. It does not seek to prevent the Secretary of State directing the mayor to prepare and publish alterations to the strategy, or to prepare a new strategy if the Secretary of State believes that that is right. The amendment seeks to place limitations on the circumstances under which the Secretary of State could so direct. He may only do so if,
"the spatial development strategy is inconsistent with current national or regional policies, or … that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding any detriment to the interests of an area outside Greater London".
That is not an unreasonable restriction to place on the Secretary of State's power. It is right that he should have power to take those matters into account. While one would hope that a responsible mayor would take those matters into account, he might fail to do so; or he might feel that there would be an overriding London reason why he should not do so. It is reasonable that the Secretary of State should have a limited power. The general power in the Bill is too great and I should prefer to see it restricted. That is my reason for tabling the amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I believe that we need the reserve powers. Our plans give the mayor the responsibility to prepare the SDS for London and to keep it up to date. We would expect the mayor to take account of the wider regional and national policies and to update the strategy from time to time as necessary. However, if there were a serious failure on the mayor's part to take account of changing policies or requirements outside London and to keep the SDS up to date in that sense, there must be a way of rectifying the situation, which the clause as drafted does.
It is a reserve power based on similar ones in existing areas of planning legislation. Those powers are rarely used and I do not expect that the mayor will need encouragement from the Secretary of State to keep the SDS up to date. It is nonetheless essential, because of the important role we give to the SDS not only for its own purposes but for the boroughs' planning operations, that we have reserve powers to ensure that it can be kept up to date.
Amendment No. 413 is slightly more moderate in its objectives. It would limit the Secretary of State's power without removing it. I appreciate the thinking behind it. It tries to use similar criteria used elsewhere in the Bill,
1470
including Clause 267. However, in the context of a reserve power we need wider powers than those specified within the clause.
The circumstances in which the Secretary of State might remotely but conceivably need to act to protect the integrity and operation of the planning system could include those referred to in the amendment. However, there may be others where the mayor, for whatever reason, had failed for years to bring the SDS up to date to take account, for example, of economic, demographic or employment changes that had a significant bearing.
In those admittedly unlikely circumstances, it would not be satisfactory to have a requirement for the London borough to keep its UDP in conformity with an out-of-date SDS. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in the interests of boroughs, developers and the planning system as a whole. In such a case, therefore, the tests of inconsistency with national or regional policies and of detriment to other areas are not necessarily applicable in the narrow sense that the noble Lord's amendment implies.
I repeat that it is a reserve power which will not be used by the Secretary of State except in the most serious cases of neglect by the mayor. I consider it most unlikely that they would be used at all, but they are a failsafe and we consider that we need them in this form. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: When the Minister studies the record he will see that in his response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, he gave a reason why he should accept my amendment. However, when he dealt with my amendment, he destroyed that argument. I must study in detail what he said, but perhaps if I take the second part of his argument and disregard the first he has satisfied the point I have raised.
Baroness Hamwee: Is there a legislative constraint on the alterations which the Secretary of State can direct under Clause 272(2)(a)? I heard what the Minister said about the powers being reserve, but I should be interested to know whether there is anything in the Bill or elsewhere which will define the parameters of the power of direction.
Lord Whitty: I shall need to check, but I believe that there is nothing in the terms mentioned by the noble Baroness. There is in the overall requirement that the Secretary of State shall act reasonably with regard to the exercise of reserve powers, as with other powers. That is the qualification I give.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Is there any control on an autocratic or overbearing Minister? From a legal point of view, the potential for judicial review is not a safeguard in these circumstances.
Lord Whitty: Probably in the terms the noble Lord indicates, the requirement to act reasonably is a restraint. They are reserve powers and they are specified where

1471
the Secretary of State would have to demonstrate that the mayor's strategy did not conform, or no longer conformed, to national policies or interests, or would act to the detriment of other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there are constraints and tests against which the reasonableness of the Secretary of State would have to be judged. I therefore believe that there is a significant degree of restraint on the Secretary of State.
I now have further inspiration! I am reminded of the additional point that the powers have long existed in planning legislation in other parts of the country and are not new. So far as I am aware, we have not had a sufficiently autocratic Secretary of State to indicate that these powers are easily abusable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is one difference between this situation and those which exist. There could be a stand-up political row between a directly elected mayor who has built up an enormous political head of steam in London vis-à-vis the Secretary of State of the day. I suggest that the Minister contemplates that. This may be a failsafe mechanism and we hope the circumstances will not arise. However, there might not be a failure on the part of the mayor to do that which is required of him in law but there might be a political row on grounds of special planning. It is an issue which the Government ought to be careful about in making up their mind about the reserve powers.
Lord Whitty: In this as in other areas of the Bill there is the possibility of political conflict between the mayor and the national government and in extremis there must be a means of resolving it. Provided that the Secretary of State acts reasonably, the Secretary of State has the final say. If it were left unresolved, we would be in a more difficult situation than that referred to by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister mentioned the comparable powers in respect of other parts of the country. I shall reflect on that because the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right about the situation in London. I want to give myself the opportunity to think about any technical differences which might make it a concern in London where it has so far worked all right, because an autocratic Secretary of State may be just around the corner. I hope not, but I want to ensure that if there is one his or her powers are defined in a way that makes the exercise of the autocracy more difficult. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 411 to 418 not moved.]
Clause 272 agreed to.
Clause 273 [Matters to which the Mayor is to have regard]:
[Amendment No. 419 not moved.]
Clause 273 agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move that the Committee stage be adjourned until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.10 to 8.40 p.m.]
[Amendment No. 420 not moved.]
Clause 274 [Regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 420A to 424 not moved.]
Clause 274 agreed to.
Clause 275 [Amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990]:
[Amendment No. 425 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 425A:
Page 146, line 8, at end insert—
("() In subsection (6) of that section (formulating general policies in Part I of a unitary development plan) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) if the authority is a London borough, the spatial development strategy;".")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 425A is grouped with Amendment No. 449. The London boroughs are obliged, under Section 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act, to have regard to national, regional and strategic policy in formulating their unitary development plans.
The amendment requires the London boroughs to have regard to the spatial development strategy in the same way as they have regard to strategic planning guidance. It is entirely reasonable that the boroughs should be obliged to treat the spatial development strategy as pari passu with the regional planning guidance. That is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am a little surprised by Amendment No. 425A. I believe that it is already well provided for within the Bill. Clause 275(2) requires that the boroughs' UDPs are in general conformity with the SDS. That already gives the SDS relationship with UDPs far greater statutory weight than would this amendment. The amendment therefore has no practical effect, apart from slightly confusing the issue. I agree entirely with the objectives of the noble Lord, but I hope that he withdraws the amendment.
Amendment No. 449 would put an onus directly on the boroughs. Again, it is pretty clear that Clause 275 already does that. The SDS is, therefore, already covered as regards the boroughs' planning functions. The boroughs also have to carry out other local functions. To place them under a duty that they should have regard to the SDS in carrying them all out would clearly not be appropriate. As regards the planning function, that is already provided for. I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The amendment has served one useful purpose in that it has woken me up, and another in that it has surprised the Minister. I believe that is the first time I have achieved that, which is quite something. I shall study what the Minister says. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 426 to 436 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 437:
Page 147, line 27, at end insert—
("() In section 70 (determination of applications: general considerations) in subsection (2), after "development plan" there shall he inserted "and, if it is a London borough, the spatial development strategy"")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 437 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 438 to 442. These amendments are directed towards a similar point; that is, to ensure that the London boroughs are having proper regard to the mayor's spatial development strategy when they are dealing with planning applications.
Section 70 of The Town and Country Planning Act requires local planning authorities to determine planning applications having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations. The amendment requires that London boroughs should have regard to strategy as a material consideration when they are dealing with planning applications. That means that the mayor's policy will therefore be applied, along with everything else, when planning applications are determined without, we hope, the need for the mayor to intervene.
By their Amendment No. 442B, the Government recognise that the spatial development strategy should be expressly referred to in making development controlled decisions. That amendment writes into the Town and Country Planning Act an obligation on the mayor to consider the spatial development strategy when he is determining whether or not to exercise his power to direct refusal of planning permission. That puts a reciprocal obligation onto the local planning authorities so that they have a proper regard to spatial development strategy when they are determining their planning applications.
Amendment No. 438 suggests the removal of Clause 275(9). My amendments are aimed at simplifying the procedure. We are trying to strike out what would appear to be an unneeded third tier of planning control in London. The Bill, as drafted, proposes that the mayor should have power to direct the refusal of a planning permission. At present the boroughs have power to direct a refusal. When we come to consider the effect of this in the City, we believe that, if the mayor has power to direct a refusal of planning permission, he may reduce the efficiency with which the planning system works. That could be significant in its effect on the economy, and particularly on the City.
The City of London is in a very particular situation. It is in direct competition with Frankfurt and other financial centres in the mainland of Europe. It relies for its competitive position on two factors. The first is the huge intellectual resource that exists in and around London. The other equally important factor is its ability to provide both suitable accommodation and a communications infrastructure on a rapid timescale to keep it ahead of its competing cities. That is a desirable ambition and we do not want the planning system to be made more complex by the creation of a third way of holding up planning permissions. The mayor's powers on planning are all supposed to be strategic. The existing
1474
planning regulations work satisfactorily and the mayor should not have the power to direct that planning permission should not be granted. That is important.
The other amendments all relate to that point. It is fundamental to the future well-being of the City of London that we do everything that we can to keep the planning process as streamlined as possible in the interests of the City's competitive position, on which the whole of London and the rest of the country depend. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, because this is a complex group dealing with the provisions of Clause 275(9), which enables the Secretary of the State to give the mayor the power to direct refusal of planning permission. We have made it clear that such cases would need to be clearly defined and strictly limited to applications that are genuinely of potential strategic importance. That is to minimise the scope for conflict and confusion and to ensure that the mayor does not intervene in matters that are properly dealt with by the boroughs. Those principles were set out in the White Paper and are reflected in the Bill.
In Committee in another place my honourable friend the Minister for London announced the Government's conclusions on the consultation exercise that we had conducted and set out in detail how the mayor's ability to intervene will operate and how the applications will be defined.
The Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 438A, 440A and 440B. Amendment No. 438A provides clarification to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes an order he can also impose a duty on the mayor to give reasons when using the power under that order. Amendments Nos. 440A and 440B arise from a commitment made by my colleague the Minister for London to consider an amendment tabled by the Opposition in another place. That amendment has been repeated as Amendment No. 441. The Government's amendments will provide that the mayor shall have regard to the UDP and the spatial development strategy so far as is material to the application when considering whether to use his or her powers to direct refusal of planning permission. The amendments should ensure that the mayor's use of the power of direction, which is not a formal determination of an application, will be consistent with the approach taken by local planning authorities in the determination of planning applications in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. When using his or her powers of direction, the mayor will have to have regard to the unitary development plan currently in force and the spatial development strategy. In the light of the Government's amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will at least not press Amendment No. 441.
The other amendments move in the wrong direction. They would not secure the right balance between strategic and local interests. Even with a plan-led system, the success or failure of strategic policies will be determined through individual development control decisions. That is why it is important that the mayor should be consulted on the limited number of applications that raise issues of genuine strategic importance and that, in extremis, he or she should have

1475
the fall-back power to direct refusal if important strategic concerns cannot be resolved. Amendment No. 438 would eliminate the mayor's fall-back power to direct refusal, leaving him or her toothless on issues of genuine strategic concern.
Amendment No. 439 is unnecessary. We have made it clear from the outset that the mayor would be involved only in applications of strategic importance. Stating that so baldly would create a fertile area for conflict and dispute. We propose to set down clear and unambiguous criteria for such cases in secondary legislation. My colleague the Minister for London has announced the details of those criteria. The thresholds and criteria chosen are important, but they are proxies for the definition of what is of strategic importance. They are designed to create clarity and certainty. That is important for all those concerned with the planning process, particularly developers and businesses. We have made it clear that the criteria can and should be reviewed in the light of experience, probably at the point at which the mayor has produced the first SDS.
Amendment No. 442 would limit the threshold to a narrow number of very large buildings. It says that the mayor should not intervene on any building lower than 150 metres. St Paul's Cathedral is only 111 metres high and there is currently only one building in the City of London higher than 150 metres. Buildings of the size of St Paul's have to be regarded as of strategic importance. We are proposing a limit of 75 metres, compared with 30 metres elsewhere in London, except for sites fronting the Thames. The floor space in the City is set at 30,000 square metres, rather than 20,000 square metres in the rest of central London or 15,000 square metres in outer London. We recognise that the City is different from the rest of London. I take nothing away from the noble Lord's references to the importance of allowing development that meets the economic needs of the City, but it is self-evident that buildings of the size of St Paul's Cathedral and others in the City should be included within the threshold. A development threshold of 150 metres is very high. It is important that the mayor should have a say on such developments.
We estimate that on our criteria the mayor would be consulted on only 150 to 250 applications, out of a total of 70,000 developments throughout London, all of which would be the responsibility of the boroughs. Even in those cases, we are talking about consultation in the first instance. The number of cases in which the mayor would want or need powers of intervention or refusal would be considerably smaller. I do not envisage any sensible mayor wanting to act in ways that could stifle the health of London's economy, particularly that of the City.
I also resist Amendment No. 440, which would restrict the applications on which the mayor could direct refusal. I accept that proposals that do not accord with the plan may be of particular interest to the mayor, provided that they are of sufficient scale or importance, but the scope of the mayor's consideration should not be as limited as is suggested in the amendment. The fact that a proposal is in accordance with a development plan does not mean that it does not merit or require detailed consideration or that it cannot raise issues that need to be considered at the strategic level. Amendments No. 442 and 440 would limit
1476
the mayor's powers to insist on consultation and his powers of intervention in the last resort. That would undermine and harm the effectiveness of the mayor and the delivery of a spatial development strategy at the strategic level. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments. I shall move mine when appropriate.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the Minister for his explanation. On Amendment No. 440, if an application is consistent with the unitary development plan and if that plan is in compliance with the spatial development strategy, it seems slightly peculiar that it should he necessary for the mayor to have a power to call in and direct refusal, given that the plans are all supposed to be consistent with each other.
With regard to Amendment No. 442 and the issue of St. Paul's, I entirely accept that the amendment is inadequate, particularly with regard to the sidelines from the Thames. But the City is unusual. There are at present 24 developments either under construction or proposed which are in excess of 30,000 square metres—the limit at present suggested. It may be considered that die height that we are proposing is unreasonable, but in the draft regulations we have a combination of height and size. Size is a significant criteria for the major finance houses and can be achieved without going for the sort of heights we suggest should be necessary.
I shall consider the Minister's response carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount St. Davids): I must point out that if Amendment No. 438 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 438A to 442 inclusive.
[Amendment No. 438 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 438A:
Page 147, line 31, at end insert (", and subject to such conditions as may he prescribed,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 439 and 440 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 440A:
Page 147, line 43, leave out ("(1C) In subsection (1B)") and insert ("and in the preceding provisions of this subsection")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 440B:
Page 147, line 44, at end insert—
("(1C) In determining whether to exercise any power under subsection (1B) to direct a local planning authority to refuse an application, the Mayor of London shall have regard to—

(a) the development plan, and

(b) the spatial development strategy prepared and published under Part VIII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999,

so far as material to the application.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 441 and 442 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 443:
Page 147, line 44, at end insert—
("() In section 320 (local inquiries) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(3) Where an inquiry is held by virtue of this section and the Mayor of London has directed the local planning authority to refuse an application for planning permission the subject of the inquiry, the Mayor shall be deemed to be a party for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972."").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 443 is directed at the matter of costs. The amendment amends the Town and Country Planning Act to allow the Secretary of State to award the costs of a planning inquiry either for or against the mayor.
It is possible to award costs against an authority if it appears at an inquiry and is held either to have caused the inquiry to take place on unreasonable grounds or produces an unreasonable procedure at the inquiry. But it is possible for the mayor to direct refusal of a planning permission and then not appear subsequently at an inquiry that might arise as a result of that refusal. In that situation, as I understand it, the law would not permit costs to be awarded against him, even though he was the cause of the inquiry. We feel that is unreasonable and Amendment No. 443 is designed to remove that anomaly. It is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: There is no disagreement in principle about Amendment No. 443. It would, on the face of the Bill, make it possible for the mayor to be liable for the costs of inquiries. We are committed to ensuring that that happens.
We clearly spelt out in the GLA White Paper that the mayor should face an award of costs if it was found, by an inspector or the Secretary of State, that he or she had used their power of direction inappropriately. In Clause 275(9) new subsection (1B)(c) provides the power to make an order to modify the provisions of the relevant Act in order to achieve this. However, we have no objection in principle to securing this on the face of the Bill and would like to take this amendment away to consider it. With that undertaking I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. With the assurance she has given, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 444 not moved.]
Clause 275, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 276 [Monitoring and data collection]:
[Amendment Nos. 445 and 446 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 446A I must point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 447, 447A or 448.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 446A:
Page 148, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (7)
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply removes the provisions in Clause 276, subsections (2) to (7) which provided for the establishment of a monitoring scheme intended to provide the mayor with the pan-London information needed to draw up the spatial development strategy and to monitor its implementation.
Following discussion of these provisions in another place, my honourable friend the Minister for London undertook to bring forward amendments replacing the provisions in subsections (2) to (7) with broader arrangements governing the collection of data in partnership with the London local authorities. Following detailed consultation with the Association of London Government, we brought forward Amendments No. 455AXB to 455E, which I do not feel we will reach tonight but which deal with these items. I hope the amendments meet the bulk of the concerns reflected in the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Miller, and provide a consensual approach to meeting the monitoring costs agreed between the mayor and the London boroughs.
Because of their broader nature, it may be helpful to discuss the substance of this when we reach the appropriate amendments in the context of mayoral research powers. For the time being, I ask the Committee to agree to remove these subsections. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I appreciate that these matters are dealt with under the research provisions later in the amendments that the Government have tabled. I am also aware that there is some controversy around how the matter will be dealt with. I wish however to ask a particular question on this clause and that is whether losing subsections (2) to (7) will mean that the mayor, who has a duty to monitor, will still have the power to operate a scheme should there be a situation in which it would be right for the mayor to do so.
Lord Whitty: This amendment does not remove any powers from the mayor to have a scheme. It removes the duty provided in these powers.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendment No. 448 is grouped with Amendment No. 446. I shall study with care what the Minister has said and, in the meantime, will not move my amendment when we get to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 276, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 277 [Functional bodies to have regard to the strategy]:
[Amendments Nos. 449 and 450 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450NA:
Page 148, line 31, at end insert ("notwithstanding any provision of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 277 requires each of the functional bodies to have regard to the spatial development strategy and I have no quarrel with that.

1479
I have tabled the amendment in order, I hope, to obtain confirmation from the Minister that the London Development Agency, along with the other bodies, must have regard to the SDS in view of the slightly inconclusive debates that we had during the passage of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1988 as to the hierarchy of the different considerations. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 277 requires all functional bodies, including the London Development Agency, to have regard to the SDS in exercising any function. The amendment would provide that this obligation is,
"notwithstanding any provision of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998".
However, I do not believe that there is anything in that Act to prevent the LDA, or any other functional body, from having regard to the SDS. So the amendment is unnecessary. It could even be misleading in implying that there is some conflict between the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Not only do I feel able to withdraw it, but as that is the answer I was seeking I am glad to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 277 agreed to.
Clause 278 [Mayor's functions in relation to planning around Greater London]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450PA:
Page 148, line 34, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 450PAZA. The numbering of the amendments is longer than the amendments themselves. I seek in the first amendment to change "or" to "and", and the second amendment is consequential.
Clause 278(1) provides for the mayor to inform local planning authorities in the areas near to Greater London of his views on matters of common interest, or he may inform a body on which those authorities are represented. I moved an amendment earlier to write into the Bill a reference to SERPLAN or a successor body. Perhaps I should have used different terminology, but in this instance I am concerned that it will not be adequate for the mayor to inform a representational body. It would be more appropriate for the mayor to have direct contact.
SERPLAN might be the sort of body that would fall within Clause 278(1)(b) and it is not a body on which every authority has a representative. When I was a member, the districts had several representatives but—unless things have changed in the past few years—the body did not have one from each district. I look forward to the Minister's explanation as to how the provision will be adequate, other than a suggestion that if the mayor thinks that a particular authority has a particular interest it would be inconceivable for the mayor not to approach that authority. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This clause deals with the mayor's role in representing London's interests on strategic planning matters in relation to areas surrounding London or across the south-east as a whole. I am sure that in most cases the mayor will want to discuss with, and make his views known to, both individual local authorities where they have an interest and any representative bodies. But there may well be cases where it is entirely appropriate for the mayor to deal with either one or the other. For example, a broader strategic body may have little direct interest or locus in a planning matter relating to one particular authority. Conversely, there could be circumstances where a representative body is charged by individual local authorities outside London with representing their interests. In such cases these amendments would risk locking the mayor into unnecessary consultation. In the light of that, and the assurance that we see the mayor approaching the appropriate group, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope the Minister will not take it amiss if I say that that was the kind of response I expected but had hoped a little not to get. However, I do not wish to be too dismissive. I shall consider the matter carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 278 agreed to.
Clause 279 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 450PAA not moved.]
Clause 280 agreed to.
Clause 281 [The Mayor's environmental report]:
[Amendment No. 450QA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 450RA not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450RB:
Page 149, line 22, leave out ("to be known as a") and insert ("dealing with the matters provided by subsection (3) (in this section called the").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment. No. 450RB, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 450H, 451ZAA, 451ZQ and 451ZZA. We have moved on to the part of the Bill dealing with the mayor and the authority's environmental powers and duties. This group of amendments addresses a point made by my noble friend Lord Tope and myself at an earlier stage, although perhaps this issue is not as dramatic as that of the mayor being stuck with the politically correct titles of "The State of London Debate", "The People's Question Time" and so on. However, the Bill again requires the authority to use for its various strategies titles that are imposed by the Bill.
I do not think it is appropriate for primary legislation to describe what documents should be called. The report on the environment in Greater London is to be known as "a", in this case rather than "the",
"state of the environment report".

1481
The waste management strategy is to be known as the "municipal waste management strategy" and so on. However, the mayor may wish to call it the "Greater London waste strategy". Well, why not? This is a small point, but I believe it is important. The drafting of the provisions indicates the Government's wish not to let go. However, I think the Government could release the titles of the documents without fear, given that the duties are spelt out adequately in the Bill. The titles of the documents do not need to be prescribed.
I have drafted the amendments in such a way that amendments have not been tabled to change titles throughout the Bill. That would have meant tabling and speaking to huge numbers of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support my noble friend's amendment. We know what a difference a word can make. For example, the mayor may wish to name a document the "New waste management strategy", rather like New Labour, which has made such a difference.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot beat that one! My insistence on this wording is in no way intended to restrict or inhibit the creative expression of the mayor. As far as I am concerned, the mayor can use whatever titles he or she likes for these strategies. However, there has to be a statutory definition of them.
The effect of these amendments will be to remove the statutory status of these strategies and make them relevant only to the particular clauses of the Bill, whereas they need to be relevant through the mayor's overall strategy. If there was a deletion of the words "to be known as", the effect would be to remove the statutory authority. If the mayor wishes to call them something else with a small sub-title in 10 point print which reflects the statutory definition, I have no objection to that. A "new waste strategy" would be quite appropriate. If some of the candidates were to be elected, they would no doubt think of more trendy, catchy names. That is not the point. The point is that we need a definition which has some statutory authority. It is important that the mayor is able to signal that the strategy he is talking about relates to the authority within the Bill.
The strategies will be important documents. The London boroughs and others will need to have regard to them. The waste and air quality strategies also have powers of direction associated with them. For those reasons, it is very important that the status of the document should not be ambiguous. What the mayor says in his manifesto or in any other presentation of it to the electorate of London and others is a political decision that I am quite happy to leave to the mayor. However, the legal definition must be clear in the text of this Bill.
1482
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, given my commitment not to restrict the artistic freedom of any putative mayor, will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to prevent the mayor, for instance, calling one of the strategies "the people's waste strategy" or "the new people's waste strategy"! It is a little early to be so silly!
I will read what the Minister has said about the statutory definition. Listening to him, I do not believe that I agreed with the point. I am concerned that the mayor may be in a position where the law will be broken. To put the statutory term in 10, 9, 8 or 5 point type on a document would be absurd. I hope that there might be a way round this matter. Of course, I take the point that there has to be a mechanism for leading into and enforcing the duties that are contained in the Bill. I will reflect on that.
For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 450SA, I should point out to the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment Nos. 450UA or 450WA.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450SA:
Page 149, line 26, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("not less than two years six months and not more than three years six months after the first or as the case may be previous ordinary election.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 450SA, I will speak also to Amendment No. 450XA. Amendment Nos. 450UA and 450WA are grouped with this.
These amendments deal with the period within which a state of the environment report is to be published. Under Clause 281, the first report can be published at any time within the first three years, and subsequent reports within four years from the previous report. Reading this provision, it seemed to me that it would be possible for the mayor to publish the first report very early, in order to distance it from the second round of elections for the mayor and the assembly. This, of course, would have a knock on effect on the timing of subsequent reports. Therefore, I suggest a minimum as well as a maximum period and, in all cases, I have calculated the periods from the previous election. As drafted, I hope that the amendment will mean that there will be a maximum period between reports.
It seems to me that it would not be inconceivable—indeed, it might be quite smart—for the mayor to publish the report rather early on, so that he can say, perhaps accurately, that the state of the environment in London is pretty frightful and there are all sorts of things that need to be done about it, but not to have to report again formally on the success of his strategy until after the next election. He could go into that election saying, "Well, it is not my fault. The Government haven't

1483
actually achieved anything". That is the sort of situation that one would not want to see, but perhaps even to have thought of the point shows that I have had too many years of electioneering.
Amendment No. 450XA proposes that the report shall be published at a point when information would be available for the annual report and the debate. I accept that this is not quite so easy a thing to govern, but information is always historical in a report. This is, perhaps, a rather inadequate attempt to ensure that it is reasonably up to date at the time of the annual report and debate. I am aware that the Minister in another place said that there was nothing to prevent production of the report more frequently than every four years, but our amendments are intended to apply the proper pace to such reports rather than to stop more frequent reports and more proper reporting. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Our amendments, Amendments Nos. 450UA and 450WA, are grouped with Amendment No. 450SA. We feel that the drafting of the Bill, or at least the time-scale suggested by it, is almost lackadaisical. The Bill provides that the first state of the environment report should be produced at the end of a period of three years from the start of a mayor's term of office and that, every four years subsequently, there should be another environment report. Of course, that fits in very neatly with the electoral cycle.
However, whether the state of the environment be good or bad is neither here nor there. We think that the publication of the report requires rather more urgency than is implied by the drafting in the Bill, or indeed by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In fact, our amendments suggest that the first state of the environment report should be published after one year. If the mayor is backed by the sort of staff that he is supposed to be taking over from the Government Office for London, I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that he ought to be able to achieve that.
We are also suggesting that subsequent reports should be produced every two years. Therefore, if the mayor were to report after one year and then submit an up-date two years later, that would still be the year before the election. He would not actually have to submit a report over an election period. The mayor himself, or his successor, will report a year after the election. In fact, the time-scale that we suggest would not remove the electoral imperative, but it does at least have the merit of being reasonably separated from it.
We believe this to be an important matter. An appropriate time-scale for producing these reports and then both looking at them and revising them is, of course, a question of judgment. We think that our time-scale is superior to the one on the face of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments deal with the timing and frequency of publication of the mayor's state of the environment report, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have indicated. The Bill as drafted requires the mayor
1484
to publish the first state of the environment report within three years of the first election and subsequent reports at a minimum of every four years. This is designed to ensure that every mayor publishes a state of the environment report at some time within his or her term of office.
These amendments would change both the timing of the mayor's first environmental report and the frequency of future reports. Amendment No. 450WA would have the effect of requiring the mayor to publish a report every two years, while Amendment No. 450XA would require the mayor to publish the report annually in time for it to be debated alongside the annual report.
Amendment No. 450UA would require the first report to be published within one year of the first elections. Amendment No. 450SA would prevent the mayor from publishing the report until after two years six months but require that the mayor did publish the report before three years six months after the election.
The Government oppose these amendments. As we have made clear all along in this Committee stage, the Bill is designed to allow the mayor as much flexibility as possible in the setting of his or her priorities. For this reason it sets out a sensible timescale for the production of state of the environment reports which will ensure that no mayor can avoid producing a report at some point in his or her term of office. But it avoids placing a requirement upon the GLA to produce more frequent reports, specifically because this could prove burdensome to the small, streamlined organisation it is designed to be.
The production of a state of the environment report, covering all the subjects set out in Clause 281 of the Bill, will be a time-consuming task. Much of the data will not change significantly over the course of a year. It would place a substantial burden upon the GLA to produce an annual or even biennial report, particularly when the information it contained might not differ significantly from the previous report.
Similarly, we consider that the obligation to publish the first report within three years is a reasonable one. The first few years after the GLA is established will be a particularly hectic time. The first mayor will have to balance his or her priorities in tackling London's problems. The obligation we have placed upon the mayor will ensure that he or she publishes a report in the first term of office. But it will allow the mayor a good breathing space to set priorities and gather the necessary information.
Finally, I should add that the Bill does not prevent the mayor from producing a report more frequently than every four years. The mayor might choose to publish his or her first report more quickly than the limit of three years. I understand the concerns that have been raised about the choice that the mayor would have to publish the report early in the cycle to gain electoral advantage, or possibly to obscure the figures. However, environmental indicators move slowly and take time to analyse. In practice advantage is unlikely to be gained by early publication, and if it were, the mayor would be unlikely to get away with it.

1485
The point of the report is to ensure a periodic and definitive statement on environmental indicators to inform the public and to inform policy. In between times I am sure that the scrutinising assembly will watch environmental developments carefully and hold the mayor to account for all of them. The Bill allows the mayor the freedom to set priorities within the framework the legislation provides. We believe that this is the right approach to creating a flexible and effective GLA. I hope therefore that the amendments will be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: I am prepared to forgo my point about the frequency of publication and the minimum period before publication. My first amendment does not propose a very different time-scale from that of the Government; it merely seeks to place difficulties in the way of a mayor who might try to avoid facing up to issues at an electorally inconvenient time. I have heard what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450TA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 450UA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 450VA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 450WA and 450XA not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450XAA:
Page 149, line 36, at end insert ("and from industrial sites")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 450XAA standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 450IB, 450NP and 450PB, which are very similar to government Amendment No. 450YA.
Amendment No. 450XAA seeks to ensure that the state of the environment report includes information about air emissions from industrial sites as well as from road traffic. The Committee will recall the success of naming and shaming some of the larger industrial complexes over the past few years. Work has been carried out subsequently to reduce their air emissions. Industrial sites can have a great impact in terms of reducing air pollution. The Bill would gain considerably if, in addition to information on road traffic emissions, information on industrial site emissions were to be included in the state of the environment report.
Amendment No. 450IB seeks to include in the state of the environment report information about the biodiversity action plan. Several of our amendments seek to ensure that cross-information is supplied to each strategy and that strategies are not simply "drainpipes" that are ticked off as informing something else. This amendment is in that spirit.
Amendment No. 450NP provides that the state of the environment report should include information on the percentage of new developments on greenfield and brownfield sites. The Government's targets are obviously quite high. Over time, as brownfield sites fill
1486
up, the target will need to be reduced if more development is to take place. A close eye will need to be kept on that situation. The statistics will be very important in the state of the environment report, as it informs the SDS report.
Amendment No. 450PB seeks to achieve much the same target as government Amendment No. 450YA; that is, that the state of the environment report should include information about biodiversity. I am glad that since this matter was debated in the other place the Government have accepted the Liberal Democrat and Conservative point of view that this is extremely important. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I shall speak first to government Amendment No. 450YA, to which the noble Baroness referred. The amendment is the result of an omission which was spotted in Committee in another place by various Opposition Members of Parliament. The amendment remedies that omission and puts biodiversity—which is a strategy for the mayor—back into the clause. I am grateful that the noble Baroness also spotted the omission. I hope that she will accept that my amendment meets her point in relation to Amendments Nos. 450IB and 450PB.
Turning to the other amendments, I remind the Committee that the Bill also states that the mayor may include information about any other matters not prescribed on the face of the Bill in relation to Greater London which he or she considers appropriate. That gives the mayor plenty of discretion to include all kinds of matters which the Bill does not specifically state and therefore allows the mayor a pretty free hand to include any matter that may be considered relevant to Londoners in the plan.
The question of listing everything on the face of the Bill, including those matters to which the amendments refer, could lead to a demand to lay down in primary legislation a list that is potentially endless. I am therefore wary of adding anything to the list in Clause 281. Each additional topic places a burden on the mayor. It may well be that he or she will consider it a burden that should be undertaken. However, we need to leave some discretion to the mayor.
Neither of the areas listed in Amendments Nos. 450XAA and 450NP—namely, emissions to air from industrial sites and new developments on brownfield and greenfield sites—is in any sense directly within the mayor's control. Nor do I see them as strictly essential to ensure the proper coverage of a broad range of environmental issues across London.
If the mayor considers it appropriate, he or she can include such a section and will need to co-operate with the London boroughs in order to produce the required information. But I see no reason to add any of those matters to the existing list in the Bill, and to exclude other matters which might be equally important and which might equally require agreement between the mayor and the London boroughs, which we hope will develop organically. I do not see that it is sensible to specify that the state of the environment report should include a section on each of these or on other topics. That must be left to the discretion of the mayor and the

1487
relationship that he or she builds up with those authorities that have direct control over these matters. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I welcome the Minister's words on Amendment 450PB. I am glad that we have achieved that. I do not agree with him that industrial sites should not be specified. They can be a major source of pollution. Although I understand that the Government wish the mayor to have plenty of discretion, if he is responsible for air quality, it is wise to specify in the Bill those areas on which he should concentrate. However, at this stage, I hear what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments No. 450YA:
Page 150, line 3, at end insert—("() biodiversity,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 450A:
Page 150, line 4, after ("recycling") insert (", transportation")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would provide that the state of the environment report should include information about the transportation of waste. Amendment No. 450A provides that the mayor's waste strategy also contains proposals for the transportation of waste.
At an earlier stage in the proceedings in Committee, we raised our concerns that the transportation of waste was not considered in connection with waste strategy and the mayor's strategy in general. It is our contention that the transportation of waste is an essential part of a waste strategy, particularly in so far as that strategy relates to disposal sites.
Clause 285 states that disposal, and for that matter collection, authorities shall have regard to the mayor's strategy. So if the mayor were to adopt a strategy or suggest strategies as to how waste might be moved—and we must remember that some of London's waste is moved a very long distance to its final disposal site—that could have quite an effect in terms of times of day, days of the week, routes, the mode of transport, cleanliness, the pollution status of the vehicles employed, and so on. We think it could be a very useful spur to the waste disposal authorities in exacting from their contractors a sensible and non-polluting attitude to the disposal of waste. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: We certainly accept that the transportation of municipal waste is a very important issue. In a sense, because it is such a central issue we have not specified it here. The Bill already allows the mayor to include in both the environment report and the municipal waste management strategy those issues that are important, including the transportation of municipal waste. In preparing or revising the waste management
1488
strategy, the mayor shall have regard to any guidance issued to him by the Secretary of State for the purposes of implementing the strategy and relating to the content of that strategy.
All guidance from my department will indicate that, when choosing the waste management option to be followed for a particular part of the waste stream, all authorities must be in a position to adopt the principle of best practicable environmental option, which was defined by the Royal Commission as a procedure which establishes for a given set of objectives the option which provides the most benefit, or least damage, to the environment as a whole as an exceptional cost in the long term as well as in the short term. In order to identify this, authorities have to take into account the environmental impact of the transportation of municipal waste. In addition, it is almost certain that any guidance issued by the Secretary of State would suggest that authorities and the mayor should minimise the transportation of municipal waste and make full use of the forms of transport which do least damage to the environment.
We recognise that this is part of the whole process and that it is likely that the mayor will want to include it. However, we have to allow the mayor some discretion. I hope that, with the reassurances I have given and given the importance that my department attaches to this, the noble Baroness will not press this amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am bound to say that the Minister's reply had a strong flavour of "not invented here" about it. He tells us that it is very important and, indeed, that it is so important that it does not need to be mentioned on the face of the Bill. Is he telling us that waste disposal is less important than waste transportation? Waste disposal, which is equally covered by guidance—stacks of guidance—is on the face of the Bill whereas, because waste transportation is so central and is covered by guidance, it does not have to be on the face of the Bill. I think we need a more logic in the selection of items which do and do not have to be on the face of the Bill. However, for the present time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450IB not moved.]
[Amendment No. 450JB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450KB:
Page 150, line 7, at end insert—("() housing conditions,
() communicable diseases,
() occupational health and safety,
() food safety, and
() the effects of the environment on human health")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 450MB. Amendment No. 450KB seeks to add to the state of the environment report a number of very important matters in terms of the health of

1489
people living in the city. I refer to housing conditions, communicable diseases, occupational health and safety, food safety and the effects of the environment on human health.
It is not just we on these Benches who think that these are particularly important issues to tie in: they were in fact suggested by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Health and the environment are obviously very closely linked and a healthy environment makes for healthy people. At the same time, what is happening in the areas I have just mentioned would be a very good measure of the sort of success at which the mayor needs to aim. The state of the environment report needs to consider such matters when reporting on the direct impact on people.
Amendment No. 450MB seeks to add to the list of matters that the state of the environment report shall contain something much more precise than the matters that the Government have currently included. The Government simply refer to water quality and pollution. Our amendment seeks to provide a measure of the health of rivers, waterways and canals by linking pollution with biodiversity. One of the aims is to have healthier rivers and watercourses that support the kind of life that they should support if they are not polluted.
The experience of water authorities is that the impact of storm sewage in urban run off on water courses has caused enormous problems, as have domestic waste systems that are incorrectly connected to surface water sewers and which pollute small rivers. Not only do these matters make watercourses unhealthy and unpleasant, but the oxygen levels in them are unable to support fish life which, for example, the Environment Agency has worked so hard to bring back. We believe that this amendment adds something to the aims of the Bill which is now lacking in the Government's more superficial view of the part played by watercourses. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: These amendments seek to require the mayor to include sections in the state of the environment report on housing conditions, communicable diseases, occupational health and safety, food safety and pollution of rivers and canals, all of which areas the mayor is not directly responsible for. If the mayor decides that all of these areas need detailed coverage in the report, that is a matter for him, but to impose a requirement seems to us to be over-prescriptive and is an unnecessary burden on the mayor, should he decide that other priorities ought to be pursued.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 450MB, which deals with pollution and biodiversity of waterways, we believe that its purpose is already adequately covered by the mayor's obligation to publish the biodiversity action plan under Clause 282. In that plan the mayor is required to have regard to ecology, wildlife and proposals for the conservation and promotion of biodiversity within Greater London. We have recently tabled a further amendment which includes biodiversity in the list of subjects to be covered by the state of the environment report. Therefore, the objectives of this
1490
amendment are already met in the Bill in the amendment recently accepted. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to pursue the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: While to an extent I agree with the Minister's remarks on Amendment No. 450MB, I cannot agree with his observations on Amendment No. 450KB. If, heaven forfend—I am sure that it will not happen—we have a somewhat lazy mayor, at the rate that we are going this evening he or she will be able to ignore, for example, the air quality on industrial sites and all the other matters that both I and the Minister have listed. After all, those matters have been suggested to us by a professional body as providing an exact measure of the state of human health in relation to the environment. I do not agree that this matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the mayor. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450LB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 450MB to 450QB not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450RB:
Page 149, line 22, leave out ("to be known as a") and insert ("dealing with the matters provided by subsection (3) (in this section called the").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 451ZE, 451ZN, 451ZP and 451ZS. This amendment takes us back to the role of the assembly in the production of the report on the environment; to consultation before directions given by the Secretary of State on the waste strategy; to commenting on boroughs' recycling plans; and to consultation before directions are given by the Secretary of State on the air quality strategy.
The Minister may think that, from these Benches, we have dealt with these matters to the point of tedium. However, we are merely repeating what we believe to be extremely important; namely, that the experience of assembly members, and in particular their role of keeping the mayor up to scratch, is essential. The exchange on the two amendments with which my noble friend Lady Miller dealt rather illustrates that. Members of the assembly could have a role in assisting the mayor to make connections. We talk a great deal about cross-cutting issues. The last group of amendments was about precisely that. It was about making the connection between, for example, the state of the environment and human health.
I repeat that the assembly should be able to make its comments in advance through a formal process. I have mentioned the question of health. In relation to recycling, the members of the assembly may well have an overview of how recycling fits within the jigsaw of other environmental issues in London.
The White Paper Local Leadership, Local Choice referred to the scrutiny committee which is proposed by the Government in their forthcoming local government

1491
organisation and standards Bill. At paragraph 3.19 it states that it should:
"consider and investigate broad policy issues and make reports and recommendations to the executive",
and,
"provide advice to the executive on major issues before final decisions are made".
The next paragraph goes on to state that scrutiny committees,
"would therefore be able to address cross cutting issues …making a key input to the council's policy development process. They would also tackle issues to do with the policy framework for a particular council service and the effectiveness of the delivery of that service".
It went on to say that:
"These overview and scrutiny committees would make reports and recommendations on future policy and practice to the council or the executive as appropriate".
That is a close and useful analogy with the role of the assembly and the way in which the assembly can best work. I hope that we shall be given some assurances that the assembly members can make the sort of input to which I have referred in quoting from that White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness rightly says that we have been round this course before. I should never accuse her of tedium although I may accuse her of relentless consistency perhaps. However, there is a fundamental difference between us in this regard. These amendments pursue the way in which the Liberal Democrats view the structure of the authority. They would enhance the role of the assembly and give it the right to make executive decisions alongside the mayor.
We do not consider that that is the right approach. There need to be clear checks and balances and there must be a clear separation of powers. Proper scrutiny can only take place in that context. The assembly cannot scrutinise decisions and the implications of decisions in which it is implicated. To a greater or lesser extent, the amendments would undermine that principle. For example, they would give the assembly the right to decide what should be included in the state of the environment report. That would undermine the assembly's subsequent ability of scrutiny.
We have debated this issue many times. I have no doubt that we shall return to it at a later stage. In our view, the separation of functions would logically not allow these amendments. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.
10 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure that I follow the point that if the assembly has a role in advance, it prejudices its scrutiny role after the event. I shall consider that. I think that the Minister paid me a compliment. I would rather have had the amendment accepted, but I shall make do with the compliment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450SB:
Page 150, line 9, at end insert—
("() A state of the environment report shall also set performance targets in the above areas and assess progress in achieving those targets.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 450J. Amendment No. 450SB seeks to insert that,
"A state of the environment report shall also set performance targets"
—in the areas it is to cover—
"and assess progress in achieving those targets".
On another Bill, we have heard relentlessly—I do not say "tediously"—about assessment of performance targets. We have a vast array of systems enabling council leaders to be assessed on them. If they fail, the Government have another set of systems to ensure that those targets are achieved. Yet we do not seem to be placing anything like the same requirements on the mayor in his state of the environment report.
I am aware that in another place the Minister argued that it was inappropriate and unreasonable to require a mayor to set targets in areas outside his or her responsibility. However, if the mayor cannot set the targets, who can? The mayor is able to set goals and aspirations even though those areas may be outside his responsibility. In seeking to raise the quality of life for Londoners, I should have thought that the mayor should be able to raise the aspirations of every sector of the community he serves.
Amendment No. 450J seeks to do the same, but relates to a more specific area: the London biodiversity action plan. Again, there is little point in having a biodiversity action plan if there are no performance indicators. How will the success or otherwise of the plan be measured? Both amendments are extremely important. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can sympathise with the intention behind the amendment. The Government are a strong advocate of the use of performance indicators to encourage improved performance in a range of public bodies. The Greater London Authority should not be an exception to this principle. As the Committee will already know, and as the noble Baroness is aware, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has promoted a Local Government Act this Session. It will establish a best value framework for local authorities which will include a series of performance indicators across the range of public services.
The GLA will be covered by best value and will, therefore, need to have a series of performance indicators in place to assess its level of performance for all its functions, including the environment. Performance indicators will play a part in the GLA's make up as a requirement of best value. We expect that relevant nationally applied indicators will apply to the authority.

1493
However, we cannot support the amendments. They seek to require the mayor to set performance targets for all the areas which the state of the environment report will cover and to include performance indicators in the biodiversity action plan.
As I have already explained to the Committee, the state of the environment report will contain several sections on areas of indirect interest to the mayor, in which he has no strategic role, but where we consider London would benefit from his interest and scrutiny; for example, litter and water quality.
The Government consider that it would be inappropriate and unreasonable to require the mayor to set performance indicators in areas which are not within his or her responsibility. On whom would the indicators bite? Would it be the GLA or perhaps other bodies, such as the London boroughs?
If the indicators applied to the GLA, they would inevitably be meaningless as the GLA would have no direct responsibility for achieving them. If they applied to local authorities, they would be seen as unfair and ineffective because the mayor would have no remit to set indicators and no ability to enforce their achievement.
However, I am more sympathetic to the noble Baroness's suggestion that the biodiversity action plan should contain performance indicators. As she may be aware, my honourable friend in another place made a commitment to examine the case for including performance indicators in the mayor's strategies. We are still completing our considerations of this point and I guarantee that we shall return to it at a later stage. I hope that, in the light of these assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply and I am encouraged to hear that an amendment similar to our Amendment No. 450J is likely to appear before we reach the final stage of the Bill. Naturally, I am slightly disappointed in her reply to Amendment No. 450SB because I believe that the setting of targets for London's society as a whole is desirable, even though no one obvious person may be responsible for them. However, in the meantime, I accept the Minister's reply and shall read it with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450TB:
Page 150, line 12, at end insert—
("() such non-governmental organisations as the Mayor considers appropriate,")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 450UB. Amendment No. 450TB seeks to add NGOs to those who must be consulted before the mayor produces a state of the environment report. Although I am aware that the Government are likely to argue that he already has the power to consult any person he considers appropriate, that gives the mayor a considerable comfort
1494
blanket. In relation to the state of the environment, he might not want to hear what the NGOs have to say and for that reason in particular it is important that he is required to consult them. They are often in the vanguard of indicating problems and their advice is often too radical to take on board, particularly by someone who is coming up for re-election. But even if their advice is uncomfortable and the mayor may not want to hear it, we believe that it is worth having it on record together with the mayor's reaction.
Amendment No. 450UB is a simple amendment to add to those who must be consulted before the environment report is produced. It lists the Health and Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency and the regional Director of Public Health. I accept that it is likely that the mayor will consult them, but they are important statutory bodies and I believe that the mayor should be required to consult them. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Again, I must commend the Liberal Democrat Benches on their consistency. Clearly, had we pursued the earlier amendment relating to the requirements of the environment strategy, it might be logical to require the bodies listed in Amendment No. 450UB to be consultees. However, in that debate I argued that we should allow the mayor some discretion on what is included, particularly as regards the issues over which he has no direct executive powers, and that is also the case in relation to whom he should consult. The present requirement is that he is required to consult the Environment Agency, each London borough council, the City and any other person whom he considers appropriate.
That is a fairly wide discretion, but to prescribe these particular bodies and NGOs would not be appropriate. That would be going too far, particularly in the light of the Government's position, which is that we would not prescribe within the environment strategy areas for which the mayor has no direct executive responsibility. If the mayor wants those areas to be covered, it would obviously be sensible and logical for the bodies set out in Amendment No. 450UB to be consulted, but that is a matter for the mayor.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I believe that by not including these amendments we are leaving the mayor with too great a comfort blanket in place to hear only what he wants to hear, in some cases. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450UB not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): Before calling Amendment No. 450VB, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 450C.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450VB:
Page 150, line 16, leave out subsection (5)
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 450VB I shall speak also to the other amendments within this group. Amendment No. 450C seeks to broaden the scope of the information that the mayor must include in the section of the report on road traffic. The Bill, as currently drafted, requires the mayor to include information on the number of vehicles, the length of journeys, and the places where, and length of time for which, road vehicles park in Greater London.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would require the mayor to include information about the type, as well as the number of vehicles. My honourable friend, Glenda Jackson, made a commitment in another place to review the need for Clause 281(5), and, in particular, to consider whether it is absolutely necessary to place upon the mayor these fairly stringent requirements. We are still considering that.
Our overall approach to the GLA is to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens. For that reason, we have taken the view that it is more sensible to allow the mayor some discretion over what information should be included in the road traffic section. Amendment No. 450VB achieves that by deleting the subsection altogether. The other amendments in this group would have the opposite effect of imposing additional burdens on the mayor. The Government would not be prepared to accept that.
There are two other amendments in this group which also seek to define closely what information should be provided. Amendment No. 450D would require the mayor to include information on domestic and non-domestic production, recycling and disposal in the section of the report on waste. Amendment No. 450F would require the mayor to include information on specific pollutants.
I understand the reasons behind the amendments. I am sure that much of this would be covered by the mayor in any such strategy. Nevertheless, I believe that our approach of allowing more rather than less discretion and prescribing less rather than more on the face of the Bill is appropriate in these circumstances. It is appropriate to give the mayor a little "elbow room" in determining the priorities within the strategy required from him. I hope that those amendments are not pursued. However, in the mean time, I beg to move Amendment No. 450VB.
Baroness Hamwee: I am happy to see the Government's amendment. The Minister described Amendment No. 450C as broadening the scope of the provision. We tabled that amendment because the clause is already fairly broadly drawn. We felt it was necessary to add a little more to cover the ground.
Clause 281(3)(b) refers to "road traffic levels". Will the Minister confirm that, although the word "levels" is used, distinctions between different types of vehicle can be made? It is important to ensure a more analytical approach to the issue by accepting, for example, that
1496
private cars, bicycles, delivery vans and other vehicles raise different issues and there is different information to be gleaned about them. I hope that the phrase "road traffic levels" as distinct from road traffic does not restrict the report more than we all want.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I was interested in what the Minister said about Amendment No. 450VB and the others in the group, which include my Amendments Nos. 450D and 450F. It is not surprising, although it sometimes seems paradoxical, that whenever we propose a requirement for more information to be provided the Minister opposes it, but if we suggest that the Bill is too prescriptive we usually find the Minister proposing the opposite. That may be inevitable given the nature of debates in Committee.
We were seeking to increase the information available about waste and, perhaps more significantly, about the main atmospheric pollutants, which are a significant part of any serious environmental report. I accept the Minister's argument that it is highly likely that such matters will be reported on in the state of the environment report, but they might not be. We have tabled amendments because we think that they should be included in the report. I shall study what the Minister has said.
Lord Whitty: The mayor can and no doubt will wish to add the details on traffic to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. We are not prescribing precisely how the issues would be analysed. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the same is true of our overall approach. The issues will he covered in broad terms. The precise terms will be down to how the mayor assesses his or her priorities. That is the right balance and I hope that the other amendments are not pressed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 450WB, 450XB and 450YB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450B:
Page 150, line 21, at end insert—
("() A copy of each state of the environment report shall he kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.
() A copy of each state of the environment report, or any part of such a report, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.
() In this section "the appropriate period" in the case of any state of the environment report is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of that report pursuant to this section.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 450D not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 450E:
Page 150, line 21, at end insert—
("() The Mayor shall publish an action plan for London on the basis of the state of the environment report.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment forms an odd coupling with Amendment No. 451ZAF. Amendment No. 450E deals with the state of the environment report, while Amendment No. 451ZAF is intimately involved with waste. I shall cover them in the same speech, although I shall deal with them separately.
Amendment No. 450E would require the mayor to publish an action plan as a consequence of the state of the environment report. It is, of course, entirely proper that the mayor should be required to report on the state of the environment. But, paradoxically, although indirectly throughout the Bill he may be taking actions which will have an impact on the environment, there is no requirement on him to produce an action plan as a consequence of producing the report.
It may be argued that such a report will sum up work that is being done elsewhere on the face of the Bill. But it would be no bad thing for the mayor to be required to produce an action plan on the state of the environment report. It would make the system more open, more accountable and in general would prove to be more satisfactory to everybody.
Amendment No. 451ZAF was slipped into this group. I must admit that I did not pick it up when the groupings were suggested and they normally work out reasonably coherently. The amendment relates to page 151, line 13, and to the way in which we deal with the question of waste. One can see why the amendment was slipped in because, again, we call for an action plan, but this time on the question of waste.
We have a paradox with regard to the mayor and what is to be done in London about waste. Apart from what is in the Bill—we shall in due course be questioning whether this provision should be here at all—the mayor has no responsibility with regard to either the collection or disposal. There is a sense, therefore, in which this is so much hot air. But if the mayor is to have anything to do with waste, clearly he should have to have an action plan.
Some fundamental problems exist in relation to the disposal of London's waste. As we have discussed before in this Chamber, London's waste disposal arrangements are coming to a point of crisis. Many of the existing facilities are running out of either space or time. A further problem is that there is a greater inclination on the part of the European Community to regulate in the field of waste disposal and to require that waste is not disposed of to landfill. That will impose huge problems, not just in relation to management, but also technical and financial problems, and, primarily, the problem of overcoming the NIMBY factor.
One of the most difficult issues with which an authority has to deal is persuading a community how to dispose of its waste. Disposing of waste can usually be achieved, but it is not easy with a community that is used to disposing of its waste elsewhere. Therefore, if this measure is to be in the Bill, there should be an action plan and that is why Amendment No. 451ZAF
1498
was included in this grouping. The amendments are an odd coupling as to subject, but with regard to intention, they are identical. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: In one sense, the amendments are an odd coupling, but they allow me to clarify what we mean by a report and a strategy. A report is a report, and a strategy, almost by definition, must be an action plan. I have probably conveyed my meaning a little too explicitly. What I was trying to say is that a report is one thing and a strategy includes action points. The mayor will be required to produce eight strategies, most of which will have a relationship to the environmental report. The strategies will be where the action is and they will relate either to where the mayor will have direct executive responsibility or where he will have responsibilities for guiding, and in some cases intervening, in relation to the London boroughs and other statutory authorities.
If the mayor were also required to have an environmental action plan that cross-cut the eight strategies that he will be statutorily bound to deliver, there would be some confusion about where the action points arose. The environment report has to be seen as a report on the state of the environment, and the action plans will be contained within the individual strategies. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will see that the operational arms arise from the strategies and it will be confusing to introduce an action plan as an additional part of the report. As far as the waste disposal side is concerned, the action plan is the strategy as described.
I hope that I have made myself clear, although I doubt it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall have to study what the Minister has had to say. I am grateful to him for doing his best to explain the difference and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450F not moved.]
Clause 281, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 450G not moved.]
Clause 282 [The Mayor's biodiversity action plan]:
[Amendments Nos. 450H and 450J not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450K:
Page 150, line 40, leave out ("Commission") and insert ("Agency")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. As the Committee will be aware, on 1st April this year, the Countryside Commission merged with the Rural Development Commission into an organisation called the Countryside Agency. The amendment merely ensures that the correct name is on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 450KA not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450L:
Page 150, line 41, at end insert (", and
() such non-governmental organisatlons as the Mayor considers appropriate")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 450M, tabled by the Conservatives. They both seek, in one way or another, to ensure that the mayor will consult NGOs when preparing or revising the London biodiversity plan. Bearing in mind the Minister's earlier comments about giving the mayor a little elbow room, he may find our amendment more acceptable.
Amendment No. 450L provides for the mayor to consult NGOs, but he may choose those he considers appropriate. Any of us who have through the years received the excellent briefings from NGOs such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds will recognise the wisdom of the mayor consulting such bodies when preparing the biodiversity plan. The expertise in those organisations is such that he is unlikely to be able to replicate it among his limited staff. The Bill would gain something from having that requirement, while giving the mayor the necessary elbow room. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 450M, which is grouped with Amendment No. 4501., is now slightly inaccurate because the question of an environmental strategy group is no longer relevant in the light of what has happened earlier. However, the amendment seeks to add to the list of consultees in regard to the biodiversity section of the Bill. These are groups such as the London Ecology Unit, the Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and the Groundwork Foundation that have a special interest in certain aspects of the ecology of London. London's ecology is important. It has diverse flora and fauna and in many ways does not suffer from the disadvantages of the countryside where intensive agriculture restricts some of the plants and animals that otherwise one would expect to find. However, while intensive agriculture may be responsible for that loss, intensive agriculture is necessary to feed us all. So one has to live with that. However, there are aspects of London's ecology that are special and well worth preserving. The bodies mentioned in our list have a special interest and I believe it would be worthwhile to consult them. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: We have returned to the position of prescribing exactly whom the mayor should consult. We have been over this ground before. On the biodiversity action plan the mayor is specifically required to consult English Nature, the Countryside Commission and the Environment Agency. Clause 34 also lists in relation to that plan not only the assembly but also the functional bodies; namely, the London boroughs and anyone else the mayor deems it appropriate to consult.
The additional organisations prescribed in the various amendments would in many cases be appropriate for the mayor to consult. However, I think we need to leave the mayor that discretion. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has referred to the fact that we have
1500
already discussed the environmental strategy group. However, with reference to the London Ecology Group which has been mentioned here, I thought I had already explained at an earlier stage that the London Ecology Unit would be subsumed into the GLA to provide for the authority its core environmental staff. In that sense, the LEU would cease to exist as soon as the GLA carne into existence. So the GLA can hardly consult with itself. I do not think that would be appropriate, even were we to be prescriptive.
Of course I am aware of the sterling work being done by the London Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and the Groundwork Foundation. I would expect the mayor to make his or her own decisions as to which of those groups to consult, but in practice I should expect all of them to be consulted on the biodiversity plan. However, we must leave a few matters for the mayor to decide for himself or herself. We have dealt with this argument previously and I should not flog it to death. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am beginning to find different ways of accepting graciously the Minister's replies, while realising that we will get nothing challenging. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450M not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 450N:
Page 151, line 8, at end insert—
("() The Mayor shall publish any plan within one year of the first ordinary election and subsequently every two years.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to build on our ambitions to keep the mayor up to scratch as regards timing. The London biodiversity plan does not appear to have any great urgency about it. In this amendment we have suggested that the mayor should publish a plan within one year of the first ordinary election and subsequently every two years. There is no time limit on this matter on the face of the Bill. We think there ought to be. The point is simple and we think it is worthwhile. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, this amendment requires the mayor to publish the Biodiversity action plan within one year of the first elections and subsequently every two years. We do not presume to set a timetable for the mayor which would force him or her to work to the Government's priorities rather than his own. Those priorities must be those which have been set out in the manifesto for which the people of London have voted. That may mean that he or she will produce some strategies in advance of others. We believe that that is a totally valid way in which to proceed. We do not propose to put constraints in the way of making this the effective method of working. In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I will study with care what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 282, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 451 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I should have pointed out to the Committee that Amendment No. 451 is not moved. It therefore follows that Amendments Nos. 451YA and 451YAA may not in those circumstances be moved because they would have been proposed as amendments to Amendment No. 451.
[Amendments Nos. 451YA and 451YAA, as amendments to Amendment No. 451, not moved.]
Clause 283 [The Mayor's municipal waste management strategy]:
[Amendment No. 451ZAA not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 451ZAB to 451ZAE had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 451ZAF not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 451ZAG:
Page 151, line 13, after second ("the") insert ("minimisation,")
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, we move into the detail of the waste strategy or new waste strategy, or whatever it will be known as. This amendment seeks, as did several other amendments that we had in this group but have withdrawn, to include the word "minimisation" and the concept of minimisation in the mayor's waste strategy.
When we come to the subject of a waste strategy, to omit the word "minimisation" is to ignore what is happening with the whole of the waste production stream. Originally, the Government had a target that 25 per cent of household waste would be recycled by the year 2000. London is recycling 11 per cent of its waste at the moment, and that fairly patchily. Some boroughs are doing very much better than others. The borough of my noble friend Lord Tope is doing especially well in that respect.
However, it is very uphill work. No matter how hard the boroughs work to recycle as much as they can, waste seems to grow and grow. Simply aiming to recycle the waste and transport it in a more efficient way, together with all the other current objectives that the strategy aims to achieve, is absolutely not enough if any real impact is to be made in this area. In fact, minimisation should be the prime responsibility of the mayor if he takes a long term view.
Recycling initiatives have experienced great difficulties for a number of reasons. They are not in themselves particularly energy efficient and it is often difficult to use the end products again, although I believe that industry and commerce are getting much better at tackling this area of work. In addition, whichever way we look at it, the landfill sites are running out. By 2010, the south-east region is likely to run out of space for landfill site disposals. Incinerators
1502
certainly represent one possible change of direction. However, they are going to hit very hard the people who do not want them in their back yards. In any event, in terms of environmental sustainability, minimisation has to be the way forward.
However, minimisation is incredibly much more difficult to achieve. It will mean persuading people that they want to do without things or do them in a more difficult way. For example, when we adjourned for our dinner break—for which we were all duly grateful—many members of staff in the canteen were taking away their meals in take-away boxes. Although that sort of practice makes life easier for all of us, it would have to stop under a minimisation plan because it produces vast amounts of waste.
The mayor needs to be given some ammunition to target those things which people will reluctantly give up. Large shops will be reluctant to give up practices which make packaging and selling easier; they will prefer to recycle them, because it is cheaper in the short term and they do not have to look at different ways of doing things. But minimisation is absolutely essential and must form part of the mayor's strategy. Anything else would be short term. Minimisation is the medium and long-term future. It must be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I find myself in almost total agreement with the noble Baroness in terms of what she said, with the possible exception of the implied abolition of the dinner break. What the noble Baroness proposes in this amendment could actually lead to the exact opposite result. Waste minimisation is such an integral part of waste management that separating it out, as proposed by the amendment, would send the message that waste minimisation and waste management were two different things. That seems to me to be entirely the wrong message and, indeed, the wrong implication of what the noble Baroness was just saying.
Therefore, although I totally agree that waste minimisation is absolutely a central part of waste management and the whole waste strategy, to say that it is different would actually give the wrong message to the mayor as regards the way in which the strategy was drawn up. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my support for almost everything she said, but that she will not actually pursue the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may add a few words to the debate. We really are getting into a very strange situation where things which are most important are left out of the Bill and those which are less important are left in the Bill; in other words, part of the waste management strategy is in the Bill but part of it has to be kept out of it. Either we should just talk about waste management, or we should talk about all the elements of waste management. We should not be selecting waste management and some of its elements, which is what is in the Bill at present.
I urge the Minister to rethink these clauses, which are not very well drafted, in the context of the guidance of the Department of Environment and that under the

1503
Environment Act, which everyone has been seeking. The whole idea of waste minimisation is a central part of that process. Although the abstraction by the collection authorities and the recycling of products is very important and forms part of the waste minimisation idea, the latter is also an attempt to try to encourage people—for example, those who run large businesses—to demand less packaging from their suppliers. A whole host of things, like making encouraging noises and the kind of leadership role that we expect the mayor to take, can be exercised through the word "minimisation" in what is, particularly in major cities, one of the major strategies which the mayor has to get right.
We have talked a good deal during the proceedings on the Bill about the effect of what happens in London on other local areas. I do not believe that there is anything that London does which causes more ill-humour and more disadvantage to its surrounding areas than waste management, or lack of waste management. This is something that we need to get right in the context of this Bill. Alongside my noble friend, I urge the Government to take the matter a little more seriously.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: While my noble friend was speaking, I searched again through Clause 283 to determine what the Minister meant when he said that although he agreed with everything I had said the Bill already placed an adequate duty on the mayor to ensure that waste is minimised. However, I failed to find any such duty. Clause 283 refers only to,
"the Mayor's proposals and policies for the recovery, treatment and disposal of municipal waste".
The Bill concentrates on dealing with waste as it occurs and does not seek to place a duty on anyone to minimise it. We shall certainly return to this matter. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 451A not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 451B:
Page 151, line 14, leave out ("municipal")
The noble Baroness said: The object of this amendment is to remove the word "municipal" from the waste management strategy. We could have tabled a large number of amendments all saying the same thing. We have simply chosen this one in order to discuss the principle of the matter.
The definition of "municipal waste" as provided for in this Bill—my noble friend will discuss this in a moment—is rather curious; namely, all that waste which reaches the waste collectors. That is it. However, that is not a satisfactory description of waste. It would be better to talk simply of waste management and not of municipal waste management. Then the mayor would have a strategic role in dealing with waste management and minimisation through to disposal of the waste that arises in London. That would include, for example, builders' rubble and dangerous waste, to which reference was made earlier in the Committee stage.
The Minister has told us many times that we must not restrict the mayor's freedom and capacity for action. However, to my way of thinking this description of municipal waste does just that. I repeat to some extent the point I made earlier. The Bill does not state that the mayor should act in a leadership role to encourage businesses to deal sensibly with their waste. It simply states that whatever waste comes into the hands of the waste collection authorities shall be dealt with under a mayoral strategy. I believe that it would be better for the mayor to have the freedom to consider how all of London's waste is disposed of, whether it is disposed of, or recovered, or managed, or reduced by the private sector under his encouragement, or whether it is dealt with by the waste collection and disposal authorities through their contracts with the private sector. It seems to me that the word "municipal" is a limiting as well as a rather curious definition within the waste terminology. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support the amendments spoken to by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will explain what is the point of the mayor's waste strategy. It is surely to turn waste into something that is less costly to deal with and to minimise it and, where possible, to obtain energy from waste, for example. Given that those are the sorts of objective that the mayor's strategy should aim at, the kind of waste that he has to deal with is not particularly relevant. He should establish broad, long-term aims that may encompass many kinds of waste which will he dealt with in different ways.
The source of waste is perhaps the least important concern; what matters is where it goes and what benefits and drawbacks there are in its disposal. Perhaps the Minister could define how this purpose is served by trying to split waste into many different categories. The waste collection and disposal authorities at borough level should have regard to dealing with particular kinds of waste, not the mayor.
Lord Whitty: There is something in what the noble Baroness has said. We believe it is right that the mayor should have a view on other waste streams and how they are dealt with. There are many lessons of good practice. In the earlier provisions dealing with the environment report, the Bill provides for the inclusion of information on all waste, including the kinds of waste to which the noble Baroness referred. That is where the leadership, the education and the best practice roles arise.
The municipal waste strategy deals with the area where the mayor—either directly or more generally—has powers relating to the public sector but where the local authorities effectively have the control. We want the strategy to be a vehicle for real and concrete change. It should therefore contain policies that the mayor can deliver and which are capable of being implemented in the main by the local authorities, if necessary through powers of direction.
There are no mayoral powers of direction over the private sector. There would be little value in developing a strategy of action for the management of waste generated by the private sector, especially if it contained

1505
measures that it was not prepared to accept and which would be unenforceable. The municipal waste management strategy relates to an area where there is ultimately a mayoral power of direction but which is primarily a local authority responsibility. The other areas are of course important and will be covered within the environment report and what flows from it. With that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: We accept that the Bill as drafted does not give the mayor powers of direction in respect of non-municipal waste, as it is defined. But in these days of partnerships—often very productive partnerships—is it right to stop the mayor including in a strategy proposals as to how other types of waste might be dealt with? There might be advantages in dealing with municipal and other waste in the same way—or, at least, in relating the issues which arise one to the other. To preclude the mayor from extending a strategy simply because he cannot enforce it seems to me—I am sorry for the pun—to be a wasted opportunity.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The Minister's response to what we have said rather proves the point I was trying to make: the emphasis on municipal waste, as my noble friend has just said, rather limits the mayor's power to take a leadership role in this area.
Let us take, for example, the dangerous waste that emanates from hospitals. That can be disposed of in a number of different ways. A mayor may be able to encourage hospitals to deal with their waste in groups and possibly persuade them to dispose of it on their own sites, or on sites of hospitals in less crowded parts of London, in a way which is specifically directed at the disposal of that dangerous waste.
Of course the mayor could not force hospitals to do that; however, a direction to hospitals, a leadership or partnership approach, might well result in a satisfactory method of disposing of dangerous waste. The same could be said, for example, about the minimisation and disposal of the cardboard packaging which surrounds so much of what we buy and in particular what is delivered to large companies. I know of quite small authorities which have already started in a small way encouraging local businesses not to dispose of their waste into the waste stream but to sell it directly to those who recycle or re-use such waste. That has come about as a result of the leadership role taken by those authorities. I see no reason why the mayor should not be encouraged to take that kind of role in relation to London. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 451C not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 451D to 451M had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 451N:
Page 151, line 30, at end insert—
("() such non-governmental organisations as the Mayor considers appropriate,")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 451P and 451Q.
Amendment No. 451N would require the mayor to consult NGOs when preparing or revising the waste strategy. I shall not re-run at length the arguments I gave as to why the mayor should consult on the environmental strategy. But some of them are equally pertinent here.
There may be difficult issues that the may or may not wish to confront. I give merely one example of an area where volumes and volumes of waste—I do not have the exact figures—are produced every year. I refer to the area of disposable nappies. Few organisations have done more to raise that issue than has the Women's Environmental Network, and few organisations other than that one have come up with alternatives acceptable to mothers with small babies. That is the kind of organisation that the mayor should be required to consult.
Amendment No. 451P is a fairly obvious proposal. It requires that the mayor should consult not merely disposal authorities but waste collection authorities in Greater London when preparing or revising the strategy. That seems to me self-evident and I should not need to explain it at length. However, if it is not and the Minister does not agree with me, I shall return to the matter.
Amendment No. 451Q requires the mayor to consult not merely on the disposal of waste but also on its handling and transportation. When we consider the amount of waste that is shifted around the city and the fact that one waste company alone shifts 600,000 tonnes a year by river, thereby saving some 400 lorry movements a day, we can begin to see the scale of the involvement as regards handling and transportation issues. These matters should be included alongside disposal, as they can play a major role. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: So far as concerns waste collection authorities, under Clause 34 the list of statutory consultees for all the mayor's strategies, including this one, includes the London boroughs, which are the collection authorities. As regards the rest, again we are in a situation where I wish to give the mayor discretion and the noble Baroness wishes to prescribe. I do not know whether we want to go over those arguments again. The more one prescribes certain bodies, the more one excludes other bodies. Again, I should prefer to leave it to the mayor's discretion.
11 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I hear what the Minister says, and once again I am struck by my inability to find new ways of saying that I will withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 451P and 451Q not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 451 to 451X had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 283 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: In moving that Clause 283 shall not stand part of the Bill, for the convenience of the Committee I should like to couple with it Clauses 284 to 289. The amendments are a series of probing amendments, which I do not really expect the noble Lord to accept. However, I find myself wondering why we inserted into the Bill the suggestion of handing the mayor the problem of handling London's waste disposal when in fact he has nothing to do with it. He will have nothing to do with collection or disposal. The Environment Agency regulates quality control of the business and the Secretary of State has overall control. The only reason I can see is that it might just pull the Secretary of State's irons out of the fire in that it might save him from having to take a number of difficult decisions which he might hope that the mayor would take on his behalf.
There is yet another problem. It is that the Bill has no timescale for the mayor to produce an effective strategy. By the time he is likely to do it, given the generous timescale being given in regard to other things, the crisis over the disposal of London's waste will have come and gone, because it will have to have been dealt with before any strategy is required to appear. I have not found a timescale on the face of the Bill.
This is what I would call a general shot across the bows. I would accept that there is some validity in what is proposed in the Bill if in fact the mayor was going to be given some responsibility for the provision of facilities for the disposal of London's waste, or some such power. But he has nothing. All he has to do is to write a plan, and I do not think that is likely to achieve anything. We have heard enough about the problem of London's waste and I will not talk more about that problem at this stage.
I think there is a case to answer as to why these clauses are included, and I look forward to what the noble Lord the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says that this is a shot across the bows and he has coupled with his Motion a number of subsequent clauses relating to waste. Of course it is true that direct powers of the GLA with regard to waste are not there, but the powers of direction are there. We said in the White Paper that we had considered the option of making the GLA the disposal authority for the whole of London, but that we considered that to be unnecessary and likely to involve a massive duplication of bureaucracy. It would require the GLA to become involved in areas which, by and large, are being dealt with adequately by the local boroughs within London. Nevertheless, there are some very serious pan-London issues involved here which affect areas beyond London, including the Royal County of Essex. So there are some very serious strategic issues involved here which, with the re-creation of a strategic authority, it is sensible for the GLA to undertake.
1508
It is important that, in relation to the collection, recovery, minimisation, disposal and transportation of waste—all the issues that the Committee has debated for the past hour or so—the GLA has a coherent strategy. It may well be that by better co-ordinating the boroughs and, if necessary, using a degree of direction in so doing, there will be a more integrated approach to waste disposal across London. In any case, as part of the general environmental obligations on the GLA it is necessary that, in conjunction with the other public authorities involved, waste disposal is seen as a major arm of the delivery of a better environmental quality of life within London, of which municipal waste disposal is a very important aspect.
Clearly, there is a national waste strategy into which all of this must fit and to which, in many ways, the Greater London waste strategy will make a major contribution. The fact that the GLA is not itself a waste disposal authority may perhaps make it easier for it to provide strategic direction. Were it to be bogged down in the detailed logistics of individual waste disposal operations, as the London boroughs inevitably are, the commitment to the strategic approach would be that much less.
Therefore, I hope the noble Lord agrees that a strategy for waste disposal is in the best interests of London and that the necessity for the GLA to co-operate with the London boroughs and neighbouring authorities around Greater London is an important responsibility. I hope that the noble Lord will allow this clause to stand part and not press his opposition tonight.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has had a pretty good shot at replying. I need to study his observations with care. Although we are dealing initially with Clause 283, this is a series of probing amendments. I have spoken to all the following clause stand part amendments, and I do not intend to raise the issue again this evening. I must decide whether or not to raise the matter on another occasion.
Clause 283 agreed to.
Clause 284 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 451Y to 451ZD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 451ZE not moved.]
Clause 284 agreed to.
Clause 285 [Duties of waste collection authorities etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 451ZF and 451ZG had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 285 agreed to.
Clause 286 [Directions by the Mayor]:
[Amendments Nos. 451ZH and 451Z1 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 451ZK:
Page 152, line 30, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 451ZK, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 451ZKA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord

1509
Dixon-Smith. Amendment No. 451ZK proposes the omission of paragraph (b) of Clause 286(1). That paragraph would allow the mayor to give a direction that required a waste collection or disposal authority not to exercise a function. Perhaps the Minister can give an example of how that power might operate. I assume that the function in question would be a statutory one. I have been trying to think of a regal analogy. Perhaps this is not a Henry VIII clause because the Secretary of State does not put himself in that position, but, as I read the provision, someone is promoting the mayor to that position by allowing him to stop a waste collection or disposal authority from exercising a function. It is not immediately obvious to me what circumstances would give rise to that, and I should be glad if the Minister could put some flesh on the bones. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendment No. 451ZKA involves a slightly different matter. Clause 286 deals with the question of the mayor giving directions with regard to the disposal of waste and municipal waste management in relation to his municipal waste management strategy. The amendment requires him to have some regard to the costs of what he is proposing to regulate on and the effect of those costs on either the disposal authorities or the collecting authorities—the boroughs.
The question of costs in waste disposal is significant. The cost of disposal through incineration, with energy recovery and an element of waste recovery, is very high. Nonetheless, I suspect that that will have to be the main means of disposal for London's waste in future. London's waste which is sent to landfill now suffers a considerable fiscal penalty, quite deliberately to discourage waste from going that way and, more importantly, to try to encourage recycling. The recycling market is in a very bad state—in nearly as bad a state, I might say, as farming, if one wants a valid comparison. However, the amendment seeks simply to make costs an important consideration to which the mayor should have regard. The Minister will say that we do not need to tell him that, but I believe that the amendment was worth tabling and I look forward to his response.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord will not be surprised that I regard the amendment as unnecessary. When preparing or revising a strategy, the mayor must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That guidance advises that when choosing the waste management option to be followed, all authorities must be guided by the principle of using the best practicable environmental option, which, as I said earlier, was defined by the Royal Commission as a procedure which establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option which provides the most benefits or least damage to the environment as a whole at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term.
Therefore, the question of acceptable cost will be covered by the guidance which the mayor will be following. Moreover, we are looking at the scope of the mayor's powers of direction in that respect, and we are looking at the impact that it will have on the London
1510
boroughs and the waste industry in general. Constructive discussions are already taking place between ourselves and the London boroughs over those issues. Before the Bill finally leaves this House, I hope to write to the noble Lord and others setting out the proposals in that area. It is hoped that that will be before we reach Report stage.
The noble Baroness's amendment seems to me rather illogical. It seeks to remove the power to require an authority not to exercise a function, but it leaves standing the power to direct an authority to exercise a function in a manner specified in the direction. The amendment is therefore seriously flawed in that respect. The noble Baroness asked for an example where a direction might work. One example might be where a direction might seek to deliver good practice by directing an authority to adopt better methods of collection or processing which were currently being used by another authority, whether inside or outside London. That would provide the mayor with a power to direct an authority to operate a better practice which was already extant in another authority. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: That example seems to fall squarely within Clause 286(1)(a) where the direction can require an authority to exercise a function in a manner specified in the direction. I do not seek to take out that provision. I had hoped for an example from the Minister where the direction tells an authority not to exercise a function.
I remain concerned. Perhaps it is arrogant of me to think that because I do not understand a provision, I should be concerned about it. Is it possible for the Minister to write to me following this stage to give me a practical example of how this power could be used?
Lord Whitty: I am happy to undertake to write to the noble Baroness. However, the example I was given would direct an authority to stop using a direction and to replace it by another method. Therefore, there is a direction to stop doing something, as well as a direction to do something. However, I shall try to find a specific example which may clarify the point.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that. I make a distinction between the function and the manner in which it is exercised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 451ZKA not moved.]
Clause 286 agreed to.
Clause 287 [Interpretation of sections 283 to 286]:
[Amendments Nos. 451ZL and 451ZM not moved.]
Clause 287 agreed to.
Clause 288 [Waste recycling plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 451ZN and 451ZP not moved.]
Clause 288 agreed to.
Clause 289 [The Mayor's air quality strategy]:
[Amendment No. 451ZQ not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 451ZR:
Page 154, line 24, at end insert—
("() matters which the Mayor considers should he drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State.")
The noble Baroness said: This provision would amend the clause dealing with the mayor's air quality strategy. It seeks to include in subsection (3) information on,
"matters which the Mayor considers should he drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State".
I make a distinction here between information, which is the subject of subsection (3), and proposals and policies which are the subject of subsection (2) where the mayor has the opportunity, as set out on the face of the Bill, to add to the short list.
Whether or not the mayor is specifically allowed to do so, I dare say that the mayor would wish to do so. However, I seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot say, "It is outside your remit to have views about specific types of information". For instance, the mayor or Transport for London might undertake research on attitudes to fuel, and the likely use of different types of fuel, such as liquid petroleum gas, or powering vehicles by electricity. It would be daft if the mayor could not pass on to the Secretary of State the results and information obtained. I refer, for example, to whether a level of tax might have an effect on the public's decisions about choice of fuel. If the mayor is aware of actions which could be taken, not necessarily by the GLA, but which could improve the air quality of London and are the responsibility of central government, I believe that the mayor should be able publicly to say so.
I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister either that such an amendment would deal with the matter or that it is not necessary to have such an amendment because the points I make are implicit. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 451ZR would require the mayor to include in the air quality strategy such matters which he or she considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State.
In many ways, the Bill's provisions on air quality are among the most radical it contains. They effect a comprehensive devolution to the mayor of the Secretary of State's role in local air quality management, as defined by Section 85 of the Environment Act. The mayor will, through the air quality strategy, set a framework within which air quality is managed at a local level. And it is the mayor who ultimately will approve local air quality management plans.
The Secretary of State will retain responsibility for setting the national strategy and national targets, but it will be for the mayor to oversee its implementation in the capital. Of course, it is the integration of strategic responsibilities for air quality, planning and transport at the heart of the Bill which place the mayor in an ideal position to do it.
1512
Having said that, the Secretary of State will retain an interest in what happens in the capital and in the effect that that might have on the rest of the country. And it is the Secretary of State who will be held responsible for ensuring that national targets and international treaty obligations in respect of air quality are met. That is why we have included provisions at Clause 290 enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the mayor in certain tightly defined circumstances.
I therefore accept absolutely that the Secretary of State will need to be kept informed of progress in the managing of air quality in the capital. Provisions in Clause 289 already set out a range of types of information which must, be included in the London air quality strategy. We have been of the view that the provisions in subsections (2) and (3) covered all the kinds of information that the Secretary of State would wish to have drawn to his or her attention.
I am sympathetic, however, to the suggestions that there might be a particular class of issue which was so important as to merit being highlighted by the mayor as deserving the Secretary of State's particular attention. I would therefore ask for the opportunity to consider this suggestion, with the possibility of returning to it at a later stage. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am delighted to beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 289 agreed to.
Clause 290 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 451ZS not moved.]
Clause 290 agreed to.
Clauses 291 to 293 agreed to.
Clause 294 [Directions under the Environment Act 1995]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 451ZT:
Page 156, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("The") in line 10 and insert—
("(3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the following amendments seek to correct an error in the Bill's drafting relating to the mayor's powers to direct London local authorities in respect of European Community air quality obligations and other international agreements. The Bill as drafted would have the effect of giving the mayor the power to transpose EU directives on air quality and so forth. That is obviously nonsense. It is a legislative function properly the responsibility of the Secretary of State. These amendments correct the position and ensure that the power to transpose remains solely with the proper authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 451ZU to 451ZX:
Page 156, line 13, leave out ("(5C)") and insert ("(4B)")
Page 156, line 14, leave out (", or subsection (5) above by virtue of subsection (5A) above,")
Page 156, line 16, at end insert—
("() In subsection (5) (power of the Secretary of State to give directions relating to obligations under the Community Treaties or to international obligations) after "local authorities" there shall be inserted ", other than local authorities in Greater London,".")
Page 156, line 21, leave out subsection (5)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 294, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 295 agreed to.
Clause 296 [Consultation with the Mayor]:
[Amendment No. 451ZY not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 451ZZ:
Page 157, line 9, at end insert—
("(c) any local authority other than those in paragraphs (a) and (b) above which shall be otherwise affected"")
The noble Lord said: I am not optimistic about this amendment. However, as regards air quality, the atmosphere moves in mysterious ways. In Clause 296 we see, as a matter of substance on the face of the Bill, that there shall be consulted any local authority in Greater London or any local authority whose area is contiguous to the area of Greater London. Our amendment suggests that we should add to that:
"any local authority other than those in paragraphs (a) and (b) above which shall be otherwise affected".
Anybody who studies atmospheric movement in relation to pollution knows that it is an imprecise science. As knowledge is built up, one realises that the relationship between a source of pollution and the people it affects can be remarkably remote. The east coast of England, in periods of still, anticyclonic weather, suffers greatly from atmospheric pollution whose source of origin is in the Ruhr in Germany. Much of the sulphur dioxide that arrives in this country is not generated here but in the south of France and Spain. If we wanted to go back to the atmospheric movements that resulted after the Chernobyl disaster when the movement of radioactive materials made chasing what was happening rather more easy in tragic circumstances, we would find some mysterious facts.
Where an authority can show that it is directly affected as a result of air pollution deriving from London, it should be included in this list of consultees. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid that the amendment does not do what it is intended to do. Clause 296 of the Bill is all to do with whom local authorities consult when carrying out their own air quality management functions. It provides that local authorities in London and those whose areas adjoin London consult with the mayor of London when carrying out air quality reviews, assessments and preparing action plans. That is essential to the mayor's ability to fulfil his or her role.
1514
The Bill does that by adding the mayor to the long list of consultees listed at paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 11 to the Environment Act 1995, whom local authorities are required to consult when carrying out air quality management functions.
The amendment would provide that any local authority affected by its own air quality management activities would have to consult the mayor. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended.
The Bill already provides that the mayor should consult with the Assembly, the functional bodies, the boroughs, boroughs adjoining London and the Environment Agency when preparing or revising the air quality strategy. The Bill also provides at Clause 34(1)(e) that the mayor shall consult
"any other body or person whom he considers it appropriate to consult".
That clearly includes local authorities that might be affected by the strategy.
Clause 290 would also enable the Secretary of State to intervene when the air quality strategy was considered likely to be detrimental to an area outside Greater London. That is a further safeguard for authorities outside London.
In the light of that reply, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and will understand that the amendment that he intended is not necessary.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, which I shall study with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 296 agreed to.
Clause 297 [The London ambient noise strategy]:
[Amendment No. 451ZZA not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved amendment No. 451ZZB:
Page 157, line 25, leave out ("services")
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 452WA and 452XA. The clause deals with the ambient noise strategy.
The first is a probing amendment. Ambient noise is defined to include noise related to transport services. I am querying the addition of the word "services". Will the Government confirm that cars, which are not transport services in the normal sense of the term, will be included and the noise from car traffic will be covered by the provision?
The other two amendments would add to the definition of ambient noise caused by construction works and roadworks. On reflection, I am not sure how appropriate the amendments are. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that they are matters for the local authority and that we are not missing an opportunity in the Bill.
The issues occurred to me on a Sunday morning, when the noise of pneumatic drills started on a building site almost next door to me, followed swiftly by the concurrent noise of the road outside being dug up. There is an expression of frustration in the amendments. The point is that we want to be assured that such noise is covered somewhere. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is the Government's intention that the mayor's strategy will include noise related to all modes of transport. That includes services for which the mayor will have responsibility, other road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and water transport. Local authorities already have adequate powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to control the levels of noise and the times during which it may be emitted from construction and roadworks. It is not intended that the mayor should be consulted on the actions that local authorities may wish to take on local situations as they arise.
The noble Baroness specifically asked me to refer to services, including cars. This is one of the issues we are considering. Road traffic is included. The drafting may not be quite right yet. Nevertheless, I should like to consider in more detail whether or not the provisions in the Bill are sufficient and I wish to retain this clause for the present. I shall write to the noble Baroness when we have more fully considered the wording of the clause and hope that she will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall be happy to do so on that basis. My noble friend asked why I had not included church bells. I had to tell him that at the time the roadworks were taking place I could not hear the church bells which were being rung immediately across the road. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 452:
Page 157, line 26, leave out ("aircraft")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 452 seeks to remove aircraft from the noise regulations. This is purely a probing amendment to discover what are the intentions of the Government as regards the mayor and aircraft noise.
There is concern at Heathrow about this matter because Heathrow is the world's busiest airport. It is a gem in the crown of all airports and a reason why London is such a successful city. There are two areas for consideration. First, at the present time noise is the responsibility of the Government and therefore we want to know what it is conceived the mayor could take over. Secondly, noise regulations are laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in relation to Chapters 2 and 3, and we recently narrowly avoided a huge dispute with the United States about the phase-out
1516
of Chapter 2. This is purely a probing amendment. What do the Government consider the mayor may do in that regard?
Furthermore, the planning for Terminal 5 is now in the hands of the inspector and we do not know what he is going to say. Also, we do not want to influence him. The regulations covering noise in relation to London City Airport are laid down in guidelines. So what, if anything, do the Government consider the mayor's position on noise to be? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am glad the noble Lord said that this was a probing amendment and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not pursue him down the road of discussing Terminal 5, for obvious reasons.
The definition of ambient noise for the purposes of the strategy will include aircraft noise, principally because such noise contributes significantly to noise levels and has its effect within the capital. However, the inclusion of aircraft noise in the mayor's assessment of the ambient noise climate will provide information. It will not alter the essential powers but its inclusion will help to inform him as to the impact of his strategies and enable the development of proposals to promote measures to reduce ambient noise levels and their impact on those living and working in London.
The only power that it is envisaged may be changed is one to give the mayor the right to be consulted about any changes in departure or arrival routes, or changes in capacity at the airports which may have significant environmental effects, and for his views to be taken into account. That is the only power the mayor will have in respect of aircraft movements. Existing powers, both national and international, will therefore not be affected. Amendments to give that right to consultation will be brought forward at Report stage and we may wish to look in slightly greater detail at whether the clauses as drafted are sufficient.
We will come back at Report stage on that wider issue, but as far as the noble Lord's concerns about where the power of final decision will lie, this will not affect those powers and responsibilities as they stand at present. I hope that the noble Lord will, therefore, withdraw his probing amendment. We shall doubtless return to the point on Report.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That was a most successful probing amendment, because the Minister has said that he will bring something back on Report. I hope that he will consider in the meantime the question of international obligations which are laid down in Section 33(9). Will that include the guidelines of the international civil aviation organisations? I hope that the Minister will consider that point on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 452WA and 452XA not moved.]
Clause 297 agreed to.
Clause 298 agreed to.
Clause 299 [Abolition of the London Ecology Committee]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 452YA:
Page 158, line 4, leave out ("On the establishment of the Authority,")
The noble Lord said: I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 452ZA. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill will abolish three existing organisations—the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London Ecology Committee and the London Research Centre—and subsume them into the main body of the Greater London Authority. We have already made clear our intention to abolish all three of those organisations on 1st April 2000 in order to allow a smooth transition to the new authority.
The amendments deal with a technical problem in that the Bill, as currently drafted, only allows us to abolish the London Ecology Committee on the establishment of the authority—that is, after the GLA elections have taken place. That would not allow us to plan properly in advance for the establishment of the GLA, which is clearly desirable. The amendments correct the position and put the London Ecology Committee on the same basis as LPAC and the London Research Centre. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 452ZA:
Page 158, line 6, leave out ("shall cease to exist") and insert ("is abolished by this section")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 452ZAA not moved.]
Clause 299, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
Employment Relations Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the Lords amendment in lieu agreed to.

Local Government Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before midnight.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  Nicaragua and Honduras: Minister's Visit
  Nicaragua and Honduras: Minister's Visit
  Law Society: Complaints Handling
  Law Society: Complaints Handling
  Bodies Corporate: Execution of Deeds
  Bodies Corporate: Execution of Deeds
  Children's Legal Services: Proposed NDPB
  Children's Legal Services: Proposed NDPB
  Judicial and QC Appointments
  Judicial and QC Appointments
  Lord Hoffmann
  Lord Hoffmann
  Schools: Religious Education
  Schools: Religious Education
  Student Loan Debt Sales
  Student Loan Debt Sales
  New Deal for Young People and DfEE
  New Deal for Young People and DfEE
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Central Science Laboratory: Annual Report and Accounts
  Central Science Laboratory: Annual Report and Accounts
  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Meat Hygiene Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Meat Hygiene Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science: Annual Report and Accounts
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science: Annual Report and Accounts
  British Cattle Movement Service: Standards of Service
  British Cattle Movement Service: Standards of Service
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Faroese Whale and Dolphin Hunting
  Faroese Whale and Dolphin Hunting
  Organophosphate Pesticides: Institute of Occupational Medicine Report
  Organophosphate Pesticides: Institute of Occupational Medicine Report
  Tobacco Growing Subsidies
  Tobacco Growing Subsidies
  Halal Slaughter
  Halal Slaughter
  School Milk Subsidy
  School Milk Subsidy
  Intervention Board: Annual Report and Accounts
  Intervention Board: Annual Report and Accounts
  Agriculture Council, 19 and 20 July
  Agriculture Council, 19 and 20 July
  Food Safety Law Enforcement: Cost
  Food Safety Law Enforcement: Cost
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Kosovo: Russian Deployment
  Kosovo: Russian Deployment
  Gibraltar: Financial Services Administration
  Gibraltar: Financial Services Administration
  Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Annual Report
  Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Annual Report
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Small Arms
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Small Arms
  Bosnia, Herzegovina and Croatia: Export Restrictions
  Bosnia, Herzegovina and Croatia: Export Restrictions
  Sanctions Implemented by UK
  Sanctions Implemented by UK
  Diplomats: Serious Offences
  Diplomats: Serious Offences
  Massacre at Gracko, Kosovo
  Massacre at Gracko, Kosovo
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Treasury Building: Refurbishment
  Treasury Building: Refurbishment
  EMU: Constitutional Issues
  EMU: Constitutional Issues
  Fraud in the European Commission: Report
  Fraud in the European Commission: Report
  Banking Practice: Corporate Accounts
  Banking Practice: Corporate Accounts
  Single Currency: Economic Tests
  Single Currency: Economic Tests
  EMU: Excess Government Deficits and the UK
  EMU: Excess Government Deficits and the UK
  National Museums and Galleries: Free Admission
  National Museums and Galleries: Free Admission
  Hyde Park: North Carriageway Closure
  Hyde Park: North Carriageway Closure
  Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship
  Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship
  NHS Estates Agency
  NHS Estates Agency
  Medical Devices and Medicines Control Agencies
  Medical Devices and Medicines Control Agencies
  Human Genetics Commission
  Human Genetics Commission
  Smallpox Virus: Retention
  Smallpox Virus: Retention
  Free School Milk
  Free School Milk
  Department of Health: New Deal Scheme Recruits
  Department of Health: New Deal Scheme Recruits
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation
  Animals: Use in Defence Research
  Animals: Use in Defence Research
  Ballistic Missile Defence Pre-feasibility Study
  Ballistic Missile Defence Pre-feasibility Study
  Kosovo: British Forces Winter Accommodation
  Kosovo: British Forces Winter Accommodation
  Royal Hospital, Haslar: Intensive Care Facilities
  Royal Hospital, Haslar: Intensive Care Facilities
  Former Yugoslavia: "Military-related" Targets
  Former Yugoslavia: "Military-related" Targets
  Former Yugoslavia: Infrastructure Reconstruction
  Former Yugoslavia: Infrastructure Reconstruction
  NATO Bombing Campaign: Assessment of Damage
  NATO Bombing Campaign: Assessment of Damage
  Armed Forces: Pay Structure
  Armed Forces: Pay Structure
  Armed Forces: Re-enlistment Bounty
  Armed Forces: Re-enlistment Bounty
  Access to Government Information: Code of Practice
  Access to Government Information: Code of Practice
  Baton Rounds
  Baton Rounds
  Home Office Travel Documents: Charges
  Home Office Travel Documents: Charges
  Horserace Betting Levy and National Lottery
  Horserace Betting Levy and National Lottery
  Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 1996
  Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 1996
  Home Office: Ethnic Minority Staff Targets
  Home Office: Ethnic Minority Staff Targets
  Child Protection: Interdepartmental Working Group Scheme
  Child Protection: Interdepartmental Working Group Scheme
  Prison-made Products: Internet Marketing
  Prison-made Products: Internet Marketing
  Offender Supervision in the Community
  Offender Supervision in the Community
  Wales: Objective One Funding
  Wales: Objective One Funding
  Wales: Primary Legislation
  Wales: Primary Legislation
  Wales: Ministerial Responsibility
  Wales: Ministerial Responsibility
  Pedal Cycle Lighting Offences
  Pedal Cycle Lighting Offences