Sitting of 11 March 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Coastal Zone Management Plan
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in drawing up and implementing an integrated coastal zone management plan. [74077]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has policy responsibility for co-ordinating coastal zone management and his Department has encouraged the production of coastal management plans. They are produced on a local basis to address a broad range of local issues, including flood and coastal defence.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As he may be aware, I represent the constituency of Crosby, which is bounded by 20 miles of beautiful north-west coastline, for which a coastal management plan is currently being—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is not in order to read questions.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am so sorry, Madam Speaker.
    I support the coastal management plan, but I want to ensure that people in my community, who have a vested interest in it, are part of the consultation team. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give me that my constituents, as well as the experts, will also be part of the consultation process?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend made a powerful case on behalf of her constituents in our recent debate on the Select Committee report on flood and coastal defence. I assure her that local authorities are involved in the drawing up of coastal and shoreline management plans for flood and coastal defence, and local people can make representations. As a Member of Parliament, she can make direct representations. Given the powerful case that she has already made on behalf of her constituents, I am sure that she will not be slow to do so.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Andrew Love: What progress he has made towards reform of the common agricultural policy in respect of environmental improvement measures; and if he will make a statement. [74078]
    Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will report on the current negotiations on reform of the common agricultural policy, with particular reference to issues relating to environmental improvements. [74091]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Negotiations on the agricultural aspects of Agenda 2000 reached a conclusion early this morning. My right hon Friend the Minister hopes to make a full statement to the House tomorrow.
    Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the successful conclusion of the negotiations in Brussels. The deal has been described by the Agriculture Commissioner as the most radical reform since the inception of the CAP. It is certainly a great deal more than was done by the Conservatives during their 18 years in government. It will be good for consumers and good for the environment. What funding will be made available under the reform for agri-environmental improvements?
    Mr. Morley: The agreement that has been negotiated offers benefits to consumers. The whole House will welcome that. The details on funding and the important measures in Agenda 2000 on rural development are matters for my right hon. Friend when he makes his statement tomorrow. All hon. Members will have an opportunity to ask detailed questions then.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that the apparent shape of the package that has emerged overnight represents a considerable improvement on the position of only a week or two ago and that the National Farmers Union's description of it this morning as something of a mixed bag was probably accurate? Does he share my surprise at the comments of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who described the deal as a failure because CAP reform would cost more? No political party in any member state has ever believed that a reformed CAP would not cost more in the short term before becoming cheaper in the long term.
    Given the importance of environmental improvement measures and the wider rural development strategies to which the Minister has just alluded, does he agree that the final shape of the package must maintain the essential integrity of the British family farm unit? Without that basic building block, we will not have the necessary personnel in the countryside for the environmental and other rural development programmes that we hope the eventual savings from CAP reform will help to deliver.
    Mr. Morley: I agree that the impact on family farms must be taken into account in the final form of the package. I agree that it is surprising that there has been criticism of the cost of the package, because the original proposal suggested that there would be an initial increase

    481
    in cost, followed by a fall. I was also surprised that the Leader of the Opposition apparently argued against the interests of consumers by criticising all aspects of the package.
    Madam Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), whom I should have called earlier because we are dealing with his substantive question. Please put your question now, Dr. Gibson.
    Dr. Gibson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What are the Government's priorities for rural development regulation? Who will implement that regulation? Will local and regional bodies have a part to play?
    Mr. Morley: I can tell my hon. Friend the Government's priorities, although the final form of the package is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister to outline tomorrow in his statement. We wanted a significant expansion of the agri-environment budget and support for aspects of agri-environment, including organic aid. We also wanted provision for better targeting of support in the countryside, more transparent support to the agricultural community and support for the wider rural economy, encouraging diversification.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: I wish to emphasise, as others have done, that maintaining the environment as a resource for everybody means that we have to have people on the land and in the countryside. Can the Minister confirm that yesterday's agreement on compensation made no reference to degressivity—the reduction of compensation over time? Can he also tell us what will happen in that regard at the Finance Ministers meeting on Monday? Will he take the message from us that it is terribly important that there remains sufficient support for farming to protect the family farm and to ensure that we move towards a system of environmental management payments as the basis of agricultural support?
    Mr. Morley: I agree with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, I am sure that he appreciates that it would be wrong for me to pre-empt my right hon. Friend's statement tomorrow.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that field boundaries are an important part of the English landscape. What money will be made available to help farmers maintain traditional boundaries? Hedges, ditches and walls are extremely expensive but very important if we are to protect the quality of the British countryside.
    Mr. Morley: Field boundaries are very important to the English countryside, and agriculture has a key influence on the maintenance and enhancement of field boundaries. We already provide financial support and inducements through our countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive area schemes. We want to enhance that through Agenda 2000. As I said, my right hon. Friend will be discussing those issues in his statement tomorrow.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: We look forward to getting the details of the package from the Minister in his
    482
    statement tomorrow, but is it not clear already today that the agreement is bad for the taxpayer because the cost of the CAP will rise even further than previously thought; that it is bad for consumers because the prospect of lower food prices in the shops is now even further away than was previously thought; and that it is bad for Britain's dairy farmers as the much-needed reforms will not even start for another four years.
    Mr. Morley: The CAP has many disadvantages and any increase in the overall cost is bad for consumers. For that reason we were surprised that the Leader of the Opposition criticised all the main aspects of our negotiations to try to reduce consumer costs.

    Meat Hygiene Service
    Mr. John Burnett: If he will make a statement on the Meat Hygiene Service's charges. [74079]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Meat Hygiene Service charges licensed premises on an hourly rate basis for the inspection service provided by its official veterinary surgeons and meat inspection staff. The level of the charges is reviewed annually and is subject to a period of consultation with the industry and individual plant operators, which for 1999–2000 is still on-going.
    Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister and I hope that he will shortly make an announcement on small rural abattoirs. I should like to draw the House's attention to the predicament of the larger abattoirs, particularly in Torrington and Hatherleigh in my constituency which face a doubling of meat inspection charges from 1 April 1999. In Torrington, the figure is some £410,000 and in Hatherleigh it is £170,000. Those increases will be paid for by the hard-pressed farmer. In Hatherleigh last Tuesday there were some 18 officials inspecting 25 people working at the abattoir. Does the Minister really believe that it is necessary to have two, or sometimes three officials inspecting the same animal at the same time?
    Mr. Rooker: I fully understand and, indeed, share the concerns at the proposed increases currently being considered. Firm proposals have yet to be put to Ministers. There is nothing on our desks; negotiations and discussions are still going on and there will be full consultation with the industry before any final decisions are taken. We are receiving many representations, but the work is unevenly distributed throughout the industry. I understand that some 80 per cent. of cattle are slaughtered in just 20 slaughterhouses.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that when farm incomes are plummeting, particularly in less-favoured areas, the charges imposed by the Meat Hygiene Service are regarded as disproportionately high and indeed punitive? Will he undertake to look again at the matter with a view to mitigating the burden that is imposed, particularly on small farmers.
    Mr. Rooker: The answer is yes, because that is implied in the fact that we will have consultations. The fact

    483
    remains that the taxpayer contribution in the past has been enormous and we are reducing it by charging for specified risk material controls. We will not allow unjustifiably high charges. The charges are fully audited. We do not see why the taxpayer should carry any greater burden.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: I congratulate the Minister on having the good common sense to issue a press release on Tuesday saying that he would reconsider the position of small and low-throughput abattoirs. Will he hold off levying the charges until the consultations are concluded—in other words, will there be a stay of execution for those abattoirs? Will he give us an assurance that he will be very careful when considering the definition of small abattoirs so that those in strategic areas in the rural environment are not excluded? The loss of those abattoirs would be devastating to the local economy, small farmers, niche marketing, animal welfare and a host of other concerns. This is a very serious matter.
    Mr. Rooker: By implication, I want to consider those matters. I do not want to hide behind the fact that European Union legislation drives and controls much of this. The definition of small or high or low-throughput abattoirs is not one that can readily be used to differentiate the charges. We can have some flexibility on how the charges are levied but we need the industry's co-operation.
    Many people have urged us to charge on a headage rather than an hourage basis. That would be very unfair to operators who have invested huge amounts in larger-throughput abattoirs where the unit cost is very low. We must be very careful not to discriminate, but I accept the point about isolated abattoirs and the problems of animals having to travel long distances. It is a private sector industry; it is not controlled by the Government. We do not plan to introduce any compensation, as the industry would like, for it to reorganise itself.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposals as they stand are unfair to small abattoirs? The owner of a small abattoir in my constituency estimates that his weekly costs will increase from £60 to £600 and that he will be out of business in a month. I urge my hon. Friend to act quickly. Am I right in thinking that the charges are to come in next month? We are talking not only about abattoirs but about butchers and consumers. The proposals go against everything that the Government are trying to do in encouraging local, high-quality production and local marketing of food.
    Mr. Rooker: I have to be careful what I say, because of the lawyers and our friends across the water. All hon. Members can tell their constituents to watch the bills and the charges. Many estimates have been sent in by butchers and small abattoir operators, but they should watch the actual charges. We are limited in what we can do to implement the new proposals because of the shortage of vets, as I have said to every hon. Member who has written to me. It is not as though everything can start 100 per cent. all at once. We will seek to concentrate the extra resources on the high-risk abattoirs, and in particular those that consistently score low on the hygiene assessments. We will cut no corners whatever in meat hygiene.
    Mr. James Paice: Of course the Minister is right to target resources where the
    484
    risk is highest, but the extra charges to come in at the beginning of April for the specified risk material removals are an additional burden on top of the meat hygiene charges that have already been introduced and will continue next year. Does not he understand that not only the mechanisms of charging—per capita or per time—but the staffing levels required give rise to the high charges?
    There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that in other parts of Europe the level of veterinary inspection in abattoirs is far lower than is required here. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already promised an investigation into the charges in the rest of Europe. Will any further increases, for whatever purpose, be suspended until the investigations into charging mechanisms and into European practices are complete?
    Mr. Rooker: On the new element of the charges regarding the specified risk material removals, the taxpayer has spent £20 million subsiding that work in the past year, because we extended by a year the period for which we did not charge. We cannot construct a policy on anecdotal evidence in Europe—
    Mr. Paice: I did not say that.
    Mr. Rooker: That was the implication. We seek much more precise and targeted official information about the practice in Europe. Some 10 or 12 member states currently face infraction proceedings from the Commission because they are not doing what they should be doing.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment he has made of the recommendation of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the planting of genetically modified crops. [74081]
    Mr. David Chaytor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact which failure to reach agreement at the Cartagena biosafety protocol negotiations will have on United Kingdom policy on genetically modified crops. [74083]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The failure of the negotiations does not directly affect UK policy on genetically modified organisms, because European legislation already controls all releases and marketing within the EU, including imports.
    A moratorium on trials in the UK would not be helpful, because the purpose of the trials is to obtain information about the impact on biodiversity. I confirm to the House what I said two weeks ago during an interview: the extent of the current trials measures less than two football pitches.
    Mr. James Gray: It is winter.
    Mr. Rooker: Of course it is winter. However, the idea had got around that the whole country was covered with trial GMO crops: it is not.
    Mr. Swayne: My question was about the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Is the Minister aware that the

    485
    RSPB has pointed out that any statements to the effect that his two football pitches will yield meaningful data are a sham? Does he really intend to proceed with the development of such crops as early as next year, when both the RSPB and English Nature have said that useful test data will not be available for three years?
    Mr. Rooker: With respect, I did address the issue, because the point is that the RSPB has called for a moratorium. I addressed that point in my original substantive answer. The RSPB will be fully involved in the monitoring of the field-scale trials that will take place this year; we have been open about them. Several 10-hectare fields will be involved, and of course those trials will be larger than the current ones. The RSPB will be fully represented on the steering committee that will oversee the ecological studies on those trials.
    Mr. Chaytor: Question 6. Madam Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was linked to question 4."] Forgive me, Madam Speaker.
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Madam Speaker: Because I am a very forgiving Speaker.
    Mr. Chaytor: I am part of the new intake and I am still, two years on, not fully familiar with the arcane parliamentary procedures.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on dealing with the issues very cautiously and thoroughly in the past few months. Does he agree that the failure to reach agreement at the biosafety convention—especially on producer liability, the right to ban imports and the right to label—will serve only to increase the concern that many consumers feel? Has he had the chance to consider the evidence submitted yesterday to the Select Committee on Science and Technology by the scientists from English Nature about the wider potential impact on biodiversity of the planting of GM crops? How can the Government ensure that consumers will have the right to choose between GM food and non-GM food in the light of the failure to reach an agreement on a biosafety protocol at Cartagena?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are no immediate implications for the United Kingdom from the breakdown of the negotiations. The parties will meet again in May 2000 with a view to concluding the negotiations. I should add that there were errors in reporting the issue as regards the UK. We did not break ranks with the European Union to support the United States of America, as was suggested in The Guardian. That report was totally incorrect.
    Mr. Gray: The Minister seems to have admitted that his use of the image of two football pitches in a recent interview was substantially misleading because, in the middle of winter, soya beans grow, but nothing else. The more accurate figure, given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), was that 846 acres were under cultivation last July, which is about 400 football pitches. Will the Minister admit that he used a misleading image on the "Today" programme because he
    486
    was so concerned about the public's notion of what GM means that he was trying to allay their fears by using substantially misleading statistics?
    Mr. Rooker: Since that interview, I have double checked the briefing provided to me by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which oversees these trials. I was quite right to point out what the position actually was in February to people who were being told that the countryside is covered in trials of GM crops. Although we can talk about large-scale field planting in the spring, summer and autumn, the reality at the time when I was interviewed was that an area smaller than two football pitches was being covered.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend comment on how adequately he can monitor or control the release of GM organisms into the environment under the existing rules? Having just discovered that Monsanto plans field testing of GM crops just outside Nottingham, I was astonished to read a reply from a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that stated that permission to do so had been granted under EU directive 90/220—under which there is no obligation to consult local authorities, local farmers or local people. If that is the broad rubric under which access to GM planting may take place, how can adequate monitoring be undertaken on sites on which we do not know even the state of the existing ecosystem?
    Mr. Rooker: I have seen the answers given to my hon. Friend by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The short answer is that the purpose of the trials is to get the information that we need. The trials are being monitored and overseen. They are not secret, and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food references are published. There is no doubt about where the trials are taking place.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: On 4 March, the Minister for the Environment told the House—at column 837 of Hansard—that farm-scale trials of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops would start next month and continue for four years. Will the Minister at last recognise that the Conservative party is not calling for a moratorium on those trials? What we want is a delay in the commercial planting of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops. How can the Government contemplate approving commercial planting before the trials have been completed and the results properly analysed?
    Mr. Rooker: The Conservative party never told the country about all the approvals of food and crops that its Government made, but the Tories are trying to lead a scare about it now. We have made it clear that there will be field-scale trials and farm-scale trials this year. It is important to move on from the trials conducted previously. The trials will be independently monitored, and we need to receive information from them before we decide what will happen in future. Unlike the Conservatives, we are not prepared to say that we can be certain within four years or three—the figure seems to be changing—of whether we can or cannot proceed. We shall proceed with field-scale trials this year, and we shall have the results before we decide what happens next.

    Organic Farmers
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What support he plans to introduce for organic farmers. [74082]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Today I am laying before Parliament regulations that will double the rate of aid for farmers in England converting to organic practices, following approval of the revised scheme from the European Commission. We have also increased support for the organic conversion information service, which advises farmers about conversion.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome any increase in support for organic farming or improvements in financial support to try to meet demand. Most organic products have to be imported because British farmers cannot meet demand. Is he aware that comparison of expenditure by his Department on organic farming with the investment in biotechnology by his and other Departments shows a £2 million increase in organic farming since May 1997 while £98 million has been invested in other forms of high technology farming that are anathema to those of us who want to develop sustainable organic agriculture in Britain?
    Mr. Morley: I accept that, so far, support for organic farming has been small compared with the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend. That is why we have doubled the conversion rate. We want to encourage more farmers who choose to do so to convert to organic production. It is partly demand-led: the more farmers want to convert, the greater the proportion of resources that will eventually flow towards them.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister accept that anything that can be done to aid and encourage organic farming is greatly to be welcomed? Will he pay tribute to the work of the Soil Association, which has done much to lead the way forward? Does he agree that the most important thing for organic farmers is the confidence that they will be able to sell their goods, particularly when they start out? To that end, will he support all the efforts being made around the country to establish farmers' markets, which provide organic farmers and other small producers with a welcome and valuable outlet? They are having a great impact, to the benefit of the consumer, and need to be further encouraged.
    Mr. Morley: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. I certainly pay tribute to the work of the Soil Association, which has done much to promote organic farming. I was recently in Suffolk talking to the organisers of a successful local farmers' market, which attracted 2,000 consumers on its first outing. It is something that farmers should explore. My Department will do all that it can to encourage them.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement on increased aid for organic conversion. Does he agree that local authorities can also play a role in advising local farmers? Will he join me in congratulating Monmouthshire council, which recently held a successful seminar on organic conversion that attracted some 150 local farmers?
    Mr. Morley: Monmouthshire council has played an important role in promoting that development. There is
    488
    much interest in organic production. Demand is so high that 70 per cent. of organic produce is imported. We want to give British producers an opportunity to take a share of that market.

    British Pork
    Mr. David Rendel: What steps he has taken to promote British pork. [74084]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We will continue to work constructively with our European Union partners to see what help can be given to support the pigmeat market. In the meantime, we will miss no opportunity to make it known that the British pig industry produces a quality product to high welfare and other standards.
    Mr. Rendel: I can only agree with the Minister that British pork is produced to the highest possible nutritional and welfare standards. What steps will he take to ensure that British pork in our shops is properly labelled so that it can be distinguished from imported pork to reassure consumers who want to know where their food comes from?
    Mr. Morley: One of the most important things is to ensure proper labelling. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Meat and Livestock Commission has recently launched a quality British pork label, which has been enthusiastically embraced by the major retailers. Many hon. Members, including me in my constituency, have been promoting that in their local supermarkets.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: I always like a good bacon breakfast and always seek to buy British bacon, but is my hon. Friend aware that often, when one puts it in the frying pan, a horrible white milky fluid with bits of pink floating in it appears—a bit like those on the Conservative Benches? Will he take to his discussions with the British pigmeat industry, which is seeking to improve the quality of British pigmeat, the idea of introducing higher standards, perhaps along the lines of the French appellation contrô11ée or German Reinheitgebot system, which would give an absolute guarantee that such bacon would fry as it used to when I was a little boy?
    Mr. Morley: I cannot be held responsible for what happens to the bacon in my hon. Friend's frying pan. A number of quality standards have been established by the industry—for example, farm-assured British pigs—and the Meat and Livestock Commission. Some important regional producers are promoting quality regional pork. Apart from guarantees of taste and standard, welfare and quality standards of British pork should also be taken into account.
    Mr. Peter Luff: I know from the evidence that Ministers and officials gave to the Select Committee on Agriculture inquiry into the pig industry that the Minister and his ministerial colleagues understand that there is a deep and continuing crisis in the British pig

    489
    industry. What message of hope would he have me take to the meeting of the Ulster farmers union which I am addressing tonight on precisely that subject?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will know that special aid was given to Northern Ireland to deal with the problems caused by the accidental fire at its main slaughterhouse, so I, and my colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office, have recognised the problems. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the price of pigmeat has increased in recent weeks. That is a welcome trend. I recognise that it is nowhere near enough to give a decent return to producers, but we hope that the trend will continue. We shall do all that we can to promote it.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that when British consumers write to Members of Parliament on animal welfare issues, they insist that high standards should be adopted in this country? Does he accept that it is for the supermarkets and British consumers to make sure that they are consistent and that, when consumers demand high quality and welfare standards, they should be willing to give the extra penny or two at the shop to pay for them?
    Mr. Morley: There is no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about consumer pressure and demand. It can bring about dramatic change. There is no doubt that the British public are interested in high animal welfare standards. By working with the industry on labelling, we have ensured that consumer choice can support the high standards promoted in this country.
    Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister realise that Europe wants to take back the money that has been supplied to Ulster farmers, and take it back from individual pig producers? I welcome the Minister's response and recognise what the Government are doing to promote pork, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that unless some drastic action is taken, the supply of pork will be greatly diminished because many farmers are in deep debt and will go out of business?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the Commission has queried the aid that was given to Northern Ireland to reflect the special circumstances there on the basis that it might be an illegal state aid. Britain has queried payments given by other countries on the basis that they may be illegal state aids. We do not believe that the support given to Northern Ireland could be classed as an illegal state aid because the pig industry faced a crisis at that time and special circumstances applied. We shall certainly defend the package that Northern Ireland received and do what we can to support the pig industry. However, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the pig regime is a light regime so the opportunities for support are limited.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What recent progress has been made with reform of the common agricultural policy in relation to likely food prices for consumers. [74085]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I regret that I have to give my hon. Friend the same answer that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave earlier. The negotiations reached a conclusion only this morning and my right hon Friend the Minister hopes to make a full statement to the House tomorrow.
    Mr. Blizzard: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the key role that he played in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion? Does my hon. Friend agree that the 20 per cent. cut in production subsidies that has been agreed should lead to a substantial reduction of possibly £70 a year in food bills for British families? Does that not show that the Government's policy of engagement and gaining influence in Europe is much more successful than just standing on the sideline moaning?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. The success of the negotiations should inevitably lead to a reduction in food prices. We have no reason whatever to believe that those reductions will not be passed on to the consumer.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: A moment ago, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the price of pigmeat is going up. However, the Minister of State knows that, with the United Kingdom ban on stalls and tethering, it will always be possible for our continental partners to undercut us, and that there is no chance for many years of a Europe-wide ban being imposed. What action are the Government taking to use article 36 of the treaty of Rome to ban pigmeat that does not meet our very high welfare standards?
    Mr. Rooker: I do not think that that matter figured much in the negotiations on CAP reform. Nevertheless, the Government have said, both inside and outside the House, that we have a voluntary agreement with supermarkets and with the British Retail Consortium that they will not import the products of producers who do not meet United Kingdom welfare standards. They will report back to us on the success of the approach. It is important that that approach should be led by the industry, as it understands British customers' concerns in wanting to buy pork and pigmeat that is produced to exactly the welfare standards that we demand in the United Kingdom.

    Food Marketing
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: How he intends to assist farmers to market high-quality local produce and develop co-operative food processing and added-value initiatives. [74087]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Department assists farmers to market their high value-added local produce through a range of financial and other measures. On Tuesday, the Department conducted a seminar on encouraging a partnership approach between organisations that are promoting farmers markets.
    Mr. Dawson: May I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, and express my hope that the recent

    491
    investigation into Milk Marque's activities will result in that organisation being able not only to continue in its present form but to develop processing activities? May I also draw his attention to the Wyre brunch—a splendid celebration of local produce—which will be held next Tuesday, 23 March, in Garstang? A range of activities at the brunch—which is supported by Myrescough college, the National Farmers Union, Wyre borough council and many other organisations—will bring together people in a celebration of fine local Wyre produce. Is my hon. Friend aware that young people from Pilling will be hanging on every word of his answer to my questions?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. Surely the answer is that, next week, everyone should go to Garstang.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I shall do exactly that, as Garstang is a neighbour of my constituency. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), will the Minister encourage the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an early response to the Milk Marque inquiry? Last Friday, 16 farmers from my constituency visited me at my surgery. They are all members of Milk Marque, and all of them wish to remain members of it. Across the country, 16,000 farmers would like assistance to be provided to Milk Marque, so that they may participate in food processing—to ensure not only that their commitment to and investment in the dairy industry are rewarded, but that there is a future for other people in the industry.
    Mr. Rooker: I cannot comment on the particular case. It is the fact, however, that United Kingdom producers do not control anywhere near as much of the food chain as producers in our European partner states. Milk Marque is an exception to that fact. We are trying to ensure—by encouraging farmers' collaborative and marque arrangements, producers' co-operatives and farmers markets—that farmers, who are the producers of the food, receive some of the added value in the food chain, so that all added value does not end up with the final retailer, which is the accusation against supermarkets.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: In the Fylde and the West Lancashire plain—where the food is produced to feed the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and those of other hon. Members—there are many small growers who rely on people called produce merchants to transport goods from growers to retailers and wholesalers. The process adds costs to food that, preferably, should go to growers. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, among other things, the Government should promote co-operation in achieving that aim?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, and we are doing that. We provide financial support, in the form of grant, to establish regional groups for speciality producers. Eligible groups, for the first five years after formation, may receive up to £12,000 annually. Although the sum is modest, all the
    492
    pressure and impetus from the Department is directed at enabling producer groups to come together to reduce costs, so that they may retain and gain more of the added value of their produce.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the prospects of any European Union nation unilaterally withdrawing from the common fisheries policy and repatriating the nation's fishing waters to the 200 mile limit. [74090]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Such action would breach European Community treaty commitments and be incompatible with membership of the EC.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I do not wish to intrude upon the obvious problems that the Tories are having as they fish around for a coherent fishing policy, but does the Minister accept that we are now in a crucial position to reform the common fisheries policy by decentralising the fishing regions? Indeed, that policy was supported by Tory Members of the European Parliament only a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Conservative party seems to be very confused about what is its policy. There is no doubt that the common fisheries policy is in need of reform, and I believe that we have the opportunity to achieve that. However, the CFP will certainly not be reformed by threatening to break international treaties or saying that, no matter what negotiations take place, one side will always answer no.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Let me make it clear yet again: in our defence of the British fishing industry, we rule nothing in and nothing out. Is not the moral of the exchange—one might even say the love-in—that we have just witnessed between the Liberal Democrats and the Government that neither of those parties has the slightest intention of demanding and securing the return of United Kingdom waters? It is only the Conservative party that would make and secure that demand, showing the same determination that Margaret Thatcher displayed when she made and secured our original budget rebate. Is it not starkly obvious that the self-same Minister who sold out to the quota hoppers in Amsterdam still cannot bring himself not to betray the British fishing industry?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have noticed that, unlike the previous Government, we have negotiated the return of quota from some of the quota hoppers back to the United Kingdom fleet as part of our economic link arrangements. As to the Conservative party's policy, Fishing News reported that Hague was still vague on fishing policy. Whatever that policy might be now, when we came to power in May 1997, fishing policy was a complete shambles. It is quite clear that nothing has changed at all as far as the Conservatives are concerned.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: What is the breakdown of the reasons for cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service not resulting in prosecution in the most recent year for which figures are available. [74107]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Information available locally about the reasons for cases not resulting in a prosecution in the magistrates court is not collated centrally by the Crown Prosecution Service.
    In the Crown court, the latest available figures show that 9.4 per cent. of cases do not proceed. In more than one third of those cases, the absence or refusal of a witness to give evidence is the cause. Other significant causes include the existence of other proceedings that may mean the public interest is not served by further prosecution and doubts about the evidence or medical factors.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank the Attorney-General for those comments. Does he accept the recommendations in Sir Iain Glidewell's report, which call for a common approach to the collection of statistics by the criminal justice agencies? Does he accept also that it is only when that common approach is adopted that the House will be able to assess accurately the performance of the CPS and address concerns with regard to the levels of discontinuance?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We inherited an unsatisfactory situation, and we are determined to weld the criminal justice system into a properly integrated and coherent unit. I shall report to the House about that in due course.
    As to the CPS power to discontinue, I can provide substantial reassurance to my hon. Friend—particularly in relation to discontinuance on public interest grounds, where criticism has focused. Of the CPS case load of 1.4 million defendants, public interest discontinuance on the grounds of small or nominal penalty accounts for about 25,000 cases a year, or less than 2 per cent. The figures also should be viewed in the wider context. For every 100 offences committed, 46 are reported, 23 are recorded, five are cleared up under current counting methods, and fewer than three are cautioned or presented to the CPS for prosecution. The 2 per cent. figure must be applied to the figure of three in order to put the CPS discontinuance into perspective.
    Mr. John Burnett: My question does not imply any criticism of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in whom I believe there is widespread confidence, but does the Attorney-General believe that there should be greater openness in the appointment of judges and senior legal figures? Furthermore, does he believe that we should have an appointments commission with public hearings not only for the appointment of judges but for other sensitive appointments, such as Director of Public Prosecutions?
    The Attorney-General: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the DPP.
    494
    The appointment of judges is a matter for the Lord Chancellor. The appointment of the DPP was done with the utmost transparency. The post of director was advertised; the appointments board was chaired by the First Civil Service Commissioner, and other permanent secretaries sat on the interviewing board. Ultimately, the decision was mine.
    The appointment of 42 chief Crown prosecutors was announced on Monday. Those posts were also advertised, and many people applied. That process is very transparent, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
    Mr. David Lock: I am sure that the House will be extremely concerned to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that up to a quarter of cases are discontinued because victims of crime are intimidated into silence or afraid to speak out. Will the Attorney-General tell the House what steps the Government are taking to protect those vulnerable witnesses, including victims of crime?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that my hon. Friend reads very carefully the number of discontinuances, which is small compared to the totality of the crimes that are prosecuted by the CPS. However, that matter will continue to be investigated through joint management performance indicators to ensure that difficulties with evidence or availability of witnesses are considered locally.
    On the vulnerability of witnesses, last June, the Government published a document called, "Speaking up for Justice", which made some 70 valuable recommendations about witnesses. They are being dealt with by a supervising body on which the CPS is represented, and those measures that require legislation are included in part II of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill.
    The CPS, with other agencies, is locally implementing many measures, including prioritising in appropriate cases, providing special waiting rooms and the use of suitable courtrooms where the witness does not have to face the defendant or public gallery and pre-court familiarisation visits. Those are just a few measures that are being taken to protect vulnerable witnesses.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am sure that the Attorney-General, to whom we are grateful for his answers so far, is anxious to be as transparent as possible about this matter. He will recall that discontinuances have averaged 11 or 12 per cent. since the CPS was set up. Will he clarify for the House what is the current overall level of discontinuances?
    We welcome the 42 new chief Crown prosecutors for each police area. An assistant chief Crown prosecutor has also been appointed in London. We recall that Glidewell—and I believe, the Attorney-General himself—said that their objective was to match chief constables. However, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers their salary levels and the number of people that they have at their command, compared to the police, does he accept that they will need the full support of the DPP—which I am sure they will receive—and the Law Officers, if they are to come to grips in a friendly and constructive way with the police to overcome the problems that still exist in the interface between the two services?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that there is still a great

    495
    deal of work to be done on that interface. I assure him that the candidates for the 42 posts offered very strong applications. The salaries offered had a degree of flexibility, and do not seem to have inhibited applications—certainly not from within the CPS. I am very conscious that, if they had been even higher and were able to compete with those commanded outside the CPS, there might have been even more applications.
    The number of prosecutions dropped in the Crown court rose by 15.5 per cent. to 8,680. Proportionally, that represented an increase of 7.2 per cent. of completed cases in the Crown court to 9.4 per cent. I am advised that part of the reason is, first, plea before venue procedures, which have obviously changed the format of earlier stages of the case. As a result of that alone, more straightforward cases have been diverted from the Crown court to finalisation in a magistrates court. Secondly, in part, the abolition of old-style committals has removed the opportunity of testing witnesses until the case has reached the Crown court, which means that a large number of cases have been dropped owing to witnesses failing to attend or to come up to proof.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Ben Chapman: How often he meets the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss the work of the office. [74108]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Attorney-General and I meet the Director of the Serious Fraud Office regularly. We also meet on an ad hoc basis when circumstances determine.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, by the nature of things, the Serious Fraud Office develops specialist, esoteric but sophisticated skills? Does he also agree that those are not always shared with the police? Does that suggest that more work and more cases should be handled by the SFO?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will know that, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, £5.6 million extra has been allocated to the SFO for the next three years. The SFO works with the police; it depends on the police referring cases. The two work together; police officers work with the SFO. The SFO deals with complex and multi-disciplinary fraud, and is doing so successfully. Its conviction rate has risen considerably.
    Mr. John Bercow: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House now, or be good enough to inform me of in writing later, the average length of time between the start of an investigation by the Serious Fraud office and a decision to prosecute? Do the Government plan to improve targets to achieve better service?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to know that, as a result of the comprehensive spending review agreement between the SFO and the Government, the SFO has determined to reduce average time from accepting a case and completing investigations to 17.5 months, and to reduce to 16 months the average length of prosecution between transfer and committal on one hand and verdict on the other.

    William Beausire
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When he expects to authorise a private prosecution for the death of William Beausire. [74109]
    The Attorney-General: Solicitors acting for a number of individuals applied for my consent to prosecute Augusto Pinochet for offences in relation to William Beausire. As my hon. Friend knows, he wrote to me on 27 January regarding the matter. I replied on 1 February that I was then hoping to reach a decision soon, and that the solicitors would be advised. By my letter dated 11 February 1999, the solicitors were advised that I had decided not to grant my consent. The basis of that decision is that the relevant legislation is not retrospective and the material supplied by the solicitors in support of the application provided insufficient admissible evidence to justify a prosecution.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Attorney-General accept that many of us are very disappointed by his answer and by the letter that he sent to Bindmans, which is acting on behalf of the Beausire family? Is he aware that there is a mountain of evidence that William Beausire, who was last seen at Buenos Aires airport in 1974 and then in prison in Chile a year later, was abducted from Buenos Aires in 1974, and that Michael Townley, who was convicted of the assassination of Orlando Letelier, has admitted his part in the abduction?
    Is the Attorney-General aware that in 1977, the British embassy sent a memo to the then Foreign Secretary expressing its belief that the Chilean intelligence service, known as the DINA, was indeed responsible for the murder of William Beausire? Will the Attorney-General look again at that outrageous occurrence in which a British citizen was abducted from one country to another, tortured and murdered, yet we cannot prosecute somebody under national or international law for crimes against humanity, hostage taking and torture in the case of William Beausire? Will the Attorney-General go through the mountain of evidence that exists, look at the many Hansard references on the case, going back more than 20 years, and find that we can at least allow members of the family to try their day in court to hold responsible the people who murdered their brother?
    The Attorney-General: I know the concern that my hon. Friend feels about the matter. May I assure him that I consider personally all the applications—more than five—as regards prosecuting in this matter. I have the

    497
    advice of senior Treasury counsel. My attention is drawn to all possible appropriate evidence, and I look at these matters personally, time after time. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    May I say—I guard my words very carefully—that I do not want to go too deep into the matter, which the House will understand? Mr. Beausire, we are told, was arrested in 1974. I state without comment that an offence under
    498
    the provisions on torture in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into effect and applied only after September 1988, and an offence regarding hostage taking, only after November 1982. The legislation is not retrospective.
    If any additional evidence comes before me, I will look at it. I am sure the House will accept from me that I will look at it with the same care and attention as I have given to all the other applications.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give the House the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 16 MARcH—Third Reading of the House of Lords Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the second report from the Environmental Audit Committee on the greening government initiative, followed by a debate on the sixth report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Tax Credits Bill.
THURSDAY 18 MARCH—Opposition day [7th allotted day].
Until about 4 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "reductions in the strength of the police" followed by a debate that the Opposition wish to call "The Government's failed roads policy". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the spring supplementary estimates, excess votes and defence votes A.
FRIDAY 19 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 MARCH—Opposition day [8th allotted day].
There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill.
TUESDAY 23 MARCH—Second Reading of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 24 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
THURSDAY 25 MARCH—There will be a debate on the armed forces on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 17 March there will be a debate on the welfare of laying hens in European Standing Committee A, and that on Wednesday 24 March, there will be a debate on deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, also in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 17 March:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 6985/98, Welfare of Laying Hens; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34-iv, and HC 34 xii (1998–99); Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxviii (1997–98).
Wednesday 24 March 1999:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 6378/98, Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34 iii (1998–99) Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxvi (1997–98).]
The House may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Wednesday 31 March and return on Tuesday 13 April, which will be a full sitting day.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for being informed of next week's business, for the indication of the business for the following week and, indeed, for the dates of the Easter recess.
The Leader of the House has announced a debate on the armed forces. Can she confirm that, after discussions through the usual channels, we are moving away from three debates—one on each armed service—to a better structure, with debates on equipment, policy and personnel? Will she consider holding the debate on personnel on Thursday week?
Following a previous exchange at business questions, will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate and a vote on public expenditure? Having moved away from a unified Budget, with debates and votes on expenditure, the Government have so far not provided Parliament with adequate time for debates that are central to our role of voting supply. Can the right hon. Lady put that right?
In his Budget statement, the Chancellor trailed a number of further statements by his Cabinet colleagues. Will any of those be oral statements next week?
The right hon. Lady has not announced any debates in the next two weeks on recent statements and publications that need debating: the Macpherson report, the national changeover plan, the White Paper on Lords reform and the report of the royal commission on long-term care of the elderly. What plans has she to tackle that growing backlog?
May we also have a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on council tax increases?
Mr. Eric Forth: Where is he?
Sir George Young: Will not such reductions as were announced by the Chancellor on 9 March be wiped out by town halls on 1 April, leaving people to face the increases announced by the Chancellor is his previous Budgets?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks about our giving further notice. He is entirely right that there is a new structure for defence debates, following discussions through the usual channels which involved the Select Committee. I think the whole House will feel that that is a better structure for debates.

501
Through those same channels, we will consider his suggestion that the debate on Thursday week should be on personnel. It had been envisaged that it would be on defence in the world, because it was thought that it might be preferable for the House to begin this new pattern by discussing the strategic approach, but we will discuss those matters through the usual channels. We will do the same in respect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that we should look again at the arrangements for discussing public expenditure, although I took advantage of his raising that issue, on the last occasion when I answered business questions, to remind him of the record of the previous Government on this matter. I did not intend by doing so to suggest that this Government are not much more sensible and reasonable.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about any oral statements following the Budget. We hope and envisage that, today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be able to flesh out during the debate some of the matters in his area of responsibility. We hope that there will be oral statements next week—on Monday, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and on Tuesday, from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that it is helpful to the House to have advance notice of what the Government envisage for next week.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about debates on the Macpherson report, the national changeover plan, the White Paper on Lords reform and care of the elderly. He described those matters as a growing backlog. I accept that we have not yet found time for full debates on them, but he will recognise that all those reports have been published only in the recent past. I certainly expect to try to find time for a debate on the Macpherson report—I hope in the not-too-distant future—and we have not yet finished dealing with the legislation on Lords reform. I have that, and the other issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, very much in mind. Again, we can discuss those issues through the usual channels.
For the benefit of someone at the back of the Chamber who clearly was not listening to the "Today" programme, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is in Bombay at present? I envisage that my right hon. Friend will indeed address the issue of council taxes, although the right hon. Gentleman will know that the survey that was published today is a preliminary survey and that, in many cases, those matters are not settled.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the steps that the Government are taking to promote family-friendly employment? It might help that cause if we debated what is currently happening in the House of Commons, and the contracts that have been imposed on some staff—in particular, some part-time staff who work 28 hours a week serving tea, buns, cakes and bacon rolls to Members of Parliament. I understand that they have been told that they must work for 11 hours before they can be paid overtime. We do not have many all-night sittings nowadays. but they are still a possibility, and in the event of such a sitting, members of staff might
502
have to work for 11 hours before being paid time and a half. That is a disgrace, and I think that the House should discuss it.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise time for a debate in the near future, but I was not aware of the issues raised by my hon. Friend, and I shall make inquiries—as, no doubt, will other hon. Members.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I join my—I am sorry, Madam Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "You've started well."] I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the dates for the Easter recess: that is very helpful to Members.
May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 413, which is, a prayer against the social security and child benefit regulations? It asks
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the draft Social Security and Child Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be not made.]
The motion refers to a proposal to replace appeal tribunals by what I can only describe as "uni-unals", consisting of just one member. The proposal worries many Members, and it certainly worries a number of people facing appeals—a prospect that is already daunting enough for many.
The Chancellor promised us a number of statements. Will the right hon. Lady find time for a statement that he failed to promise—a statement about a renewables review? Such a statement would be very relevant to the Chancellor's proposals for an energy tax, and other environmental measures. The subject is clearly missing from the Government's current programme; it appears to be stuck in the system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Stunell: Finally, let me say this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I may have started slowly, but I will finish quickly.
On Monday, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport will visit Manchester to examine some of the facilities for the Commonwealth games that will take place in 2002. Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for a Minister to make a statement of support for a project that could bring benefits not just to the north-west but to the United Kingdom as a whole?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that we will try to find time for a debate on the form that tribunals should take, but he can raise the matter through the usual channels. I shall inform my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister of the hon. Gentleman's expressed wish for a renewables review, but I suspect that hon. Members will have opportunities to raise the issue, not least during debates on the Budget.
I take on board what the hon. Gentleman said about Manchester. I think the whole House supports Manchester's case, and I am glad to learn that the Select Committee is going there to see for itself. I shall bear the matter in mind, because it is of general interest and also in view of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it could be aired in the Chamber.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what was said this morning on the BBC

503
about banking fraud? Apparently, it is taking place on a pretty big scale. Nine months ago, a loophole was discovered: top banks were allowing standing orders to be allocated to different accounts. That loophole is supposed to have been closed, but, according to the latest reports, it has not been. A BBC reporter was able to transfer a standing order from the account of one his colleagues to his own account.
May we have a statement—or, better still, will my right hon. Friend get in touch with Departments that are responsible for such matters. to ensure that the top banks sort this out?
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that Members on both sides of the House will share my hon. Friend's concern that these matters are not being resolved. The subject may have been mentioned in yesterday's debate. We all want to see the highest possible standards of consumer service. I say to my hon. Friend, however, that if anyone is willing to transfer money into someone else's account, mine is available.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the right hon. Lady ensure that on Monday, in the winding-up speeches, her right hon. Friend the Chancellor deals with the issue that was raised on Budget day by her hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) in a petition in respect of excise duty on diesel? Will he address the fact that we now stand to suffer greater pollution as vehicles fill up in France on lower-grade diesel to avoid the highest diesel prices in the world, which now pertain in this country?
Mrs. Beckett: As the whole House must be aware, there will be ample opportunity to air those matters during the Budget debate. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking as to what matters my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will include in his winding-up speech, as obviously he will be trying to summarise several days of debate, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to his attention.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the publication this week of the Government's biodiversity action plan, a long-awaited document that is part of our international treaty obligations? Does she share my concern that, as of 12.25 pm today, that document was not available in the Vote Office or the Library? Does she agree that it is an important part of our environmental policy? In view of increasing public concern about the implications for biodiversity of genetically modified foods and our conformity with the requirements of the Kyoto protocol, will she make every effort to ensure that, at the very least, there is a statement on the biodiversity action plan next week?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I can promise a statement on the matter next week, but I share—as I am sure do all hon. Members—my hon. Friend's concern that such a document should not be available, and I shall take steps to ensure that something is done about that?
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Leader of the House speak to the Foreign Secretary and to the Defence Secretary and say that it is unacceptable to the
504
House that the bombing raids on Iraq should continue without one of them coming to the House and explaining why, on so many occasions since the conclusion of the original Operation Desert Fox, those bombing raids have taken place, without any authority from the House, and—even worse—without the House being informed that they have been taking place? The chosen medium for the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the matter was the letter page of The Times. That is not acceptable to the House of Commons.
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from my statement, there is to be a defence debate a week on Thursday. He says that the House has not been kept informed; I fear that I do not entirely share that view. I know that the matter has been raised many times, and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary have both repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that what is happening at present is that, where allied aircraft find themselves under threat of attack, they respond to that attack. All that—and the patrols that those aircraft are undertaking in the no-fly zones—follows on the decision of the United Nations to protect people in the north and south of Iraq from their own Government. It therefore appears to me that although the hon. Gentleman may seek further opportunities for debate, the matter has been aired repeatedly in the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: How can the Leader of the House say that those activities follow from United Nations decisions when the present President of the Security Council—the People's Republic of China—has officially voiced its strong objection to the bombing? Is it not high time that we had a serious debate in the House about the role of the United Nations and what the UN's obligations are in a changing situation, rather than simply going back to resolutions that were passed in different circumstances, a long time ago, which have been overtaken by events?
As 41 per cent. of British forces are committed in action areas, is it not important for there to be some discussion of the whole question of bombing? Has my right hon. Friend seen the dramatic pictures in the Tribune of those children in Iraq? Has she read in the British Medical Journal the article by Dr. Sikora, who is the head of the World Health Organisation cancer unit, which outlines the dreadful situation?
Furthermore, could we have a statement next week on the progress—or lack of progress, as I fear—on Lockerbie? If any constructive progress is to be made, is it not high time that British lawyers met the Libyan lawyers to discuss going ahead with a trial in a third country—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I fear that all next week will be taken by the hon. Gentleman's questions. Could he bring his requests to a conclusion?
Mr. Dalyell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, from May onwards, Lockerbie and all its legal aspects will be matters for Holyrood rather than for the Westminster Parliament? Will people who raise the subject of the legal aspects of Lockerbie in the House of Commons be out of order after May? Is that the position? That seems to be the position from an answer given during Scottish questions. If that answer is right, no one could be

505
more concerned than I am about the authority of Madam Speaker and this House over matters that affect not only Scotland but the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Beckett: I tried to use my words with care when I said to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that the actions in Iraq follow from United Nations decisions about no-fly zones. I reiterate that those actions do, indeed, follow from those decisions. I am aware that concerns have more recently been aired in the United Nations, but that does not alter the fact that those actions follow from UN decisions.
I am aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has correctly raised in the House on many occasions about the suffering of many people in Iraq, particularly children. I differ from my hon. Friend in that I place more weight than he does on the fact that responsibility for that suffering lies at the door of the Government of Iraq. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed a recent United Nations report, which suggested that, even as we speak, food and medicines that have been purchased by Iraq under the UN programme are being stockpiled in warehouses in Iraq rather than being released for use by the Iraqi people. That is obviously a matter of concern to us all.
On Lockerbie, my hon. Friend will be aware that we have asked the United Nations Secretary-General to report to the UN Security Council by the end of the month on the position. I repeat that there will be a defence debate in a few days' time. The shadow Leader of the House will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks and those of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, who raised the matter a moment ago. The right hon. Gentleman may be thinking better of his suggestion that we should have a debate on personnel rather than on defence in the world.
Mr. Eric Forth: Following the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday and his comment that he was anxious to look into the reason for the huge differential in prices of products between continental Europe and this country, may we have an urgent debate, with both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor present, so that the Secretary of State can ask the Chancellor publicly why he is contributing to the very high price of products in this country, as compared with prices in Europe? The Secretary of State could start with petrol, but could go on and ask about tobacco products and alcohol. Surely the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to hold the Chancellor accountable for the huge price differential about which he has been complaining.
Mrs. Beckett: I was not in the House all day yesterday, so I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was here. I know what an assiduous attender he is, so he may well have been here, in which case he will have seen my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor together on the Treasury Bench. As for whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should wish to challenge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on high prices, they will be conscious, as I am, that the issue subsisted throughout the 18-year life of the previous Government, including the time during
506
which the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, although I do not recall whether he was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that my constituency is one of the most photogenic in the country. Most of those on the Government Front Bench visit it from time to time. It is regularly used as a backdrop by the film and television industry. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could find the time—not necessarily next week, because I appreciate the pressures that are building up by the moment—for a debate on the film industry to allow us to draw attention to the extra help that it has been given in the Budget.
Mrs. Beckett: I am familiar with the great use that is made of the beautiful constituency that my hon. Friend represents. He is as fortunate in his constituency as his constituents are in their representative. I am grateful to him for his understanding of the pressures on the time of the House. He is right to draw to the attention of the House the confirmation by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the existing tax relief for the film industry will be extended until July 2002—part of our continuing commitment to supporting the growth of that industry.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Lady assure us that there will be a statement next week on the most recent quarterly report on the millennium bug? Why has the statement not already been given to the House? It is now more than two weeks late. How can we seriously believe that the Government are treating the issue as an emergency and a crisis if they delay the publication of the report? Why are details of the quarterly returns available on the internet when they have not been made available to hon. Members?
Mrs. Beckett: I doubt very much whether all the details of the quarterly returns are available on the internet, although I recognise that some may be. The hon. Gentleman's question is based on an error. He assumes that the statement is late, but in fact the previous one was early. I hope to make a statement in the very near future.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in recent weeks the Government have made important statements about elderly people and carers? If consideration can be given to a debate on the royal commission on long-term care, could consideration also be given to a debate on the national carers strategy?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those important areas of policy. He is also right that it is crucial to look simultaneously at care and those who need it and at the needs of carers. The Government have been striving to do that. I shall bear his remarks in mind should we be able to find time for such a debate in the near future.
Mr. Robert Syms: I note that genetically modified products are to be discussed in European Standing Committee A. I should like to draw the right hon. Lady's attention to an article in today's Daily Mail that talks about genetically modified products found in baby milk powder products, particularly those that are

507
soya-based. Does she have any plans for a statement on what we all agree is a sensitive area in which public confidence needs to be maintained?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have just had Agriculture questions, during which there might have been an opportunity to raise the issue. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman an extra debate in the near future, but I assure him that the Government will continue to bring such issues to the House.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to the House on the counting system for the European elections? I am talking not about the pernicious closed-list system, but about the problem of recounts and where votes are to be counted and reported. There are widespread concerns that recounts will be impossible because they must take place at constituency level, but candidates will not know how well they have done because the numbers are to be tallied at sub-regional or regional level. Where votes are reported is to be left to the discretion of returning officers. At best that will lead to suspicion—I say no more than suspicion—of fudge and muddle. At worst it will lead to suspicion of fiddle and malpractice. I am sure that the Leader of the House would not want to put honourable and hard working returning officers in that position, so it is essential that she makes a statement to the House that clarifies matters and puts an end to such allegations.
Mrs. Beckett: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may regret that anything in his words suggested that putting matters at the discretion of returning officers in any way contributed to fiddle and malpractice. Having said that, I understand his concern, which is shared by many in the House. It is, however, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so the hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to raise the issue during Home Office questions on Monday. In any event, I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, following changes to the petrol escalator in the Budget, for the first time ever, petrol in the United Kingdom is now the most expensive in Europe, and possibly in the developed world? Can the Deputy Prime Minister be towed back from his holiday scuba diving in the Indian ocean and his visit to Bombay—whatever he might be doing there—to make a statement to the House?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is engaged with a trade mission which no doubt will be singularly unimpressed by the hon. Gentleman's view of its activities. The hon. Gentleman raises the cost of petrol, which was increased in the Budget. He will know that that is certainly a matter for the Budget debates. He will also know that the initial proposal for an escalator on fuel price was introduced by the Conservatives. Indeed, we have increased it by a mere 1 per cent. out of a possible 6 per cent. Finally, Opposition Members spend a considerable part of their time complaining that the Government are not doing enough to protect the environment, and the rest complaining when we do.
Mr. John Bercow: Can we have a debate in Government time next week on the increasingly
508
damaging regulatory burden on British business? The right hon. Lady will surely recall that in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto the then shadow Chancellor declared:
"We will not impose burdensome regulations upon business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."
Given that since the election there have spewed forth no fewer than an additional 2,400 burdensome regulations upon business from which many small and medium-sized enterprises in my Buckingham constituency are suffering, does the right hon. Lady not accept that it is essential—especially as the Chancellor said nothing about this important matter in the Budget—that the House has an early opportunity to scrutinise the Government's record and show them how they can do better in future?
Mrs. Beckett: Other than to say that all those matters can be aired in the Budget debates, I fear that I cannot offer to find time for a further discussion on the regulatory burden. As I understand that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter yesterday, I am deeply grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to point out that 50 per cent. fewer regulations were introduced in the first year of the Labour Government than in the last year of the Conservative Government.
Mr. Tim Yeo: In view of the deep concern expressed on both sides of the House this morning about the acute crisis facing British abattoirs, and in view of the Government's refusal to suspend the imposition of extra charges on those abattoirs until we have accurate information about the treatment of the issue in other European Union countries, will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate later this month so that hon. Members can consider the matter before many abattoirs are forced out of business?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find the time for a debate, although I shall certainly bear it in mind. Of course, the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to raise the matter earlier today with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister, when he returns from his delegation abroad, to make a statement on capping criteria? I do not know whether she has read this week's Clitheroe Advertiser and Times yet. It refers to council tax rising by 7.6 per cent., which is three times the rate of inflation. Only the Deputy Prime Minister can decide what is an excessive rise. The residents of Ribble Valley think that three times the rate of inflation is excessive. Much of the rise has come from Labour-controlled Lancashire county council. What protection will the Deputy Prime Minister give the people of Ribble Valley against this stealth tax rise?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that the hon. Gentleman, too, did not have time to listen to the "Today" programme.
Mr. Evans: I did.
Mrs. Beckett: In that case, he cannot have been listening with enough care, or he would have heard my right hon. Friend saying both that the final figures on what

509
will happen with council tax are not yet available and that he will consider those matters with great care and make plain the reason for any decisions that he makes.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In view of the increasingly disappointing attendances on Thursdays, will the Leader of the House bring forward the date of the debate on the Thursday sittings experiment? Many hon. Members believe that it has not been to the advantage of Parliament or of our proceedings and want the debate sooner rather than later.
Mrs. Beckett: It has been my experience that Thursday mornings have been extremely well attended. I understand that such is the attendance expected for our debate later today that Madam Speaker has had to impose a time limit from very early on. There will be the opportunity for a debate on the Thursday sittings, but yet again I am experiencing the phenomenon whereby Conservative Members protest publicly about Thursday sittings and the other associated decisions but many of them tell me privately how pleased they are with the experiment.

Point of Order
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of what the Leader of the House has just said about good attendance on Thursday mornings, I should be grateful for any comment that you may have on a situation that I have not observed in the House before. Were you given any notice by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that when he spoke in business questions on behalf of his party from the Front Bench he knew that he would not be accompanied by anyone on the Back Benches?
Madam Speaker: That is a very good try, but it is not a matter for me.

BILL PRESENTED
  CONTROL OF RESIDENTIAL HEDGEROWS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham, supported by Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Alan Hurst, Mr. Ian Pearson and Mrs. Christine Butler, presented a Bill to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by extending powers to environmental health officers to intervene in neighbourly disputes involving residential hedgerows; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March, and to be printed [Bill 61].
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 March].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

  (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 1998–99, on the World Economy and the Pre-Budget Report (HC 91-I), and the Fourth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 1998–99, on the Pre-Budget Report (HC 93).]
  Madam Speaker: I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches by all Back Benchers.
  1.8 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The Budget has gained acclaim from individuals and businesses in every part of the United Kingdom for its imagination and for its commitment to bridging the divide between rich and poor and to work, families and enterprise. It will help us to modernise our country, extend opportunity and narrow the gap between those who have and those who have not.
  Last night, I helped with the launch of the Evening Standard awards for children. I am often reminded of the deep commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to education and employment. As I stood up to speak, I was told that he was just behind my shoulder; on this occasion, it was his sculpture, bringing a whole new meaning to boom and bust. With him watching over me, I was able to celebrate the way in which excellence is being developed in schools.
  Our task now is to generate the wealth that we must distribute to meet the challenge of the future through education and employment, liberating people's talents, narrowing the gap and ensuring that people are helped not only by the resources allocated for benefits or tax reductions but through the expenditure of public money wisely invested in the delivery of services. We have already set about that with a vengeance. Over the next three years, the sure start programme will spend £540 million on helping children and their families at the
  512
  very moment they need it most, from the time that a child is born. We will double nursery places for three-year-olds, through the reinforcement of the promise that we have already made of giving all four-year-olds a nursery place. We are substantially implementing our promise on class sizes, having reduced from 485,000 to less than 200,000, from this September, the number of children aged five, six and seven are in classes of more than 30. That is a magnificent effort in delivering one of our key pledges. Our literacy and numeracy strategy, with the commitment and help of teachers, is already making enormous changes in the classroom and fostering a new belief and expectation in those who were written off in the past.
  Investment in young people and in lifelong learning has already started to yield fruit in terms of raising expectations. More than 230,000 young people have joined the new deal and they feel that their lives and opportunities have been enhanced by a programme that gives tailored help and makes an investment in our future. Some £1 billion of the windfall levy revenue will be spent on ensuring that schools are fit to teach and learn in.
  Those who were against the windfall levy—and against spending the revenue on the new deal and on the environment of our schools—and who now use it in their calculations for their claims about how much the Government have raised in extra taxes, should examine their consciences and what they say to their electorate, because they cannot have it both ways. Some of them are in favour of investing in reducing unemployment. Some of them even applaud the fact that we have halved youth unemployment since the spring of 1997. Many of them write in and say that they want their school to be able to invest in a decent roof or window frames. Many of them applaud the fact that local authorities do not have to pay debt charges on the new deal funding for schools, because it is a grant under the capital allocation, not a credit approval, saving local authorities large sums of money—up to £100 million over the next three years. Many of them applaud all those achievements, and then attack the Government for raising the funds required.
  Thank goodness the electorate are becoming more educated by the day. Thank goodness teaching citizenship and democracy in our schools will ensure that all our electorate will be able to see through the wheezes and guises of the Opposition.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the Secretary of State confirm that newspaper reports yesterday that he has been unsuccessful in persuading the Prime Minister to allow citizenship lessons in our primary schools?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not confirm that.
  The importance of adding to what we have already done was spelled out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his excellent speech on Tuesday, including not least the importance of ensuring the extra £49 million for England—£61 million for the United Kingdom—that will give every school an extra £2,000 to invest in books, on top of the £2,000 that schools in England have already received, so that they can do their job better.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that structure and order in the lives of pupils are more important than

  513
  £2,000 per school? In what way can the Chancellor's assault on marriage in his Budget in any way assist in providing and stability in children's lives?
  Mr. Blunkett: Structure and order come from ensuring that children have the income and decent home environment that enable them to grow up with confidence. Many of those in work take such incomes and environments for granted and, through the working families tax credit, the new children's tax credit and the increase in child benefit, we will completely transform the ability of parents to stay together, work together and invest together in the future of their children. We are creating that environment—not a poll tax, or deteriorating housing conditions, or accelerating unemployment, all of which really damaged the family during the 1980s. We are providing real stability in the economy, an opportunity to earn and to work and an opportunity to create a family for which stability can be provided.
  Make no mistake about it—if the Conservatives to want to discuss the disintegration of the family unit, some of us are happy to take them on on that issue. Nothing damaged the family more than the disintegration of our social structure and cohesion. The Conservatives were responsible for under-investment in our public services and the imposition of the poll tax.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a continuing monitoring of improvements in teacher training is essential? What guarantee can he give that no notice whatever will be taken in the formulation of future policy of the weirdo views of the teacher training academics Kimberley, Meek and Miller, who are on record as saying that, within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct in which events are played out, and that children need to position themselves in three interlocking contexts? Will the Secretary of State dispense with that sort of drivel?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: He's got his Norman Wisdom jacket on.
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not know about Norman Wisdom, but the wisdom of hindsight is always the easiest to adopt. The previous Government did not introduce a curriculum for initial teacher training, but we did so in September. They did not emphasise the targeting of the teacher training institutions through inspections by the Office for Standards in Education; nor did they ensure that resources were allocated where teacher training is best, but we have done both for the first time over the past year. They did not target major resources on in-service training for teachers, including resources for information technology, but we are about to do so. Had the Conservative Government done any of that, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would not have needed to ask his question.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the schools of Monmouthshire will be delighted by the Budget announcements of additional resources for schools, reading and books? May I inform him of my sheer joy and wonderment at attending a small
  514
  village school in my constituency—Llanover—where I saw young children enthusiastically getting on to the world wide web and looking up my own website?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall do my best to draw attention to my hon. Friend's website on every possible occasion. I hope that it stands up to scrutiny.
  We are preparing, not only through our schools and through lifelong learning, but at every point in our lives, for a new century in which the challenge of change will be enormous. The rapidity of what is occurring around us, the need to be able to know how best to use information technology—and when not to use it—and the ability to prepare for a knowledge-based economy of the future all mean that we need to invest in human capital. That means a transformation in thinking about the way in which we act as individuals, as employers and as a Government.
  The philosophy that lies behind the Budget and behind the way in which we shall proceed in the months and years ahead seeks to create a tripartite approach, matching the responsibility of the individual with the duty to invest time, energy and other resources in their education and learning, with the commitment of employers and the Government to making all that possible. That is why Budget proposals and incentives for new individual learning accounts are so important. We will ensure, as we have with higher education, that the contribution of the individual is more than matched by the investment of Government in opening up new opportunities.
  Portable skills and learning that are attached not to the individual training required for the moment but to the changes of tomorrow are the most important way to provide security at work and lessen people's fears of change in the economy and in society around them. That is why our new incentives for individual learning accounts—the 20 per cent. discount for all learners taking up ILAs and an 80 per cent. discount for those taking an introduction to information technology course—are so important. It is why the ability of employers to invest in those accounts tax free, and for it not to be counted for tax purposes for the individual, is so important. Employers will be able to provide, through skills and training, a wage or salary in kind that equips the work force of tomorrow and enables people to take responsibility for their own learning. We want to develop that, and the investment, to which I shall come in a moment, in respect of information technology. We will invest in ILAs and the computer revolution of tomorrow in a way that ensures that employers take their responsibility seriously and that the Government match that responsibility with resources.
  Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend take measures to ensure that individual learning accounts, which we all welcome, are made available to those who have not previously had access to such schemes? In the past, opportunities have gone to people who already know how to work the system to get them.
  Mr. Blunkett: I can give that assurance. We are awaiting publication of the report by Sir Claus Moser on basic skills. I want to ensure that what we are discussing today dovetails with the report's proposals. About 7 million adults of working age have no qualifications. There is a major gap in basic skills between the haves and the have-nots. We need to ensure that there is provision

  515
  for free entry into the learning system for those who have no basic qualifications. We need to do that imaginatively to capture their interest, and to ensure that those on low and moderate incomes can access ILAs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement on Tuesday emphasised that tax relief for employers and employees would be available to employers only where they extended the facility for such investment to their lowest-paid workers, so that it was not available just to the haves, who often get the best in-work training investment.
  Mr. John Healey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that yesterday's decision to extend the training and enterprise councils review is a welcome chance to introduce greater coherence and local co-ordination to training and learning in respect of TECs, further education, the Employment Service and other local providers? What assurances can he give that any new arrangements will give local businesses the opportunity to influence plans, as well as to help deliver them?
  Mr. Blunkett: As part of the development of the delivery of basic skills and lifelong learning, and of equipping our country with the skills of the future, we will build on the report of the skills task force, which will be available in a few weeks. We shall develop the recommendations of the Further Education Funding Council quinquennial review—it is a good job that it is lunchtime; one cannot use words like that when one has had a drink. With these reviews, we have the chance, with the TECs, to get it right for the future and achieve coherence in the funding, structure and delivery of skills, learning and training for everyone.
  TECs, other institutions and learners accept that the system has lacked coherence and been a mishmash of providers and funding streams. The delivery of services locally and nationally has been fragmented. That is why we established in November the concept of learning partnerships at local level to pull together all those who have an interest in lifelong learning and why the review, which will be completed by the summer, will aim to ensure that coherence is available right across the board. It will be an opportunity to get right the delivery of skills and training for young people who are out of work, young people on work-based training schemes and adults returning to learning in further education and on more traditional adult courses. It also offers us the opportunity to bring coherence in the delivery of new skills and to extend the information age to the have-nots.
  The greatest danger that we face in the decade ahead is that we will repeat the gap of the past in the investment of the future; that those who have access to information technology will forge ahead and those who do not, their families and generations to come will find themselves outside the learning age. We spelled that out in the Green Paper "The Learning Age". I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultation process and responded to it. We are able from today to do something about that, with the £500 million that was allocated in the Budget on Tuesday for investment in training in information technology across the United Kingdom.
  The £500 million is a tremendous opportunity to build on the £700 million of investment that will go into the learning grid to link schools, colleges and libraries with the community. It will enable us to build on the £230 million of investment in in-service training for
  516
  teachers and additional investment for librarians and others which will be needed. It will enable us to build, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on the digitalisation of information that is already taking place.
  The £500 million will enable us initially to target the most-deprived parts of our country, such as inner-city areas and outer housing estates. We shall ensure that information technology is available in schools and colleges, cyber cafés, outlets in arts centres and imaginative programmes in shopping arcades, so that people can learn wherever and whenever appropriate. That will be linked with the provision of other basic skills.
  Many people will come in to learn how to use information technology and will admit, as I do, how difficult it is to learn to use technology, but will not admit that they cannot read, write or add up. Once they are prepared to come in and be helped, we can do a fantastic job of tackling the legacy of illiteracy and equipping people with higher-level skills to help their children to learn—well, not so much to help their children to learn, as to learn from their children—about the use of technology and how best to use it at home.
  Some 28 per cent. of our population now have some access to the internet. That is twice as many as three years ago, but only 16 per cent. have access at home. It is estimated that 44 per cent. of our population have access to a computer, but many do not have one at home. One part of the package of measures that I am announcing today involves, as we did with libraries and the printed word, a technology lend-and-loan scheme for families who otherwise could not afford a computer or the software to go with it.
  Mr. John Hayes: Much of what the Secretary of State says makes great sense, but does he acknowledge that information and comprehension are not the same thing and that the translation of information into understanding requires guidance from teachers? Without good teachers and trainers, the revolution that he describes will not be effected properly. How will he deal with the shortage of teachers and trainers to assist with the process that he describes? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned public libraries. Will he comment on the fact that many of them already provide access to information systems, yet, throughout the country, public libraries are threatened with closure?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the commitment and applause of the hon. Gentleman. I think that we share an understanding that, without guidance and teaching, people will not be able to have access to and make use of the technologies of the future.
  As I said, not simply using that technology, but knowing how and when to use it will be so important. Our investment of £230 million in the teaching profession is therefore critical. We must also determine how we might use the skills of teachers and of librarians—who also will be trained—outside schools, colleges and libraries, so that we may achieve the best possible value for the investment that we are making. The issues of technology use and of guidance in that use are both important.
  Already, 400,000 people have accessed Learning Direct—which was launched one year ago, precisely to give people access to the information and advice that they

  517
  need. I am so pleased that people have been able to use it. We are grateful to organisations, such as the BBC, that have helped enormously with their investment in information technology. In adult learners week, the BBC engaged 17 million people in its "Computers Don't Bite" initiative and programmes.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that people should understand that information and communication technology, via the internet and other means, can bring benefits to people at all stages in their lives? He may be interested to know that, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security visited my constituency of Cambridge and saw the scheme that I initiated there, in which young mothers are able to access information on child care, benefits, jobs and training. The scheme will give them a real boost and real help in getting back to work once their children are back at school.
  Mr. Blunkett: I certainly applaud that scheme, which is forming the basis of a roll-out across the country of similar programmes that will provide real information when people need it, and in a manner that enables people to access information and support when they need it. My hon. Friend has put an enormous amount of time and energy into making the programme work, for which we are very grateful.
  We believe that people will have to update their skills at every stage of their life, and that they will require information technology skills to provide them with a link in applying those skills. As I said, enabling people to apply their skills poses a considerable challenge for Government. Although many people will learn how to use the equipment, and how to play games on the equipment, we have to encourage people—including schools and colleges—to use fully the technologies that enhance learning at every stage. That is what will add value.
  I stress the importance—as we link school and home, and end the divide between learning in institutions and learning in the home and elsewhere—of enabling teachers to use those technologies. We also have to link the university for industry initiative to the initiatives that we are announcing today, so that they work hand in hand—thereby enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to access not only information on the training programmes that they need, but the training itself.
  Small and medium-sized companies will therefore be able to share and take part in the learning centres, which will be focused initially in inner cities, and later in a roll-out of centres in communities across the United Kingdom. I hope that SMEs will be able not only to learn from and share in the initiatives, but to add to them, so that there is interaction between individuals and the community, and businesses and learning institutions. We are also initiating a £20 million scheme for easy-lease and low-cost computers for teachers, to enable the teaching profession to participate more easily in that interaction.
  I should also say that, on Saturday, The Times contained a totally inaccurate report which misled people into believing that the Government were about to do something that we were not planning to do. We intend to help teachers to purchase or borrow computers—as many
  518
  companies do for their employees—for use at home in their work. We had—and have—no intention of doing what The Times said we were intending to do. I am also sorry that The Times has had today to publish letters in response to that article, and that people believed that the article described the true situation. I hope that The Times will put the record straight.
  Our imaginative programme ensures that families have access to education, and we want to build on it. For example, the laptop computer programme for 12,000 head teachers and teachers has proved incredibly successful in helping people to update their skills and access information for a new age. We are talking about a public-private partnership which is making it work. We are talking about large-scale investment by both private and public sectors. We are talking about investing as a Government in the needs of a new century. What that is about is co-ordinating our activities well and ensuring that one initiative dovetails with another. Above all, it is about using imagination in investing public funds to liberate people so that they can earn for themselves. People want to have a job and a family. Achievement must be the right of every child in tomorrow's generation. That is the sign of a community, an economy and a society that is really working, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor received such applause for his Budget on Tuesday.
  1.36 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: We heard the truth about the Government's tax policies from the Prime Minister—not yesterday in Prime Minister's questions, but the week before, when he said:
  "the tax burden will increase over this Parliament".—[Official Report, Wednesday 3 March 1999; Vol.326, c.1075.]
  That is the truth about this Budget. A tax increase in 1999 is still a tax increase even if it was announced in 1997 or 1998.
  We have now discovered that Government propaganda about the Budget is to be distributed at taxpayers' expense. We know that it is propaganda because it contains all the buzz words. The Government say that they favour a "fairer society" and refer to people paying a "fairer share". In this context, they mean that the self-employed will pay higher national insurance contributions. It is outrageous that Government propaganda should be distributed to public institutions at taxpayers' expense.
  We have been told that the document will also be distributed to schools. Notwithstanding the party political arguments we advance about the Budget in the House, sending documents such as this to schools raises some fundamental questions which I hope the Secretary of State will address.
  Mr. Blunkett: I will happily address that matter. We have no intention of sending such a document to schools: we do not need to. We are sending 10 million extra books—that is our message.
  Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. We were told yesterday that, at first, the Treasury wanted to send 17 million copies of the document to every household in the country. The Treasury then backtracked, and we were told that it planned to send 1.2 million copies

  519
  to every public institution in the country. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has announced that the document will not be sent to schools.
  The Secretary of State is quite correct: schools want to focus on raising standards in the classroom. He claims that today, he has announced extra money for schools. However, as is clear from the Red Book, there is nothing new for education in this Budget. Page 27 of the Red Book states:
  "Departmental Expenditure Limits are essentially unchanged from those set out in the CSR"—
  the comprehensive spending review—
  "in July 1998."
  The Secretary of State has simply announced money that was allocated already in the comprehensive spending review.
  The £2,000 for books is a classic example of the Secretary of State's approach: he gives little penny packets of money to schools and allocates them for specific purposes of his choosing. What will happen if a head teacher writes to him to say, "Thank you very much for the £2,000. But, rather than spend it on school books, as head teacher, I believe that it is in the best interests of my school to spend it on trying to hold on to a classroom assistant for another term or on new software for all the IT equipment that we are supposed to be getting."? Will the Secretary of State refuse that request? Will he say that the money can be used only to purchase books? Why can he not trust head teachers to exercise their judgment about what is in the best interests of their pupils? The biggest single complaint made by teachers and head teachers around the country is that instead of the Government giving them one budget and trusting their professional judgment to spend it, they give them penny packets of funding, each attached to a new gimmick that the Government want to announce.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Tory-controlled county councils such as Cambridgeshire do not spend the money that the Government give them to spend on education? This year, Cambridgeshire has short-changed its schools by £1.3 million, on top of the £1.6 million by which it short-changed them last year.
  Mr. Willetts: I gave way to the hon. Lady last week in the debate on burdens on schools when she made exactly the same point, and I shall give her exactly the same reply—Cambridgeshire was spending above its standard spending assessment. The criticism made by schools is that the £19 billion is not getting through to them because too much of it is being absorbed by local education authorities and the Department in spending on central initiatives. The Secretary of State likes to announce those initiatives, but they simply get in the way of the money reaching the schools, which is where it belongs.
  The Secretary of State spoke about computers. We welcome anything that strengthens information technology in schools, provided, of course, that it is educationally worth while. I hope that he will recognise that in 1997, when we left office, Britain was
  "well up amongst the world leaders in terms of ICT in education, both in terms of provision and in the extent to which new technologies are used across the curriculum."
  520
  That was the view of Baroness Blackstone when she spoke about this Government's inheritance on IT in schools.
  All that we have heard since then are classic examples of announcements and re-announcements. The Government announced last January that they had a
  "£235 million programme to prepare teachers for the information age".
  The laptop announcement has been made before, on 16 April 1998, when the Government said that there was
  "£23 million to provide laptops for teachers"—
  which was,
  "a major contribution to the information age".
  We have had announcements on centres of excellence before. On 3 June 1998, the Government announced
  "120 new Centres of Excellence for IT and high technology to boost local skills training throughout the country."
  We have had announcement after announcement, but there has been no rigorous implementation of them. Instead, there has been confusion on the ground about training and support. That has continued until this week. The Secretary of State may dismiss the headline in The Times on Saturday, which said, "Budget to give every teacher a computer", but the source for that story was the Prime Minister. He said in Scotland that
  "to complete that plan by 2003, every teacher in Scotland will be equipped with a modern computer."
  Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I shall be happy to give way to the Secretary of State, but first I make it clear that I was reading a quote that appeared in The Times and was attributed to the Prime Minister. When the No. 10 press office was asked why, if Scotland could receive those computers, England and Wales could not, it replied that perhaps they would be available in England and Wales. The No. 10 press office encouraged the story that the Secretary of State is now so keen to dismiss.
  Similarly, we were told by the Chancellor in the Budget statement that there would be 1,000 computer learning centres. In the Department's announcement today, that figure is down to 800 new IT learning centres.
  Mr. Blunkett: The difference is that my Department is responsible for England, and the figure of 800 applies to England, while the figure of 1,000 applies to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Willetts: If we are to have equality across the United Kingdom, why does not that equality apply to the computers that the Prime Minister announced last week as part of his election campaign for Scotland? He is willing to use the generality of British taxpayers' money to finance computers for teachers in Scotland, but he is not, when he is asked, willing to offer the same provision for teachers in England and Wales.
  Of course, as we know from the press notice, there will be at least 30 learning centres in the first phase. The reality is that there has been massive hype, but very little will happen on the ground in any feasible time scale. That is why the Secretary of State has sceptics on his own side.
  I shall quote from an article by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), which is headed

  521
  "Derek Wyatt takes the Government to task for failing properly to plan funds and put into effect the National Grid for learning."
  The hon. Gentleman is one of the few Labour Members who has practical experience in the use of IT in communication. He referred to a paper with an
  "enormous black hole—no budget attached and no strategy for implementation."
  The article goes on:
  "Headteachers and governors do not want large Internet bills one year hence, when the initial "free" trial is over. Teachers should not have been issued with laptops; you cannot see the screens in the classroom and therefore they cannot be used as teaching aids, except by a small number of pupils."
  The Secretary of State's hon. Friend made the problem with the Government's strategy clear in that article: a lot of hype and very little practical implementation.
  I checked with the Library how we were doing on computers in schools. The Library's response on the reality of access to computers to schools stated:
  "the number of pupils per computer has remained relatively unchanged since March 1996."
  Despite all the hype, and nearly two years of announcements, there has been virtually no improvement in what schools have to teach with.
  I turn to employment and the new deal. There was no reference in the Budget or the Secretary of State's speech to a revealing little footnote on page 159 of the Red Book, which explains in Treasury gobbledegook that social security benefit expenditure has been
  "Adjusted since the PRB to take account of the new NAO-audited assumption for unemployment-related social security spending, which raises social security spending by an estimated £1 billion in 1999–2000, £2 billion in 2000–01 and £2¼ billion in 2000–02."
  Those figures are in the Secretary of State's Budget document.
  The National Audit Office independent forecast expects a steady rise in unemployment over the next three years. It is no use Treasury Ministers shaking their heads. I shall read out the figures from the NAO report, which was also released on Budget day, but not as part of the Budget documents. It says of unemployment:
  "1.55 million in Q4 99, 1.69 million in Q4 2000 and 1.73 million in Q4 2001."
  That is what independent forecasters, on whom the Government's Budget arithmetic rests, say. The Government tell us that, compared with the pre-Budget document, we should expect a steady rise in unemployment. There was no reference to that in the Secretary of State's speech.
  We heard about the new deal, but not about the fact that three in 10 people leaving it do so for destinations of which the Government are ignorant. Nobody knows what happens to such people. We know that another one in 10 people leave the new deal for another benefit. We know that the gateway is increasingly causing concern as people are trapped. I presume that that is the reason for obscure references in the Budget to intensifying the gateway. The Government's labour force survey shows that, despite an overall fall in unemployment in the past year, one of the few areas where it has risen is among young people who are unemployed between six and 12 months. We know that, in the last quarter, there was
  522
  a 20 per cent. quarter-on-quarter rise in unemployment among young people unemployed between six and 12 months.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a couple of questions? Would he scrap the new deal? In response to constituents of mine who say that there are sometimes one or two problems with the new deal—to be blunt, there are—does he accept that at least we have a Government who are determined to make the new deal work and to try to get people who were abandoned under the previous Government back into work?
  Mr. Willetts: It is no good saying that the Government are determined to make the new deal work if it is not working. Our objection to the new deal is simply that it is not working. Evidence of that is that unemployment among the very group that it is most supposed to help is rising, when for other groups it is falling.
  Look at what is happening on the options. We were told that 45 per cent. of people leaving the gateway to go on to an option would be going on to the employment option. In fact, only 24 per cent. of people are going on to the employment option. We know that 49 per cent. of people leaving the gateway for an option are going on to the education and training option.
  That development may explain the extraordinary change in the pattern of expenditure on the new deal, which we see in table 4.1, where the expenditure this year is way below the level that the Government forecast, and expenditure next year is significantly higher than they forecast. However, we know that people who leave the education and training option do not seem to perform any better than the people who leave the new deal before they go on to any of the options.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: What would the hon. Gentleman do instead of the new deal?
  Mr. Willetts: We would not have had the new deal, because we would not have had the windfall tax on the public utilities. We believe that the new deal is making no improvement on what would otherwise have happened. It is making no improvement to the job opportunities of young people.
  Perhaps the most arrogant statement in the Red Book is in the discussion of the new deal, where we read on page 54 that
  "The New Deal for 18–24s has already secured 58,000 jobs for young people."
  That assumes that every young person who was unemployed for six months and who found a job did so because of the Government. Do not the Government realise that people were finding jobs before the new deal came along? Do they not know that 80 per cent. of young people who had been unemployed for six months were leaving unemployment benefit anyway in the course of the following year?

  523
  The new deal cannot be claimed as the reason for any young person finding a job. The Government must show that they are doing better than would have been the case anyway. On that, the evidence is simply unavailable.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, he would not have sanctioned the £5 billion worth of fiscal tightening—
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Tax rises.
  Mr. Gardiner: Indeed—that the new deal entails, what would have been the consequences for inflation? How would the Opposition have moved to counter those? What effect would that have had on manufacturing industry—an issue on which they have been desperate to attack the Government?
  Mr. Willetts: Taking £5 billion off British industry made no contribution to Britain's economic performance. The taxation of the utilities must involve either higher prices being charged by them, or a fall in returns on their shares, which are owned by the pension funds that serve all of us.
  The new deal is not doing any better for young people than they were achieving anyway. Youth unemployment was falling by 100,000 a year before the new deal came into effect. The fallacy that the Government are trying to exploit is the claim that anyone who has been unemployed and finds a job does so because of the new deal. That would be true only if no one who had been unemployed for six months ever found a job before the new deal was introduced. That is an insult to the young people who have been finding jobs as a result of their own initiative and efforts, and the many schemes that we introduced to help them.
  The Secretary of State referred to individual learning accounts. Let us be clear about the reality behind the hype. We have never had the White Paper that we were promised. We have had only a Green Paper, and years of dithering and delay since it was published.
  The individual learning accounts are financed by taking £150 million off training and enterprise councils. They are merely a redistribution away from TECs, which were in any case going to spend money to help in a targeted way with training and employment needs in their areas.
  Although the Secretary of State mentioned the new tax reliefs announced in the Budget, he did not refer to the overall picture shown in the Red Book on page 13, which reveals that the cost for employers and employees of the abolition of vocational training relief—a tax relief specifically to help with training costs—matches the value of all the new tax reliefs for training that he is introducing. All those are zero-sum games—individual learning accounts financed by taking money from TECs and new tax reliefs financed by getting rid of a training tax relief.
  What about the administration of ILAs? The Institute for Fiscal Studies green book states that
  "it is questionable whether the administrative costs of setting up completely new accounts for the sole purpose of training are justified."
  524
  The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) asked a pertinent question—sadly, she is no longer in the Chamber—which echoed the IFS criticism. The IFS stated:
  "It is unclear how much of the £150 million subsidy to account-holders will result in new training which would not have happened in the absence of the scheme, rather than just being a dead-weight transfer to people who would have done the training anyway."
  In respect of training, the new deal, ILAs and the so-called extra expenditure on schools and on books for schools, the story is the same: announcement and re-announcement; launches and re-launches and a large amount of hype. However, the hype runs far ahead of reality— the reality in the classroom and the college; the reality of the burdens facing employers and of the performance of unemployed people in finding work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that 1999 would be the year of delivery, but 1999 will be the year of disappointment.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  1.57 pm
  Valerie Davey: I want to celebrate a single line in the Budget which announced that £2,000 would be given to every school for books. That is generous and unconditional, and will be welcomed by every school. As we enter the 21st century, there will be a need for more computers and for greater understanding of science and technology, but that will never entirely replace books and libraries.
  I grew up in a flat above a bookshop which, in those days, was also a library. It was natural for me to have books everywhere and to value and love them, and to value libraries. In every school that I visit, I gravitate first to the library, which I believe to be the educative heart of any school. It is there that children begin to make choices and begin self-learning. It is there that they discover, in what I trust will now be a greater choice of books, what they want to learn. Through books, they understand more about the world, the environment and all the things that excite them. Let me take hon. Members, in their mind's eye, to my favourite school library.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does the hon. Lady agree with the recent finding by the Office for Standards in Education that most of the problems of finding enough money for books in schools result from poor management of resources by the heads of those schools?
  Valerie Davey: I dispute that. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) how good management is and that schools want more scope. This wholly generous and unconditional gift from the Government should be accepted in that spirit.
  Come to that library with me—to the middle of a sprawling redbrick estate in Bristol, up the steps of a nursery school and down a small, colourfully decorated corridor with two classrooms ahead of us. Turn right and right again through a door which, in the original building,

  525
  was the entrance to a large walk-in store cupboard. Now, with the help of parents and the construction of a window in the roof, that cupboard has become a library: an oasis in that school and that community.
  Children find sanctuary in that library. One day when I was there, a small boy came in. He was a three-year-old who knew instinctively that, if he could not cope in the classroom and things had got on top of him, he would find in the library a place where he could calm down, find his own way and, even at the age of three, instigate his own learning.
  This beautiful little library has books at floor level, a nice carpet, bean bags and a welcoming atmosphere. It is very special to the school and to the community, and I trust—indeed, I know—that the money will be welcome and well spent. When the school received its first £1,000, it could not believe its luck: it could not believe the Government's generosity in giving it what it knew that families and youngsters needed most. I am sure that pattern will be repeated throughout the country.
  Given the generosity and unconditionality of the gift, I shall not presume to dictate, or even suggest, how the money should best be spent—
  Mr. Robert Syms: There is no such thing as Government money. There is the people's money, which comes from the taxpayer. Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that?
  Valerie Davey: What I acknowledge is that the party in power has a way of dictating, or deciding, how money should be spent. In this instance, the Budget has been generous to education in providing money for books. As I was about to say, I hope that some of that money will be spent on poetry books, because I feel that poetry gives the English language an extra dimension.
  A book to which I often refer—not every day, but on some days—contains "poems for the day". The poem for today, 11 March, has a title that is not easy, but is nevertheless important. It is by Arthur Clough, and Churchill quoted it several times during the war. It is called "Say not the struggle naught availeth". We would hardly use the word "struggle" today, but we would use the word "challenge"—and the present Government face the greatest possible challenge: that of ensuring that education standards rise, and that every child has a choice in education, receives an excellent education and achieves the highest possible standards.
  I trust that the allocation to education will bring real joy to children now. None of us can know how much it will enable children to attain in the future as a consequence of the excitement and expectations that it will instil. Let the children enjoy it; let schools, teachers and parents ensure that it is well spent.
  2.3 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Secretary of State for the note that he sent me—and, no doubt, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—explaining why he would not be able to stay for the whole debate.
  I must confess that, having had to follow the hon. Member for Havant on a number of occasions recently, I experience a sense of nausea when I hear him criticise
  526
  what the Government are doing. It strikes me as hypocrisy, given the state in which his party left our schools and education in general. I therefore think it rather appropriate that, while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, the Secretary of State's dog was sick.
  I hope that, if I am somewhat critical of aspects of the Budget, I shall not be considered hypocritical myself. My views are at least consistent with what I have, for some years, considered to be necessary to education and employment.
  Although undoubtedly well-intentioned, the Budget was spoilt both by gimmicks and by unnecessary complexity.
  There are some very good measures in the Budget—measures that we of course support—such as those to help small businesses or to improve competition. There are many other measures that we support but which we feel are too timid. For example, the Government are being far too timid in the extent of their support for pensioners, although the improved support is welcome.
  The Government have also been unduly timid in relation to the environment. Nothing in the Budget will do anything to improve public transport in our country. It is therefore hardly surprising that I read today the results of an opinion poll showing that only 3 per cent. of people believe that the Government are doing a good job in relation to transport.
  Dr. George Turner: Did I mishear the hon. Gentleman? I thought that he said that there was nothing in the Budget to help transport. I distinctly heard the Chancellor mention an extra 20 per cent., especially for rural areas; will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that? [Interruption.] Twenty per cent.—£20 million extra in the Budget.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that he heard the Chancellor say all those things. Of course he heard that, but he fails to take into account the additional costs that will be imposed on public transport because of the changes that have taken place in the fuel levy. If he studies the Red Book, he will see that the net effect is zero additional support for public transport.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), who is obviously interested in these affairs and in environmental matters, may agree that the Government were right to reduce vehicle excise duty, but I hope that he also agrees that it was rather timid to reduce by £55 the VED for vehicles below 1100 cc. The Liberal Democrats would have much preferred the complete abolition of VED for vehicles of 1600 cc and below.
  We welcome several other measures. The introduction of the energy tax is welcome—we had proposed that for many years—but it is a great pity that, in the same Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make good the Government's general election pledge to start a wide-scale home energy insulation programme.
  I said that the Budget was marred to some extent by gimmicks. The biggest gimmick is the 10p income tax rate. Liberal Democrats believe that it is absolutely right to provide more help for the poorest in our society—indeed, we might go even further than the new Labour Government and argue that there is an urgent need to redistribute wealth, and that that can be done through the tax system. However, the introduction of the 10p rate of

  527
  income tax is certainly not the most efficient or effective way to do it. It would have been far better to raise personal tax thresholds. That would have been more tax-efficient and would have helped more people.
  I should have liked the Chancellor to make a long-term pledge to impose a starting threshold of £10,000, which, once fulfilled, would have meant that 10 million people no longer needed to pay income tax. That would really have helped the least well off in our society and would—I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree—have had a direct impact on educational standards, because we know that there is a link between low educational standards and poverty.
  The view that I have just expressed is not without support elsewhere. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
  "In terms of the key goal of improving work incentives, it is clear that the introduction of a 10 per cent. tax rate is an expensive way of achieving little. The tax system could be reformed for equivalent cost, yet with more progressive results and without the introduction of additional complexity, by an increase in personal allowances."
  I therefore believe that the announcement of the 10p tax rate was a gimmick. There are better ways of doing what I believe that the Chancellor wanted to do, which is to help the less well off. He could have helped more people, with less complexity, without that gimmick.
  I shall now discuss issues of education and employment. I shall criticise some aspects of the Budget, but as I have said many times, I want it to be understood that I give the Government credit for many of the things that they have done. I therefore hope that my criticisms will not lead the Secretary of State to accuse me—as he has allegedly accused other critics—of being a sneering cynic or a miserable sod. The Secretary of State is said to have called people that, but he can tell us for himself whether that is true.
  The House ought to welcome the additional £100 million for the research infrastructure fund, the second round of university challenge, the tax incentives for companies to invest in research and development and the development of individual learning accounts, which we have already discussed. It is right and proper that employers are given an opportunity to contribute to individual learning accounts.
  My party was the first political party to propose the introduction of individual learning accounts. We are delighted that the Government belatedly accepted that idea. We also proposed that businesses should be able to contribute to them, and we are delighted that, at long last, the Government are following our lead. We are concerned that current individual learning accounts are minuscule and will not deliver the learning revolution that we want, but at least they are a step in the right direction.
  The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) intervened on the Secretary of State about the importance of ensuring that individual learning accounts are made available to all. I was delighted to hear him assure the House that he will consider that carefully in the light of Sir Claus Moser's report. I hope that when he does so, he will also look into the position of those students who have no qualifications and who are currently barred from access to individual learning accounts. I hope that he will ensure that that is reversed.
  We welcome many other measures in part. We welcome, as did the Secretary of State, the Chancellor's announcement of a boost for the nation to improve its
  528
  skills in information and communication technology. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has at last acknowledged that, if we are to get our pupils on-line, it is vital that we also give teachers the opportunity to get on-line. That is a change of heart for the Department. A senior spokesman for the Department was quoted in The Guardian last year as saying:
  "There's no reason to buy teachers computers. They are being trained in how to teach ICT, not how to use a computer."
  At least the Department now acknowledges that teachers need to be given computers, so I am pleased about that improvement.
  The Secretary of State can wrap up any announcement in various ways, but today's announcement does not go very far. After all, we now know that, under the original scheme to give teachers laptops, only 2.5 per cent. of teachers have so far received one. At that rate, it would have taken 40 years for all teachers to get a laptop. The announcement of additional resources is welcome, but sadly it will only increase that percentage to 6.5 per cent. of teachers, so there is a very long way to go. I hope that in the winding-up speech we will be told whether trainee teachers, who will need access to laptops, will be eligible under the scheme—a point raised by the hon. Member for Havant.
  We welcome the additional money for ordinary computers in schools, particularly inner-city schools. I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that the current announcement does not go very far, particularly when we bear in mind the fact that, according to his Department's figures, 64 per cent. of primary schools and 57 per cent. of secondary schools have computers that are more than three years old, and 44 per cent. of computers in primary schools are over five years old. The vast majority of them will not be millennium compliant, and additional funds will be needed fairly rapidly.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) praised the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for the £2,000 for every school for books. I agree with her in principle: any additional books for our schools must be welcomed. However, I suggest that that is not the most effective way of carrying out that operation. It looks like a good idea and it will grab the headlines, but one wonders whether it is a sensible way of providing more books.
  Schools will not have the freedom to decide how best to use that money. They could perhaps make more effective use of the money through the purchase of CD-ROMs or software. Moreover, in a small group 1 primary school with 50 pupils the measure will look good, because it will have £40 per pupil for books. However, for Banbury school in Oxfordshire, which is a group 6 secondary school, the amount is merely £1 per pupil. One has to question whether it would not have been better to have a per capita system.
  I want to show support for the new deal for the over-50s, although I have some concern about it. That Government initiative has not been mentioned today. I believe that it is an important measure, but it may flounder unless the Government are prepared to take tough action on age discrimination. If employers are not willing to take on people over 50, the scheme will come to naught. [Interruption.] I note that the Secretary of State is nodding. I remind him that the 1997 Amsterdam treaty requires European Union countries to take appropriate action to tackle discrimination on the grounds of age.

  529
  During the last election, the Government made a commitment that they would do so, yet sadly so far they have been lukewarm on this important issue. I hope that the new deal for the over-50s will rapidly be matched by positive action from the Government on discrimination.
  Mr. Willetts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the reasons why the Government are so wary about addressing the problem of discrimination by age is that the new deal discriminates by age? The new deal would probably fall foul of any significant legislation banning such discrimination.
  Mr. Foster: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, in asking that question, is well aware that that may have been one of the motivations behind the Government's introduction of this new element of the new deal. Although he and I may disagree about the mechanics and some of the details of the new deal, surely he would accept the broad principle of trying to provide additional support for that age group, who are particularly badly hampered in the jobs market and who find it difficult to get back into work if they lose their jobs. There is an urgent need to do something about the problem.
  I should like to comment on the issue of money. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor seemed to be providing new money for education and employment. The sad fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. No new money was announced for education and employment.
  Mr. Blunkett: It was.
  Mr. Foster: The money for education and employment that was announced in the Budget came predominantly from the modernisation fund. It was money that had been previously announced in the comprehensive spending review. Opposition Members have a problem with that because the comprehensive spending review was intended to be an opportunity for people to plan over a three-year period. That is what the Chancellor said when he announced it. In practice, however, the Government are drip-feeding announcements about different bits of the money that have already been allocated.
  Mr. Blunkett rose—
  Mr. Foster: I shall give way to the Secretary of State in a moment.
  We a getting a drip feed of information from Departments about how the money is to be used. If the Secretary of State does not mind, before I give way to him I shall make one further point, because I am sure that he will want to respond to it. If proof is wanted of my claim that the money is being drip-fed so that the Government get double the credit for it, I suggest that, over the next few weeks and months, hon. Members look out for announcements from the Department for Education and Employment on what it will allege is additional money for the national grid for learning, for the university for industry, for special educational needs provision, for travellers' children and for adult education, higher education and further education. I predict that we
  530
  shall hear announcements over the next few months about alleged new money in each of those areas. That money has already been allocated in the Department and it could and should be announced immediately so that the organisations responsible can prepare.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am not sure whether I am asking or telling the hon. Gentleman about the issues that he has raised. We have announced £1.5 billion extra for further and higher education and there is more money to come. There is a crucial flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument, which I should like him to acknowledge. We have announced a comprehensive spending review with departmental totals. That is part of the departmental expenditure limits. The cumulative total for education over the three-year period is £19 billion. The Treasury has allocated an additional £561 million this week. That is not part of the £19 billion departmental expenditure limit; it is new money. It is no more not new money than any other Treasury allocation above departmental budgets in our history. It happens to come from the capital modernisation fund, which was not part of the departmental expenditure limit of £19 billion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Foster: I am sure that the House is grateful for the Secretary of State's detailed response. He failed to point out that the capital modernisation fund to which he referred and from which the money that he has just said is new money for education came was part of the announcement at the time of the comprehensive spending review. No additional money is being made available by the Secretary of State.
  I give the Minister for School Standards credit for at least being prepared to acknowledge from time to time the way in which the Government attempt, somewhat tongue in cheek, to re-announce sums of money. If hon. Members have nothing better to do, I advise them to get hold of the Hansard report of the 6th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 9 March and look at column 10. I recommend it to the entire House, because it contains one of the most honest responses from the Government about how money is cycled and recycled time after time in their announcements.
  The key task for all political parties is to try to raise standards in education, not to have arguments about which council spends more money than another or which Governments do better than others. What matters is what is delivered. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) talked about what particular councils are doing. I have a list of Labour-controlled councils that will be making cuts in the education service next year, but I also have similar lists of Liberal Democrat and Conservative-controlled councils. The issue for all of us is to find ways of ensuring that money is properly targeted to raise standards in those important areas.
  Because class sizes are still rising in primary schools, because we are still not giving appropriate support to part-time students in our further and higher education institutions and because we have still not got rid of the scourge of bad buildings and shortages of books and equipment, more money is still needed in our education service—more than the Government are putting in. That is why it was wrong of the Chancellor to announce in his Budget that next year he would reduce income tax by

  531
  1p in the pound. The money that could be raised from that should be committed to the education service. For that reason alone, we shall vote against that measure.
  2.24 pm
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: I should like to say how much I enjoyed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that, (Mr. Willetts), Lucy is now feeling better, having had to listen to the hon. Member for Havant.
  I almost agreed with a lot of what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said—until he got close to the last 20 minutes or so. I should like to begin by telling him about my experience at one of the smallest primary schools in my constituency on Monday morning. St. Peter's school in Portslade is a well-run school with a roll of just over 100. The centrepiece of the school is the library. Every child goes in the library almost every day. Because of the size of the school and the way in which the education system operated under the previous Government, until the first £1,000 came from this Government, the library was underfunded. The school will now be celebrating the chance to double the number of books in its library over the next few months. Nearly £100,000 is being spent on books alone in schools in my constituency. I have not heard a word against that from teachers, heads or pupils. I do not know what schools in Bath are up to.
  Nearly £1 million of new deal money is going on school buildings. That is already having an impact and helping to drive up school standards. The literacy test results for schools in the Brighton and Hove local education authority have improved considerably this year, with figures up by 7 or 8 per cent. since 1996. School buildings are a central aspect of that improvement.
  It would be foolish of a Member of Parliament to say that he did not want computers in classrooms. On my visit the other day, I saw a series of computers that had been installed as part of the national grid for learning. The head teacher of the school, which is in a deprived part of the constituency, told me that children there had never had the opportunity to see and deal with a computer. They were discovering an education and learning experience through those computers. If having more computers in classrooms means teachers needing a laptop at home to help them prepare, I am all for that.
  I want to talk briefly about the environment and the escalator, because there seem to have been some double standards in evidence in the past couple of days. The Leader of the Opposition said on Tuesday that the Government had
  "increased the so-called fuel escalator from 5 to 6 per cent."— [Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 197.]
  What on earth did he mean by "so-called"? The fuel escalator was introduced when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative Government. Did he not know what the Government of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) were doing? That was an astonishing phrase to use.
  The fuel escalator is about trying to improve the environment. I am happy for the Conservatives to vote against it on Monday, because that will show which party truly cares for the environment. Maybe their spokesman will tell us later whether they intend to vote against it. Many people will wonder what the Conservatives are
  532
  about if they introduce an escalator in one Parliament and then vote against it in the next. They cannot face both ways. I know that some local Liberal Democrats like to do so, but they cannot do that in national politics.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this Government, with three Budgets in two years, have had a dramatic effect on the escalator, not only by increasing it, but by increasing the number of times that it has been applied? That is why motorists in this country are complaining. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that his party is against motorists.
  Mr. Caplin: As a motorist, I am certainly not against them. I was privileged to serve on the Standing Committee on the first Finance Bill of this Parliament, in July 1997. That Budget was primarily about putting right some of the ills that we had inherited from the Tories and implementing the windfall tax, to which I hope to return shortly if time allows.
  I welcome the increase in the winter fuel allowance, which along with the minimum income guarantee represents a significant change to pensioners' funding. The £100 has been widely welcomed throughout my constituency. I am very much looking forward to speaking at the meeting of Age Concern in my constituency next week, given that organisation's long-standing campaign on winter fuel payments.
  I shall refer briefly to the windfall tax as I find it rather disingenuous of the Tories to include the windfall tax in the figures that they continually quote. The shadow Chancellor tried to do so last night on television, but his broadcast persuaded me only that we were about to spend £40 billion on health and education.
  The windfall levy was in our manifesto. Before the election many Conservative Members said that it would be challenged in the courts. Some companies said that they would challenge us in the courts, but no such challenge ever occurred. The companies affected by the windfall levy knew that it was right and accepted the democratic principle of a general election. It cannot be described as a tax, as it was freely given. I am pleased that it was accepted by all the companies concerned.
  I have three final points. First, I am an officer of the all-party football group. One issue that has not yet been raised in the Budget debate is nevertheless very good news for football—the change in the pools betting duty, which will allow the Football Trust to continue for another three years. I very much welcome that funding, which could amount to £20 million; and I make the plea that the FA Premiership should match pound for pound the Government's new funding for the Football Trust to provide support for grassroots football.
  My second point relates to smuggling. I was pleased to hear that the Government intend to take action on tobacco smuggling. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies to the debate, perhaps she will reassure me and other hon. Members with constituencies in the south-east about the white van trade in alcohol which causes considerable problems in Sussex and Kent. There are several small breweries in the region, so the smuggling trade has a double-whammy effect. The small breweries very much welcome the freeze on alcohol duties, but I wonder whether the Government's approach to tobacco smuggling can be extended to the illegal trade in alcohol

  533
  so that we can make some real inroads into a disgraceful trade that is imparting an imbalance to the tobacco and alcohol industries.
  Finally, I welcome the extension to 2002 of the film taxation benefits announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Although films are no longer made in Hove, 102 years ago Hove was the birthplace of British cinema.
  2.33 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). I am sure that his constituents will be most interested to read about his priorities in this year's Budget. I suspect that many of his constituents, like many of mine, are enjoying their retirement on the south coast and will be most concerned about the Budget.
  The Budget gets an alpha plus for presentation and marketing but a gamma minus for honesty and content. It is a dishonest Budget; it is bad for business and for many individuals. Indeed, it is a Budget of missed opportunities. The Government could and should have rectified some of their past mistakes. As the former Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry—now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—is on the Front Bench, let me say that I was particularly disappointed that the Government did not have second thoughts about the capital gains tax retirement relief. Why will they not admit that they are wrong, and withdraw the penalties that are being imposed on those who sell their businesses on retirement after a lifetime of hard work?
  The second missed opportunity is the tax on the dividend income of non-taxpayers. It is outrageously unfair that those with incomes below the tax threshold should have to pay income tax on the income from their savings. Why should they be forced to rearrange their modest portfolios and put them into individual savings accounts, which seem to be the Government's answer?
  The Government should also have second thoughts about abolishing personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts. The idea that ISAs will increase savings has been disproved by projections that show that they will further harm the savings ratio. The Government are damaging the savings culture in Britain.
  The Government should have realised with experience that they made a big mistake when they removed from the over-60s the tax relief on health insurance premiums. If that were reintroduced, it would encourage many more people to help themselves as regards the provision of health care. Its abolition is one of the factors that has contributed to the increase in national health service waiting lists. My constituents are saying that as a result of the increase in premiums by something like 23 per cent. they can no longer afford private insurance, so they are now placing an additional burden on the national health service.
  My strongest criticism of the Budget relates to the so-called environmental taxes—the taxes on fuel oil, diesel and petrol. The taxes on fuel oil are very much in the small print and involve relatively small sums of money, but what can be the justification for a 21.5 per cent. increase in the duty on fuel oil? For the most part, fuel oil is light heating oil which is used by householders, mainly in rural communities, who do not have access to
  534
  mains gas. It is also used by small industrial and commercial undertakings. To impose such an increase is petty and spiteful. It will produce £30 million a year for the Exchequer. I am concerned that it will produce a further £30 million every year for the next three years. In other words, it is an escalator of 21.5 per cent. per annum on those who choose, or have no alternative but to have, central heating systems that use light oil.
  The increases in fuel duty at three times the rate of inflation every year until the end of this Parliament are a tax not on a luxury but on a necessity. Why are we imposing so much pain on the motoring public and our road transport industries? The money is not being reinvested in the transport infrastructure, which is crumbling, and it is certainly not being invested in new roads. The Government have slashed the new roads programme, even compared with the reductions that were made by the previous Administration. The money is certainly not being reinvested in public transport. Some Labour Members may be satisfied with the thought of collecting an extra £2 billion in tax and giving back £10 million to rural motorists and bus users, but Opposition Members do not consider it in the least bit fair.
  What is the purpose of all those increases? The hon. Member for Hove said that they would produce great environmental benefit. According to the small print in the Red Book, the gain is that the Government estimate that, in 11 years' time, in 2010, there may be a reduction of some 5 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions from transport—what a price to pay for such a paltry reduction.
  Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by the price mechanism is extremely unfair and inefficient. The environmental justification for every fuel tax increase is specious. The Government are acting on that basis only because they achieved such a bad deal for Britain in the share-out of the Kyoto targets last June. When one considers the European target of an 8 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, it is clear that the Government took pride in giving Britain a larger burden than almost all other European countries.
  We accepted a 12.5 per cent. reduction; the Netherlands accepted 6 per cent.; Finland and France did not accept any reduction; Sweden is allowed to increase emissions by 4 per cent.; Ireland by 13 per cent.; Spain by 15 per cent.; Greece by 25 per cent.; and Portugal by 27 per cent. Is it any wonder that fuel is much cheaper in those countries?
  The gap will widen between now and the end of this Parliament, resulting in a lot more cross-border shopping for fuel. There is already a loss of revenue of probably £1 billion a year because of what is happening between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and increasingly hauliers are driven to take their businesses overseas to the continent.
  Why are motoring taxes being increased? I suggest that it is part of the Government's vendetta against the motorist and the motor car. They are using the Kyoto summit as an excuse for doing something that they relish. Why is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry making much of the price of new cars, when most of our constituents are finding the burden of driving their used cars too great? Why do not the Government think about the burden of extra taxes on the ordinary car user?
  Much is emerging from the small print in the Budget. A newspaper article today suggests that the Government are saying that the abolition of the married couple's

  535
  allowance is a reduction in public spending rather than an increase in taxation. That logic misleads the public and suggests that the Government are reducing taxes when in fact they are increasing them.
  The other day, my children introduced me to an ice lolly called a "Twister". It is a superficially attractive ice lolly: it is green on top, but when one licks it one finds the red underneath. The Budget is modelled on a "Twister" and it has been introduced by a Government of twisters. The people will enjoy their revenge when the truth is out.
  2.42 pm
  Ms Bridget Prentice: I am delighted to speak in a debate on a Budget that is recognised by the people, if not by the Opposition, as radical, forward-looking and good for those in need, in work and with families.
  I have listened carefully to what Opposition Members have said today and throughout the week, both here and in the media, and I am somewhat perplexed by some of their responses. They ask why we do not use the money for teachers and nurses. It strikes me, if it has not struck them, that teachers and nurses are taxpayers, too, and will benefit from the tax decreases announced in the Budget.
  Teachers and nurses are members of families. Their children will benefit from the huge increase in child benefit, the children's tax credit and the extra money for books in schools. They will also have parents who are pensioners and will benefit from the huge increase in the winter fuel payment as well as from other aspects of the Budget directed specifically at them.
  As someone who is not a parent, I, too, welcome the fact that money has been targeted in that way. I happen to be a smoker. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will now frown at me. I am happy that the taxes that I pay as a smoker will help to provide books for schools, the minimum pension guarantee and all the other help for those who are most in need. The Budget is radical: it targets those in need and it makes work pay.
  Several Opposition Members, and one or two of our national newspapers, have mentioned the married couple's allowance. They seem to think that its abolition is, as I believe the Daily Mail said, the breaking of the last fiscal prop to marriage. I have yet to meet someone who married because of the prospect of a £1,900 tax-free allowance. I honestly know of no one who has waltzed down the aisle saying, "This is the happiest day of my life, because tomorrow the Chancellor is going to give us £1,900 tax free."
  Mr. Graham Brady rose—
  Mr. Caplin: Is this a proposal?
  Mr. Brady: I wonder whether the hon. Lady has ever heard of a married couple whose marriage has broken down because of financial pressures.
  Ms Prentice: Many marriages break down because of financial pressures. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove
  536
  (Mr. Caplin) was hoping that the hon. Gentleman was about to propose to me. Unfortunately, it was not to be, but we live in hope.
  Mr. Philip Hammond rose—
  Ms Prentice: I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes in all, so I will have to move on.
  It is a bizarre concept to suppose that people marry for such a reason, and that is hardly the rock on which a marriage should be founded. It is not for the Government to pay people to marry. Marriage is a moral and spiritual decision. Of course the Government are right to advocate it as a way of life and to support married people and parents, and many aspects of the Budget are about much more productive ways of doing just that. We should welcome the working families tax credit, the provision of child care, the improvement in standards in schools and the new deal for young people.
  I am extremely pleased about the help and support for the British film industry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove mentioned. We have a wonderful, dynamic and internationally successful industry of which we should be proud. It is heartening that at last we have a Government who recognise that and take it seriously. I hope that our support for the industry will mean that talented young people will be able to use and develop their talents here rather than going abroad where the incentives have been more attractive.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us that the changes will help our entrepreneurs and creative talents to make more films here in Britain. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting is here, because I want to congratulate her on the way in which she has advocated the change to help our film industry. I hope that others will also be encouraged to come from abroad and make films here. It is tragic that films that could and should have been made here were made elsewhere because of a lack of incentives to invest in Britain.
  I welcome the use of the capital modernisation fund for the network of learning centres, and I look forward to the opening of the first cyber café in Lewisham; but my particular delight is in the provision of £170 million for the fight against crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly emphasised the need to curb youth crime and to target ways of preventing young people from getting involved in crime and of tackling criminal behaviour as early as possible. That is the best way of preventing young people from ending up with a string of offences and a belief that not much will be done about it.
  I do not know exactly how that £170 million is to be spent, but I have a couple of suggestions. Will local communities, councils, police and other agencies working together make bids for the money, and on what basis will an area qualify? Will money be made available when the police or local community identify an aspect of criminal activity that needs a rapid response?
  I am glad that Departments will work together on that—what we call joined-up Government. The initiative will have been effective if we can make communities safe. That involves improving street lighting, better environmental care and so on. If street lighting

  537
  is improved, more people go out, especially women and the elderly, and if more people are around, less crime is likely to be committed, so it has a double effect. The same applies to the environment generally. Graffiti, litter and general dereliction give the impression of a community that is not interested in being safer. Environmental improvements make for safer communities. By giving people pride in their community, we give them a stake in keeping it safe, and that applies to the young as much as it does to the old.
  I hope that the Government will bear those points in mind when they implement this excellent, radical and unifying Budget. I am delighted to support it.
  2.51 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I doubt whether any hon. Member disputes the fact that good communications are essential to a strong and vibrant economy. I wish to examine the effects of the Budget on the transport industry and, as a former naval person, I shall start with the shipping industry.
  Last February, I received a letter from the British Chamber of Shipping, which stated:
  "Within weeks of taking office at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, John Prescott established a Shipping Working Group to find ways in which the Government can work in partnership with the shipping industry and the maritime unions to boost training, employment and investment. The Group will soon be reporting to the Deputy Prime Minister."
  I was encouraged that another former naval person was taking an interest in the future of the British shipping industry. The upshot was the publication of "British Shipping: Charting a New Course". It looked as though we were on course to making some progress in the direction in which both management and the unions of British shipping wanted us to go. Indeed, the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers wrote to me recently about the tonnage tax, which it called
  "one of the most important recommendations made in the Charting a New Course report."
  However, all that the Chancellor had to say in the Budget on that point was:
  "the shipping industry has put to me the case for enhanced training incentives and for a lower rate ring-fenced tonnage tax. While I am attracted to these options, I have to be satisfied that lower tax rates will not become a vehicle for tax avoidance".—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 177.]
  In two years, we have made no progress. However, over many years, we have seen the increasing tendency of British shipowners to flag their ships out to other nations.
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gill: I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman knows that we are limited to 10-minute speeches, and I have a lot to say.
  What has happened in the British shipping industry will now almost inevitably happen in the road haulage industry. We read in our newspapers about the serious plight of the British road haulage industry. As a result of the Budget, it will be possible in Belgium to fill a 1,000 litre tank on a diesel-engined lorry for £300 less than in
  538
  this country. That is before one takes into account the huge discrepancy between vehicle excise duty on the continent and in this country.
  I cannot stress too strongly the importance of a good transport infrastructure. I am concerned that the Budget does not contain an increase in expenditure on road, railway or shipping projects. The Government say that they will allocate £1.7 billion extra, but that is less than the extra tax that they will take from those industries in future years. Since taking office, the Government have cancelled several road projects. Hon. Members from the west of England who drive to London will know that, after the M40 becomes the A40 Western avenue, at the intersection with Old Oak Common lane, it ceases to be a dual carriageway. The improvement to that section was cancelled by the Government, because they thought that removing that bottleneck would encourage people to use the road. That is the stagecoach mentality. When will the Government realise that people need, want and will continue to use vehicles, either private or commercial? Failing to carry out a road improvement to try to stop people using vehicles is a luddite approach.
  The chairman of the Automobile Association, Sir Brian Shaw, has noted the lack of investment in Britain's transport infrastructure. Earlier this month, he was reported as saying:
  "The only European country with worse traffic congestion than Britain is Poland … yet British drivers pay more in motoring taxes than any other European road users … Other countries spend 40–50 per cent. of road taxes on transport, but in Britain £100 billion has `effectively been stolen from its proper purpose'".
  What is the Government's answer to that point? The article continues:
  "Roads minister Lord Whitty…restated the Government's commitment to road charging and its determination to introduce taxes on business parking."
  We hear much about the Government's integrated transport system. I heard on the "Today" programme this morning that somebody had come up with the bright idea that, in future, people should be encouraged to take taxis to bus stops. The Government are anti-road, anti-motorists—which affects me as the representative of a large and sparsely populated rural area—and anti-progress.
  The Government crow about the volume of freight that they have transferred to the railways, but I want to put the record straight. That has happened only since the railways were privatised. Before privatisation, which occurred under the Conservative Government, there was no increase in the volume of freight on railways, but this Government want to take credit for the increase in rail freight. The Labour party criticised the Conservative Government for selling the railways too cheap. Labour Members opposed privatisation at every turn and did their level best to destroy market confidence in the flotation. They threatened to renationalise the railways, and it is hardly surprising that, at the time of the flotation, it was impossible to sell the railways at the price that we would have liked to achieve. Labour Members should stop being so hypocritical on that subject: they know that the railways were sold for less than their full potential because of their opposition and threats.
  Every hon. Member will have received in advance of the Budget a circular from the Automobile Association in which it was pointed out that £8 of every £10 spent on

  539
  road fuel was tax. The figure is now £8.50 in every £10. On diesel fuel, the situation is even worse. The increase in duty on diesel oil is 11.6 per cent., which adds nearly 28p to a gallon of diesel, or £60 for every 1,000 litre tankful.
  I want the Government to realise the serious impact that those taxation measures will have on rural areas. They have a serious impact on the road haulage industry, and a consequentially serious effect on our whole economy. Any business—be it manufacturing or road haulage—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's time has elapsed.
  3.1 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate on a Budget that is good for children, pensioners, business and self-learners. It is very good for entrepreneurs, and it is even good for cyclists. It is especially good for my constituents.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) spent some time on the difficulties of living in rural areas and the extra taxes that people there must pay as a result of the Budget. Many of the taxes introduced by the Chancellor will, however, be revenue neutral. For example, the increase in fuel duty will be balanced by a reduction in vehicle excise duty. The Chancellor is also introducing additional support for public transport through the rural transport fund and other measures. That will help people to use their cars less often and to use more public transport. All of us will benefit from the resulting improvement in air quality and from the reduction in congestion.
  Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Campbell: No, the hon. Gentleman did not give way, and nor shall I. I have made my point to him.
  We are fortunate to have a Government who have recognized—as none before ever did—the importance of a strong science base and of the innovation that links that science base to the industrial base. We also have a manufacturing industry that recognises the important contribution that can be made by scientists, entrepreneurs and people who have ideas.
  We have a world-renowned university in Cambridge and a strong scientific output which is probably the best in the world. We have recognised the importance of linking the development of high-tech services and products to the science base. There are around 36,000 high-tech jobs in and around my constituency, and industrial leaders there are delighted with the Budget.
  The Cambridge Evening News carried the headline "Big boost for region's biotech companies" and the amusing sub-head "Measures to help high-tech firms which almost match 'wish list"'. We all know that no one expects a wish list to be satisfied, but the Budget contains proposals warmly welcomed by industrial leaders. Research and development tax credits are important to the high-tech sector. Expansion of the university challenge fund will help universities to produce better laboratories and equipment. The removal of tax from share option deals is designed to lure the high-flyers from the big companies to risky start-up companies.
  540
  Tax cuts are good for small business, and the 40 per cent. extension on capital allowances will also boost the high-tech sector and others. The recognition that an extension of employee ownership is good for both business and employees is also welcome.
  However, having said many good things about the Budget, I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will forgive me for mentioning one concern raised at a business breakfast yesterday. I fear that the raising of stamp duty will have an effect that the Government do not intend, given their strong support for science-based industry. The fear is that the value of most knowledge-based industries rests not in physical assets—typically, they do not have a lot of freely movable plant or machinery—but in intellectual property rights. Dealings in those rights are hardest hit by the increase in stamp duty.
  There are several reasons why one might wish to acquire assets of a company rather than its shares. For example, part of the business—the intellectual property rights relating to a particular computer programme or drug discovery—might be for sale, rather than the whole of it. In some circumstances, stamp duty might be payable on licences of intellectual property rights.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider that point, examining how transactions may be affected when the assets of a company are transferred, rather than the shares, which are subject to lower taxation rates. That concern was one of very few voiced by my constituents yesterday. It is unusual for a Budget to be so universally praised.
  I welcome the extra £19 billion for education, and the further £560 million added by the Chancellor on Tuesday. Will Treasury Ministers consider, however, how to ensure that county councils pass the money on to schools? Cambridgeshire was given an extra £9.4 million last year for education, but the county council spent only £7.8 million, cheating schools of £1.6 million. This year, Cambridgeshire had an extra £10.7 million for education, but the council plans to spend only £9.4 million, cheating schools of a further £1.3 million.
  If the intended increases over the past two years had been passed on fully, Cambridgeshire schools would have benefited by an additional £2.9 million. Many of their problems simply would not have occurred. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has suggested that the money has been withheld because of increased bureaucracy, but that is absurd, and schools simply do not recognise that argument.
  One way around the problem would be to tie money to specific objectives. The recent money for the reduction of infant class sizes could not be spent on anything else, and it was warmly welcomed. Cambridgeshire benefited by almost £1 million, and that will create 69 additional teachers' jobs. It will reduce the number of children taught in classes of more than 30 from almost 7,000 to just 227.
  The Government are trying hard, but they are constantly thwarted by local Conservative politicians. I was slightly surprised to receive a letter from the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the county council. She is the chair of Mayfield primary school, one of the largest in the country, which has, sadly, decided to ask parents to contribute towards the cost of keeping a teacher in place. Schools should not be doing that. It would not be necessary if the county council were spending the whole of the money allocated by the Government for education.

  541
  Cambridgeshire has a low standard spending assessment, largely because of historical factors: when Baroness Blatch was running Cambridgeshire county council, she did her best to cut education to the bone.
  I welcome individual learning accounts and the emphasis on computing courses. I know from experience how much information technology has increased the efficiency of my office. I pay tribute to my staff, Dick Robinson and Rosie Turner, who have improved my office's efficiency many times over by increasing their IT skills and experience, updating my web page and using e-mail for 30 per cent. of my correspondence. I wish all hon. Members success in training their staff.
  3.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a self-confident performance on Tuesday. I do not entirely share his confidence, and certainly not in respect of the economy. If he has enjoyed a benign six months since the pre-Budget report, it has not been down to his judgment. Japan and South Korea have been recovering, the American consumer remains remarkably buoyant and our economic cycle is clearly out of kilter with that of the rest of Europe. If he is going to enjoy a soft landing, it will not be due to his judgment, but to the framework that he inherited from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). It was he who took the key decisions on interest rates and tight public spending, and who started to foster the climate of low inflation which, I suspect, lies behind some of the benign economic indicators.
  It is often said that Budgets that are cheered on the day disappoint six months later. I cannot recall one where the gloss has come off so quickly. The newspapers that cheered it yesterday are discovering the reality behind the hype: most taxpayers will be worse off, and they will be worse off at the end of this Parliament. It is the wrong time in our economic cycle for the Government to increase borrowing and taxes.
  Let me begin with borrowing. Careful examination of the Red Book shows that the net cash requirement is going up from £2 billion to £4.5 billion. Net borrowing will be £3 billion in each of the next two years. It was only in the March 1998 Budget that the Chancellor chirped about the budget being in surplus. There was much talk of repayment of debt in the interests of our children. Now we are back to old Labour borrowing. The Government are not only borrowing more; they are taxing more. They are taxing marriage, taxing home ownership and taxing car driving. The Chancellor did not make much of the fact that he is increasing national insurance— wages tax—for those in self-employment.
  Why are the Government having to borrow and tax more? Of course, they have to fund the stealthy redistribution round the edges, but there are two fundamental reasons. First, they have failed in their promise to tackle the increase in welfare spending. Secondly, they have failed to realise the receipts that they envisaged from privatisation.
  The Red Book shows that social security spending will rise from £93.5 billion to £106.4 billion. The Government have failed to use their mandate and the majority that they command. They had one row, over lone parent benefits,
  542
  which was a reform that we left for them. They persisted with that, and then the great welfare reform campaign fizzled out into chatter about anti-fraud measures. Even unemployment benefit continues to be paid without any sanction other than that the recipient should turn up for interview.
  On asset sales, I warned the House last July that some heroic assumptions had been made. The former Chief Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), also questioned the Red Book entries. The Government have pencilled them in again: £4 billion every year from privatisation. However, for the first time, the Red Book is silent about exactly where those privatisation receipts will come from. We know now that London Underground privatisation is being postponed. The air traffic control privatisation seems more complex than the Government first thought. The national asset register was a good idea. It has been compiled, but is now forgotten. In the Command Paper on public service agreements, the sections on assets are the weakest part of every departmental agreement. There are no sanctions. If Departments fail to yield asset sales, their budgets remain unaffected.
  Some measures in the Budget were worth while. There are some things that some small businesses will welcome, but they are a long way down the track. Flicking through the Budget press releases shows that the full effect of some measures will not be felt until 2002 or 2003. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I attended a Budget seminar yesterday, at lunch-time in Sevenoaks. I found little enthusiasm for the 10p corporation tax for small businesses, research and development tax credits or the computers that companies would probably buy any way. Such measures are welcome but de minimis.
  What matters to small business as much as taxation is red tape. In two years, the Government have introduced a wave of employment legislation, an increase in social costs and the national minimum wage. They all burn up management time and make it more difficult for the small businesses that the Government say they want to foster to employ more people. In this Budget, more taxes are being piled on. There are the environment taxes, the energy taxes, and the cold climate change levy—a weather tax for the first time. This is a tax-and-take Government. Already the press is waking up to the reality of an old Labour Budget. Borrowing and taxation are up, there is redistribution by stealth and there is over-regulation of businesses. It will not take six months for the public to see through the Government.
  3.18 pm
  Mr. Ian Pearson: People and businesses across the borough of Dudley welcome this Budget. It is a Budget for the future, for success and for fairness. There is something in it for everyone. In the borough, more than 40,000 families will benefit from the increases in child benefit and child care tax credit. Around 50,000 pensioners will benefit from the £100 winter fuel allowance. Many of them will also benefit from the increase in the minimum pensioner income guarantee and the continuation of the married couples allowance.
  Patients and staff at Russells Hall hospital will welcome the money for the accident and emergency department because improvements are still badly needed.

  543
  Parents and teachers will welcome the £2,000 for school books for each school in the borough. I was particularly pleased that the over-50s who have been out of work for six months or more will get new hope and practical financial support when they look for employment. That measure will be warmly welcomed by them.
  The whole community across Dudley borough will welcome the extra money to fight crime. People everywhere in Britain will welcome the cut in the basic rate of income tax to 22 per cent. and the cut in the starting rate to 10 per cent. I hope that, over a period, the Government will have the opportunity and resources to move to four rates of tax—0, 10, 20 and 40 per cent.
  Businesses will welcome the cuts already announced in corporation tax, which will bring the rate down to 30 per cent. for large businesses and 20 per cent. for small and medium-sized companies, and the new 10p starting rate. I welcome the extension of 40 per cent. capital allowances, which is timed exactly right at this stage of the economic cycle. I welcome, too, the tax credits for research and development. They will have a significant impact and will help to build a more enterprising and dynamic economy.
  I believe that it is sensible to align income tax and national insurance rates. That is something that businesses of all sizes will welcome. Businesses have also given a warm welcome to the formation of the small business service. We look forward to seeing the detail of how that will operate.
  I do not know exactly how the British economy will perform in the next 12 months. I do not know anyone who does, but I believe strongly that the Government have the balance right in their overall fiscal and economic policy. I am certain that investment in skills to make the economy more enterprising, and investment in our infrastructure are vital to our economic success.
  I believe that the Budget will go down as a landmark Budget. It embraces the role of government in supporting economic growth and driving productivity in a modern economy. I am also glad about some things that are not in the Budget. I am glad that there was not an aggregates tax. It would have been damaging to industry, and I hope that one will not be introduced in the future. Although I welcome the anti-avoidance provisions in the Budget, I am disappointed that there seems to be no great willingness to proceed with either a general anti-avoidance rule or a mini GAAR.
  Inevitably, there are some areas on which we want to know more and need to see some of the detail. Pensioners will be disappointed that no announcement was made about the dividend tax credit, which is still an issue with non-taxpaying pensioners. I do not believe that it will go away. Similarly, there is some uncertainty about the fact that it seems as if pensioners will start to pay tax at a rate of 20 per cent. on their savings while all other individuals in the community will start at 10 per cent. That is something that we might want to consider when we examine the Finance Bill.
  On manufacturing, it is important to welcome the introduction of the energy tax. I am glad that the Government have decided that it will be revenue-neutral overall. However, we have to be very careful to make sure that manufacturing industry is not hit. I do not want to see the introduction of a tax that will benefit supermarkets but harm our manufacturing sector. We need to think carefully about how it is introduced so that we do not
  544
  penalise capital-intensive, relatively low-employing sectors such as the forging industry, and reward less capital-intensive sectors such as retail.
  While manufacturing will welcome the announcements about share schemes and encouraging employees to buy shares in their companies, incentive schemes are much more difficult in unquoted companies, which form the vast bulk of manufacturing companies in my constituency. I warmly welcome proper incentive schemes from which small and medium-sized companies can benefit.
  I have to raise the issue of road hauliers. If as a Government, we believe in modern growth theory, which says that skills and infrastructure are important, we must recognise that the road infrastructure is highly significant. There is no doubt that the road fuel duty escalator imposes an additional cost on business. That is obviously a significant problem for the road haulage industry, but it is also a problem for business as a whole. The escalator is increasingly making our industry less competitive than businesses outside the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pearson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only two minutes left. I think that over time, we need to do something about the road fuel escalator. Over the next three years, we shall raise about £8 billion as a result of the road fuel duty escalator if we do not change our policy, and we must consider the effects on our industry and what we can do to ameliorate them. When we look back in five or 10 years' time, we will ask whether we should not have put more money into researching clean fuel technology rather than penalising our road haulage industry. A balance needs to be struck, and there is more for the Government to do on that.
  On science and technology policy, I must declare an interest. I am a visiting fellow at Warwick university, and I am writing an article on universities and innovation. I warmly welcome the boost to the science and engineering budgets in the past two years, the extra £100 million that has been invested in the infrastructure fund and the £15 million extra for the university challenge fund, but we are only scratching the surface. Far more needs to be done, and far more radical action needs to be taken. We are spending £6.1 billion as a Government on research and development, of which less than 2.5 per cent. is going to experimental development. We have a development gap. If we are to get better at turning inventions into innovations and commercially exploiting them, we must reconsider the main funding streams in the United Kingdom. When less than 10 per cent. of the research councils' budget is spent on experimental development, we need to do better.
  This is a forward-looking Budget which lays the foundations for future prosperity. I have every confidence that it will boost productivity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Nick St. Aubyn.
  3.28 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) told us that this was a landmark Budget. It was so much so that some of us on the Conservative Benches observed the Prime Minister

  545
  nodding off in the middle of it. We heard this afternoon how the Secretary of State's dog is sick of the whole thing. Many will be sick as a dog when they hear the details of the Budget and how it affects them. There should be a warning not to be a saver under a Labour Government, a warning not to live in the countryside and a warning not to work in manufacturing industry. The savings ratio has fallen by a third. Petrol tax has gone up to £8.50 for every £10 spent on fuel, which penalises those who live in the countryside. Manufacturing is in recession and jobs are being shed.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to become the Joe Biden of the Conservative party by stealing other people's speeches.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am not sure whether that was an attempt at flattery but I will ignore it, given the prospects of that former member of the Opposition.
  We must remind ourselves that when the Government talk about a strategy for transport, they are really talking about raising taxes on running a car or a lorry until the brakes squeak. They are really talking about making a smash-and-grab raid on the majority of the British people. So much for the party that claims to rule for the many, not the few.
  If the Government were serious about their transport strategy, we should today have heard the Secretary of State for Education and Employment tell us how he will encourage more people to walk their children to school or to give their children a bicycle to go to school. Last summer, I went with the Select Committee on Education and Employment to Switzerland. One of the striking features of Switzerland is how many—almost all—children bicycle to and from school. At peak travel times, roads in Switzerland are relatively free of cars, unlike in Britain where roads are congested. Reducing traffic congestion would be a strategy worth pursuing.
  We should be encouraging schools to have their own budget for special educational needs. At least in my own constituency, too much of the schools' budget is spent on transport. However, enabling schools to manage their own budgets would go against the grain of a Government who like to dictate and run everything from the centre, with all the inefficiencies and waste that that involves. We have a Government who want to control from the centre and take more out of our pockets so that they—not the individual—may decide how to spend it. Central control is at the heart of the Government's agenda and at the heart of this week's Budget.
  Let us leave the magic world of the conjuring Chancellor and return to the real world—in which jobs are on the line and businesses are at risk, and in which families have budgets of their own to prepare, children of their own to raise and hopes of their own to fulfil. When those families examine the Budget, they will be asking what kind of Government take away the married couples allowance and mortgage relief this year, but provide them with no help in the form of the children's tax credit until a year later. They will be asking what type of Government think that they should help business by helping something called the serial entrepreneur.
  546
  The Government think that the modern economy is composed of high-rolling, risk-taking business enterprises, that all should go to those who brave all, and that those who risk all win all. That is not the economy that the Government inherited.
  The Government inherited a Conservative capitalism that believes in saving, in investment and, above all, in commitment. There was nothing in the Budget for the vast majority of medium-sized firms in middle England which underpin our economy and form its bedrock—the many thousands of firms employing millions of people who work hard and save hard simply to secure a decent living, and who are risk averse, not risk takers. There was nothing for those businesses or employees in the Budget. But there was something for them in Conservative Budgets.
  The previous Government inherited an economy that had far too few such businesses—but we built them up. From 1986 to 1997, the number of firms with an annual turnover between £250,000 and £5 million rose by 70 per cent., and the number of firms turning over between £5 million and £10 million rose by 80 per cent. The number of businesses turning over less than £250,000 barely increased. Yet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced yesterday that the Government will target the 10p tax relief at the bottom end of firms—at the 250,000 firms which will undoubtedly appreciate the benefit but which are not the firms that will deliver the growth, jobs and stability that our economy needs.
  What have the Government done to the bedrock of our economy? They have, for one thing, imposed stamp duty—which is a tax not only on expensive housing but on the typical premises of the typical British business. Recent research has shown that, for every 1 per cent. rise in stamp duty, there has been about a 3 per cent. fall in the value of that property.
  How do those businesses grow and how do they raise money? They do not seek out serial entrepreneurs: they seek their bank manager. When their bank manager lends them money, he asks, "What is the value of your business?" The value of their business is tied up in their property. Therefore every time the Government hit the value of a property, they hit the business occupying it, the business's growth and the jobs that might have been created. I tell the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—who was recently the Minister with responsibility for small business—that the Government are doing that damage to small business.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman essentially offering an abject apology from the Tory party to the House—and to all the people, businesses and householders of Great Britain—for what happened on Black Wednesday in 1992?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I should declare an interest: I have a small business. I also had a small business that went bust after black Wednesday. I know well the suffering of a modern economy. However, there is also gain. Under the previous Government, some of us suffered, but we fought back and won back. Ultimately, we were all winners. The Government are stopping the possibility of such an outcome. They are taking away, with higher taxes and more regulation, the ability to create wealth.
  We now have a minimum wage. Someone earning just above the minimum wage will benefit from the Government's Budget by just 1p an hour. Introducing the

  547
  minimum wage creates a problem of wage differentials. This Budget was the one in which the Government should have alleviated the problem by targeting any tax breaks on those earning just over the minimum wage and up to £1 an hour above it. But the Government completely lost the point and the plot, just as they will lose the next general election.
  3.36 pm
  Helen Jones: I should like to confine my remarks to the Budget's provisions on education. Earlier in the debate, when I heard the speech of hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—who is no longer in the Chamber—I realised that the Tories have still not grasped the realities of education in the United Kingdom. I had hoped that we might have a serious debate on the way forward for our schools. Today, however, Conservative Members are again only indulging in political opportunism. For 18 years, they were guilty of the culpable neglect of our children's education; now, they want to convince us that they have had a Damascus road conversion.
  Apparently struck by a blinding light, Conservative Members have become the enemies of centralisation and bureaucracy and want to tell us that they are the teacher's friend. I am sure that the entire teaching profession will be touched by that concern, particularly when they remember that, for 18 years, those same hon. Ladies and Gentlemen supported a Government who increased bureaucracy and centralisation in schools as never before.
  We should remember that their Government introduced an unworkable national curriculum, with over 1,000 individual learning targets. Their Government changed the secondary science curriculum three times, so that school books had to be thrown away. They were the Government who left teachers and children to work in crumbling schools, with a repairs backlog of £4 billion. The provisions in the Budget and the way in which we are structuring spending in our schools are necessary to tackle the failures of the previous Government.
  Last week, the Opposition had the brass neck to initiate a debate entitled "burdens on schools". The only burden that the previous Government did not impose on schools was the burden of success. When they left office, almost half our 11-year-olds did not reach the expected standards in English and maths, and two thirds of 16-year-olds could not even achieve a grade C at GCSE in those subjects. Even worse, the United Kingdom was second from the bottom in the international league survey of mathematical achievement.
  We believe that tackling that failure in education is not only an economic necessity but a moral imperative. A Government who leave their people ignorant stunt their people's lives. A Government who deny people the tools to understand, control and master their world deny them power. The Victorians said that knowledge is power, and they were absolutely right. By insisting that all the efforts in our schools be devoted to raising standards, we are in a very real sense giving power back. The Government are giving power back to all our children because we will no longer tolerate a system in which a child's chances of getting a decent education depend purely on luck.
  We believe that all children deserve the best. We are investing an extra £19 billion in education over the next three years to demonstrate a commitment that begins the
  548
  moment a child enters the system. Our commitment begins with a £540 million sure start programme, which is designed to tackle disadvantage at the roots. All teachers know that some children come to school already disadvantaged, and that disadvantage must be eradicated.
  We have already spent £62 million reducing class sizes at key stage 1. The Government's commitment extends to lifelong learning and to the £470 million that we are spending to improve access to new technology and establish 1,000 IT centres. The truth is that, by failing to make that investment, the previous Government profoundly disadvantaged areas such as the one that I represent. Schools in my area could not raise money voluntarily for the computers they needed and people did not have computers at home. As a result, people were cut off from the skills that they needed and from a vast pool of knowledge. They were denied the skills that would make them more marketable in the future. People who were disadvantaged as children would have been disadvantaged as adults if it were not for this Government's actions.
  That is why I welcome the £2,000—which is additional to the £2,000 that schools have already received—that the Government are giving to every school in the country to buy books. I know that Opposition Members will say that that funding is centrally directed and is a burden on schools. I assure them, as a former English teacher, that I would rather have carried that burden than the burden of not having enough books, of children having to share books or of books falling apart. We cannot expect to expand people's minds, hearts or spirits when they are working in crumbling buildings without adequate equipment—as they were under the previous Government.
  To accuse this Government of over-centralisation is to ignore what is happening on the ground. I have seen the books going into schools and I have seen the literacy hour working—not as a straitjacket, but as a tool for teaching and learning. I have talked to the children who benefit from it and the teachers who use it, and they enjoy it. I do not believe that any Government should apologise for making it a priority that our children leave school literate, numerate and conversant with new technology. That is a basic duty of government. It is Conservative Members who should apologise because they neglected that duty for 18 years and sold our children short.
  The real difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that we do not just talk about raising standards: we commit the resources to make that a reality. I can already see the results of that strategy on the ground in my constituency. My local education authority has received more than £1 million to cut class sizes. Schools are to receive eight extra teachers and 10 additional classrooms. Eleven schools in my area have received money for energy efficiency schemes. Two schools used the money to remove outside toilets, and it is a disgrace that those conditions had been allowed to persist for so long.
  Last week, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and I visited a school in my constituency where we saw a room full of computers, installed as part of the national grid for learning. I had seen the same thing in another school the previous week. When one considers the three summer literacy schemes in my constituency and the new money

  549
  that has been devoted to after-school activities, one begins to get a sense of the real enthusiasm and enjoyment that the Government's policy is re-introducing to schools.
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Helen Jones: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I cannot give way as time is limited.
  Our teachers and our children are valued. In this and in previous Budgets, we have allocated the money to underpin the high standards that we require. We will not write off the majority of our children as previous Governments did.
  We recognise that there is a long road ahead. I would like to see many more resources allocated to researching the effectiveness of different teaching methods. We could, for instance, examine the relative effectiveness of generalists and specialists in primary school. I would like to see proper research into how new technology will change teaching styles and approaches—because it certainly will. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider those issues in the future.
  We must also continue our policy of attracting the most highly qualified graduates to teaching so that it is the first career choice of our best students. We are beginning that process with the Green Paper, which will reward good classroom teaching—something that teachers continually called for when I was in the profession. I hope that that process will continue.
  Most important, this Budget and our previously announced spending plans have changed the focus on education so that it is seen not as a drain on resources but as a basic investment in the future. Education is a source of experience and emancipation for people. It is the source of their future well-being, and we must view the money that we allocate to education in that light. I hope that we shall continue to change our focus on education in the future; and I commend the Budget resolutions to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the next hon. Member, it may be helpful if I remind the House that, under our current arrangements, the clock is stopped if an intervention is taken. Hon. Members are thus not prejudiced and do not lose any speaking time if they take an intervention.
  3.47pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who is no longer in her place, referred to a school in her constituency that had agreed, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, to pay for an additional teacher. I think it is fair to put it on record that that agreement—which many of us regret—was supported by all parties, including the Labour party in Cambridge.
  In my 10 minutes, I do not intend to waste the time of the House by rehearsing the comments made by other hon. Members, either for or against the Budget. I come from a practical education background, and I wish to explore how the Budget will affect people on the ground. I have spent a fair amount of time in the past two days consulting the local education authority in North Yorkshire and schools
  550
  in my constituency to discover what the Budget means to them. The reality is that, from the director of education downwards and upwards, the Budget will have little, if any, effect on them.
  North Yorkshire has passported all £12.9 million into schools, as it did last year. It has seen a provisional increase in its tax rate of 9.6 per cent., which is a significant figure, on top of 14 per cent. last year. Despite that, every school in my constituency and throughout the LEA area will lose at least 0.75 per cent. of its budget. The Budget proposals may sound marvellous in the House and in some of the press releases, but they will make absolutely no difference to the vast majority of schools in North Yorkshire. I challenge Ministers to contradict that statement.
  As a result of the Budget, libraries, which are part of our education service in North Yorkshire—I know that that is not the case elsewhere—will face real cuts. It is no use saying that the odd library will have computers when most libraries are able to buy fewer and fewer books—another major resource that some people quite like—to lend. More important, libraries are having to cut staff—the very people who will be needed to teach people to use the computers to access the internet and the learning age initiative.
  I want to raise the major issue of a group of people who were not mentioned in the Budget, or by the Secretary of State or other hon. Members. They are the army of people who support our local authority and school services. They include special needs assistants, those who work in the music service and library and office staff. The single status agreement, which was made in 1997 under this Government, will cost the local authority in North Yorkshire £2.27 million. The net result is that the Tory administration in North Yorkshire has decided that it cannot afford that cost and it will therefore be paid by the very poorest people in our system—the care assistants in local authority homes and the teaching assistants in our schools, who will lose 24 per cent. of their pay as a result of the agreement.
  I ask the Financial Secretary, when she winds up the debate, to address that issue. How can a national agreement such as the single status agreement, which impacts on every local authority in Britain, be ignored in the Budget and the departmental totals when some of the most lowly paid staff in the country are having to pay for the agreement with their jobs?
  Another issue that has not been mentioned today is the further education sector. Baroness Kennedy called it the Cinderella service, and there was to be a revolution in FE. It is the engine room of lifelong learning, but did the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in his statement, or the Chancellor, in his Budget, announce a single extra penny for information and computer technology in FE? Is there not to be a learning revolution in our colleges? There is no money for the infrastructure, or to deal with the chronic debt that so many of our colleges have.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that, compared with the increase in the numbers of people going through further education that was achieved in the previous Parliament, this Government's claims and ambitions are pathetic?
  Mr. Willis: I am coming to your lot in a minute.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not coming to my lot in any way, shape or form.
  Mr. Willis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that unfortunate slip. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman has hinted at one of the issues for FE—the growth in the number of students. The Government are making available an extra £1.1 billion for FE and HE and most of that will be used to cope with the 700,000 extra students whom FE colleges are asked to deal with during this Parliament. The Budget and the Education Secretary's statement completely ignore the plight of FE staff and lecturers. Since incorporation, they have been utterly demoralised.
  There were 60,000 full-time FE lecturers in 1993, and 21,500 have either been made redundant or taken early voluntary retirement packages. We now have an army of agency staff working in our colleges. They do not have the same commitment to those colleges and to delivering their programme as do the full-time staff. Yet there is nothing in the statement to deal with the huge problem of demoralisation.
  The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) referred to the success of the previous Government. They were successful in productivity terms because they got rid of a third of the staff and increased the number of students by a third, but they also wrecked the FE system.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, of which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is a member, agreed with recent findings that there was no significant change in the quality of teaching as a result of those productivity gains. There was a real saving, and a real increase in the numbers being taught.
  Mr. Willis: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman and point him to the Further Education Funding Council inspections. The council's latest report makes it absolutely clear that the poorest-quality teaching in our colleges is by part-time staff. Why is that? The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. So highly valued were FE staff under the previous Government's regime that one in five full-time permanent FE staff now have no teaching qualifications, and 60 per cent. of the part-time agency staff—the bogus self-employed staff, as the Secretary of State once called them—have no qualifications at all. That is an absolute disgrace. The Secretary of State today had no answers, no proposals and no funding to deal with the under-qualification of our FE staff or to rebuild their morale by investing in them.
  Finally, Liberal Democrat Members make a plea that the pay and career structure in the FE sector should not continue to be ignored. If FE is to be the engine room for lifelong learning, we must recognise that people have to want to enter FE, just as they want to go into teaching, and they should feel that they have a career that is worthy, recognised and valued.
  3.57 pm
  Dr. George Turner: There is much to welcome in the detail of the Budget, but I am particularly pleased about the extra commitment being
  552
  made, and the earlier commitments being accentuated and continued, to education. We have heard much this afternoon to which I say, "Hear, hear" but which I will not repeat. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said much with which I entirely agree.
  I was delighted to hear about the better deal that the Budget delivers for the more than 20,000 pensioners in my constituency, for children and for business. I entirely endorse the modernisation theme and the Government's attempt to encourage and coerce people, throughout society, into making better use of new technology.
  At Budget time, we look more broadly at the direction that the Government are taking. Although I understand that the role of the Opposition is to whinge and to find details to complain about, we must occasionally stand back from the detail of the Budget.
  It was no accident that the Chancellor referred to measures that are being introduced over a period of at least three years. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made much of the fact that the Chancellor was in his statement discussing three years of Budget changes. The Chancellor should be congratulated on that, rather than condemned for it. Having spent many years in local government, I know that the greatest problems were caused by lack of certainty and the fact that only from year to year did one know what it would be possible to achieve within the budget.
  Mr. Grieve: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's view that projecting budgetary proposals over three years may have a great deal to commend it. Is it not therefore incumbent on the Chancellor clearly to spell out in his statement and accompanying documentation the year-by-year impact on total tax over the same period?
  Dr. Turner: As one who spends no more than the average amount of time on these issues, I must say that I am much less confused than some Opposition Members tell us that they are. I heard the confirmation of previous announcements. I knew that it was confirmation because I had heard the earlier announcements. I heard the Chancellor refer to confirmation of some of the detail, and have seen it in the documentation.
  The Chancellor and the Government are displaying a welcome element of vision. They are saying, "We intend to introduce reform". They are acknowledging that they cannot reform in one Budget but that telling people where they will be in a year or two's time is helpful, and are saying, "We do not want to be pulling rabbits out of the hat on Budget day." That is a helpful development in the running of our nation's finances.
  The reforms that we are introducing are necessary. We inherited an unacceptable situation. When Opposition Members refer to some golden inheritance, they entirely ignore the reality of the problems that the nation faced when this Government were elected. It was necessary to change the direction of the ship of state, and when one is changing direction, one faces problems and difficulties. The Government have none the less been right to do as they have. It would not have been right to continue with a business taxation system that was not in the best interests of the future of business—despite the difficulties that that change caused, particularly in the pensions industry. I congratulate the Government on the way in

  553
  which they have withstood the flak over such changes. It was essential in the long-term interests of business that we reformed the taxation system under which it operated.
  As a constituency Member of Parliament, I should like to raise with the Government two points on more detailed issues. I know that the Chancellor has recognised that the impact on the rural environment, from which most of my constituents come, of changes in the fuel escalator is dramatically different from that on more urban environments. That has been accepted by the Government, and was acknowledged in last year's Budget by the introduction of special measures to encourage better provision of rural transport, which was very welcome.
  As I have told the House before, however, a problem remains for many of my constituents, who count the number of buses by the week rather than by the hour. One cannot encourage better use of public transport that does not exist. I therefore welcome the extra money in the Budget, to add to last year's, to address those issues, but suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that there is a limit to the public money that can be used to improve public transport without being wasteful. The Government must acknowledge that, in their effort to reduce car emissions, more stick than carrot is being applied in rural areas.
  I ask the Government to consider a related issue which ought to be addressed. My constituents find that 6p or 7p a litre is being imposed on prices at rural petrol stations, over and above the prices paid more routinely in London, for example. Given yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the Government's commitment to looking at competition, we ought to be asking at least national chains, such as supermarkets, how they can justify adding a rural tax to petrol. I hope that the Government will consider at least taking that issue on board. Given that high petrol prices have much to do with national policy and protection of the environment, will the Government consider obtaining voluntary agreements from supermarkets and others on fairer prices for rural service users?
  Mr. Grieve: Might not the reason for higher rural prices be the cost of transporting petrol to such petrol stations?
  Dr. Turner: That may be the answer, although the research that I have seen suggests that it is not. I suspect that it often costs less, depending on where the fuel is imported from. Fuel can be imported in King's Lynn in my constituency. We must look at prices of other products. I do not find the same variation in the prices of bread, sugar and other commodities in Tesco. The Government could look into that. As we perhaps head towards further increases in the price of petrol, the Government ought to consider whether the stick—however necessary that might be to protect the environment—should be accompanied by a carrot, by other initiatives to help those who live in my constituency and those like it.
  I know that, like me, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) takes a personal interest our efforts to ensure that pupils and teachers make better
  554
  use of information technology. My concern is the sheer scale of the problem—although perhaps I should say "challenge" rather than "problem". I know that my hon. Friend is a "can do" member of the Government, and will see that we must address the issue as a challenge—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: The Budget has all the characteristics of cheap fiction: it contains assault, deception and betrayal.
  There is no question but that the assault is on rural Britain. The increase in petrol duty and the 11.6 per cent. increase in diesel prices will be a blow to domestic car users and the haulage industry, which is a substantial employer in my constituency.
  The deception is to suggest that there is substantial extra spending in the Budget on public services. Very little extra spending on public services is detailed in the Red Book: there is some recycling of money, and there are some reannouncements, but little extra money, and I will come to that later.
  The betrayal is of married people and home owners. I make no bones about the fact that I am a substantial loser as a result of this Budget. Because my wife and I are without children, have a mortgage and both have a car, we will probably be about £600 a year down. For myself, I do not mind a great deal, but that burden will also apply to a great number of my constituents.
  I feel particularly for elderly and disabled essential car users in my constituency. People in rural Britain must often travel many miles to social services, schools and shops. It is cold comfort for elderly or disabled car users to be told that they should be pleased because other people will get money at some time in the future because they have children, or that people who are earning substantial wages will get the benefit of some future cut in taxation. There has been a substantial betrayal of disabled and elderly car users.
  Business has been mentioned several times in the debate by Labour Members with—I choose my words carefully and generously—varying degrees of business experience. When the Chancellor speaks of businesses with a declared profit of less than £50,000 taking real risks, he is speaking about the very narrow band to which he is giving additional support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said, many businesses are typically risk averse, not risk takers.
  When the Government talk about business, they sound like a child with a new toy. They are unaware of businesses' virtues or vices. Those of us who have been in business regard the Budget, in the context of all the other burdens that have been imposed on business since the Labour party came into office, with a great deal more scepticism.
  I shall address my main remarks, however, to the speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which in many ways was a good speech. He made some valid points. It is sad that we never hear such generosity from those on the Labour Back Benches. They will never acknowledge that the 18 years of Tory rule delivered some benefits. When will they grow up and acknowledge that all Governments do some good things and some bad things, that all Governments have good policies and bad policies?

  555
  I am the first to acknowledge that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said some sensible things in his speech. He was less sensible when he was parroting Blairite soundbites. The Secretary of State never sounds good when he tries to imitate the Prime Minister, but then the Prime Minister does not sound terribly good when he tries to imitate himself. When the Secretary of State speaks his own mind and uses his own words, he is far more impressive. I draw attention to three things that he mentioned in respect of information technology and schools.
  I ought to declare an interest, as I am still a non-executive director of an IT company, so by design my comments will be very general. The first point is the confusion between information and knowledge. There is a worry that, because people have finally acknowledged that the ways in which we gain, exchange and use information are expanding so rapidly, they assume that information is automatically translated into greater understanding and wisdom. However, information and wisdom are not the same thing. It may be possible to be wiser with fewer facts, and less wise with more facts.
  As G. K. Chesterton suggested through one of his characters, Basil Grant,
  "Are you still so sunk in superstitions, so clinging to dim and prehistoric altars, that you believe in facts? Do you not trust an immediate impression? … this world may be founded on facts, its business is run on … impressions and atmospheres",
  as well as understanding and experience, of course. We must not run away with the idea that simply providing children and adults with more information will necessarily make them wiser, happier or more employable.
  The second point is that the role of the teacher is changing radically. Teachers will need to be better prepared to deal with the new challenges facing them, and the Government have acknowledged that in some of the work that they have done since the election. It is not enough to provide technology and train teachers; the Government must go one step further and work with teachers to apply that to the curriculum and blend it with existing good practice. Information technology is not just a bolt-on to what we do already; it is intrinsic to the teaching and learning process.
  That brings me to my third point. The relationship between the teacher and the taught is changing. It is unfortunate that the debate on class sizes has taken place outside that context. By focusing on class sizes, the Government have reinforced the out-of-date notion of teaching as essentially didactic—a traditional pedagogy, rather than self-paced learning or any of the developments about which the Secretary of State spoke. The Government will have to update their rather primitive views of class sizes to make them consistent with what they are saying about the changing world of information, understanding, teaching and the relationship between the teacher and the taught.
  All that raises the question of where people will be taught. I refer hon. Members to the McKinsey report on IT and education, produced last year, which is arguably the definitive study of IT in schools. It raised exactly those points in its conclusions. Specifically, it identified the need to blend an educational philosophy— a view of teaching—with the use of information systems. Too often in schools and colleges, the blend is not successful.
  The money allocated in the Budget is insufficient to deal with the current challenges in education. There is a little new money. The hon. Member for Bristol, West
  556
  (Valerie Davey) waxed lyrical about books. What she said was rather sweet, but, if the £2,000 were translated into computers, it would mean one computer per school. One extra computer per school would be virtually meaningless. The extra money is valuable, but it is not the be-all and end-all. When there is a crisis in the number of teachers, when schools are unable to employ experienced head teachers and department heads because of a lack of funds, it is an insult to tell them that, instead, they will be able to buy some new poetry books.
  That is even more of an insult in the context of the widespread closure of public libraries. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bristol, West will share my concern, although I have not heard her express it in the Chamber. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of those closures, which are taking place mainly, but not exclusively, in Labour local authorities. Unlike the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I do not blame the local authorities for that. I know that they have been obliged to channel money away from those essential services, because of Labour cuts in the funding of local government.
  This Government are probably more hostile to local government than any other Government in recent memory. The settlements that rural local authorities have enjoyed over the past two years—[Interruption.] Labour Members laugh. Perhaps they could tell me why Labour local authorities are closing libraries, why they do not consider libraries an important priority, and how they marry that with their enthusiasm for books and literacy, and the Prime Minister's much-vaunted visits to schools? Perhaps they have not checked the record, but I have read every speech that the Prime Minister made when he was a Back Bencher, and I do not think that he mentioned education even once.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: It is an honour to be called to speak in the Budget debate. I have listened carefully to the speeches in the Chamber over the past three days. The contributions that I have not heard, I have read in Hansard. Many of the speeches show great knowledge and economic understanding. Many have been sharp and politically incisive. Occasionally, a speech has been both.
  I have no doubt that my speech will be neither. My adversaries will say that I am no great economist, and my friends, I hope, may say that, by nature at least, I am no politician. I hope that the House will understand if my remarks depart somewhat from the consensus of the debate.
  The consensus seems to be that the question that arises from the Budget concerns the level of taxation. Has it risen or has it declined? What was promised and what was delivered? The Leader of the Opposition—for the sake of clarity, let me say that I am referring to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), not the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—stated that it was no good the Chancellor claiming that taxes were not rising. He said that, the previous week, the Prime Minister had finally let the cat out of the bag. He went on to misquote the Prime Minister selectively, saying that that was a betrayal from a man who had said at the general election that there would be no tax increases at all.

  557
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who may well be a better economist than the Leader of the Opposition, but is only half the politician, made the cardinal mistake of quoting the Prime Minister correctly, saying that Labour had
  "No plans to increase tax at all."—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 251.]
  The shadow Trade and Industry spokes-Martian returned to the Opposition's theme yesterday. He said:
  "we know their true priority—it is tax, tax, tax."—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 391.]
  Are the British people really concerned about whether the fiscal burden is rising or falling and, if so, whether in cash terms, in real terms or as a proportion of gross domestic product? I make no claim to be a great economist, but even I understand that, when the Office for National Statistics tells me that the tax and prices index has risen by 4.9 per cent.—a good deal more than inflation—the next figure that I need to look at is in the average earnings index for the same period. When that shows a rise of 8.2 per cent., my poor politician's brain tells me that the people of Britain will not be following Mr. Hague and Mr. Maude to the barricades.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know how he should address other Members of the House.
  Mr. Gardiner: I thank you for that correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Economics is the scientific study of the allocation of scarce resources, but Budgets are not simply about allocation; they are about ensuring that that allocation achieves specific policy objectives. In other words, people do not mind paying money to the Government as long as they think that it is spent wisely on projects of which they approve. When we spend money in a shop, we want to feel that we have obtained good value for it. When the British people spend money on taxes, they want to feel that they are getting good value for their money as well.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gardiner: No, I will not.
  If the Leader of the Opposition is proved right and there has been a betrayal of the people of this country, that betrayal can have happened only if the Government have failed to deliver the new politics that the people of the country elected them to deliver. That new politics has been characterised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as the third way. If we are truly to examine the merits of the Budget, we should do so against the values and objectives of the third way.
  What are those values and objectives and what does the Budget do that relates to them? The values are human dignity, opportunity, responsibility and community. Human dignity is the equal worth of all our citizens, irrespective of their background, their religion, the colour of their skin, their age or their disability.
  We must assess the Budget on what it has done for pensioners. It has provided a £3 billion package to give people dignity in old age and the £100 winter allowance,
  558
  which increases the previous payment fivefold; the minimum income guarantee of £78 a week, and £121 a week for couples; and the linking of that guarantee to earnings, which makes average pensioner households £240 a year better off.
  Another of those values is opportunity, which means the ability to shape one's own life free from either the overbearing interference of the state or the stifling bonds of poverty and inequality. Here we must assess the Budget on two distinct fronts. For children and the poorest in our society, the Budget has brought real relief. It has eliminated the poverty traps, which produced the obscenity of people losing money when they took up a job, through marginal rates of more than 100 per cent. The new national insurance contributions structure will raise the starting threshold from £64 to £87 a week and 900,000 people on low pay will be relieved of NIC payments altogether.
  Child benefit rises mean just that—children will benefit. That measure, taken with the new children's tax credit and the working families tax credit, means that families will receive the financial help that they need at the time they need it—when they have to meet the expense of bringing up children. As a result of the Budget, no family with children will pay any income tax until it is earning more than £235 a week.
  I said that the Budget should be judged on two fronts against the value of opportunity. Opportunity is not only freedom from poverty; it is freedom for people to shape their lives without excessive interference from the state. I admit that my party's record in that area is less than perfect. Before being elected to the House, I ran an international business for 10 years, and I will judge the Budget by its encouragement for small and medium-sized enterprises. The 10p rate of corporation tax for small companies is a real boost and, combined with the 20 and 30 per cent. rates for small and larger corporations, amounts to the best fiscal climate for business anywhere in the industrialised world.
  However, most business decisions are not governed solely by the fiscal system. They are front-loaded, not end-conditioned. That is why the incentives for research and development through tax credits and the £100 million to upgrade our university laboratories are part of the Budget's delivery of opportunity to business. The Government could do more at the front end. Although I welcome the extension of 40 per cent. write-offs in the coming year, I must add that making a real difference to business investment will depend, in my view, on the Treasury considering capital allowances of up to 100 per cent.
  Finally, in this respect, I cannot help but record my disappointment that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not adopt a tonnage-based tax for British shipping. In Holland, such measures have boosted employment in the industry by 23 per cent. and boosted GDP by 19 per cent. Such measures would provide a wonderful boost for United Kingdom jobs and prosperity, particularly in the north-east and in other traditional shipping areas, and would maintain the pre-eminence of maritime London. I look forward to Lord Alexander's report and trust that it will give the Chancellor the necessary background to introduce a tonnage tax next year.
  Responsibility is our third value of the third way. It means recognition that the benefits that society brings come at a price. That price is our obligation to care for

  559
  ourselves if we can, and to care for others where we can. Nowhere is that better illustrated in the Budget than in the measures to reward work. The 10p rate of tax and the new 22p basic rate do so proportionately more for the low-paid. Our new deal has made it clear to the young unemployed that there is a responsibility on them to get work. That expectation will be backed up by practical help and advice through the gateway.
  I am delighted that the Budget is extending provision for the over-50s. Those people have tremendous skills and experience to offer, and the £60 a week employment credit will help them to assume control over their own lives once again. The working families tax credit, guaranteeing a minimum income of £200 a week, is another encouragement to people to take responsibility for their lives and reap the financial benefits.
  Responsibility, though, works in two directions, and society must also behave responsibly towards the future. There has been no greater cant in this Chamber over the past few days than the Opposition's synthetic anger about the fuel escalator, which is required to meet our Kyoto emissions targets. Responsibility is about building a safe environment for the future and for our children and investing in our children through books and computers to give them the skills and the wisdom to use that environment wisely when they assume responsibility for it. The £295 million for capital programmes to replace crumbling portakabins, classrooms and outside toilets, the extra £100 million for information technology in schools and the extra £2,000 to every school for books are the best expression of that responsibility.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gardiner: No, I will not.
  The final value by which we should judge the Budget is that of community. How does the Budget strengthen our sense that we depend, quite properly, on one another and that we are not individuals pitted against one another in the colosseum of the economic market. We are co-contributors to building a society in whose prosperity we all share.
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies response to the Budget shows that every decile of the population gains from the Budget, but, critically, the richest decile benefits least and the poorest deciles benefit most. That means that the Budget has begun to reverse the widening gap between the rich and poor. The Rowntree Foundation report on inequality showed that that gap was growing faster in this country than in any other country during the 18 years of Conservative rule. The £430 million extra put into our health service accident and emergency departments, the extra £170 million to combat crime and the doubling of child support since May 1997 are all part of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not quite have won his race against time.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I must tell the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) that there is nothing synthetic about the anger felt by Conservative Members on behalf of their constituents. My constituents are well aware of the Government's propaganda, although some hon. Members may not have realised that the
  560
  Government have been found out, as recently as this lunchtime. I am not used to hearing the BBC attacking the Government for their duplicity, but as I listened to "The World at One" today as I returned to the House to take part in the debate, I realised that the BBC had done this country a signal service.
  The BBC had been investigating what was being provided as a commentary on the Budget; apparently, it has been written by civil servants. That commentary was described as deliberately misleading. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) had been put up by the Government to try to defend the indefensible on "The World at One" today. She is Member for whom I have great respect; she is well known in the House for having come from a serious position in financial matters with, I think, the Bank of England. Nevertheless, she found it difficult to deny the suggestion by the BBC journalist that misleading information had been provided by the Government on the internet. It was apparent from this lengthy interview that the BBC recognised the position. Not only was all the bad news being edited out; not only were all the figures on the Government's website misleading; there was a whole page of Labour party political propaganda which had no relevance to the Budget.
  I may be the first to break the news of that particular discovery, but I have no doubt that considerable concern will be expressed during the remainder of our debate on the Budget—and, perhaps, in points of order next week—about the scandalous misuse of taxpayers' money that has been involved in the Government's presentation of misleading propaganda. Even worse, the Government got civil servants to write the propaganda for them, pretending that it was in some way a factual analysis of the Budget.
  As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, this Budget is, in fact, nothing better than a scandalous conjuring trick. Misinformation has been deliberately given. As recently as yesterday, at Question Time, the Prime Minister deliberately failed to respond to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who repeatedly pointed out that, over the three Budgets delivered by the present Government, there had been a huge increase in the tax burden. On each occasion, the Prime Minister deliberately failed to answer the question: he tried to talk only about this Budget.
  We are becoming aware of one aspect of even this Budget, as it unravels. It involves a further tax hike. In his attempt at a music hall act—his attempt to turn Question Time into a pantomime, which he does so often—the Prime Minister did not make any effort to answer my right hon. Friend's real question, which concerned the tax hike that had taken place in the three Budgets added together.
  In fact, that came as no surprise. When the Prime Minister appears on Wednesday afternoons—he is now prepared to face questioning only once a week, rather than twice a week as before—he never answers a question. He reminds me of the late Lord Olivier in his great performance as Archie Rice in "The Entertainer", portraying a down-at-heel, sad, failing music hall artiste. That is how the British people will see our current Prime Minister. He never answers a question, he betrays parliamentary democracy, and he has no interest in telling the British people the truth.

  561
  Some in the business world, however, have already seen through the Budget. Ian Peters, deputy director of the British Chambers of Commerce—quoted in The Times yesterday—says:
  "The sting in the tail may be that the Bank"—
  the Bank of England, that is—
  "may have less room to reduce interest rates than we would have wished."
  Ruth Lea, head of policy at the Institute of Directors and one of our most informed economic commentators, was quoted in the same edition of The Times as saying:
  "We wanted to see looser monetary policy and tighter fiscal policy and it looks as though we're getting the opposite."
  My main concern, however, lies with small business. My constituency contains many thriving small and medium-sized businesses, and I am one of the vice-chairmen of the Small Business Bureau. All the small business organisations have seen through the Budget. Brian Prime, chairman of the policy unit of another small business organisation, the Federation of Small Businesses, estimates that the increased contribution rates for class 4 national insurance from 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. will hurt about 500,000—half a million—self-employed people. He says:
  "The real entrepreneurs and risk takers—the sole traders—will miss out on the corporation tax changes, but will be hit by increases to national insurance contribution."
  Ian Hanford, chairman of the federation, says that the Budget
  "completely missed the target where the majority of small firms were concerned."
  The gloss has already come off this Budget, and the truth behind the Chancellor's attempted conjuring trick has emerged.
  Quoted in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, Patrick Stephens, a partner in Ernst and Young, said that the Budget was
  "not going to make a difference where people are looking at starting a business or not."
  We realise that Labour Members have little understanding of small business. The hon. Member for Brent, North said that he used to run an international business, but he is a rare figure on the Government Benches. Most Labour Members have never had to work in a business.
  Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not. Time is limited.
  Before coming to the House, most Labour Members have never had to worry about the bottom line. Hardly any have had to run a work force, or look at a balance sheet. Most have come from the public sector. A number of other sectors have been hard hit. I used to work in the insurance and financial services industry, and I should have thought that a Government who claim to be caring would recognise that it is a good idea for people to take out insurance. Not a bit of it. Not for the first time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards insurance as a cash cow to be milked whenever he wishes, so that he can balance the books in a particular Budget. This year,
  562
  he has hit insurance premium tax; in the past, he has regarded travel, holiday and tourism businesses as a cash cow, and has raised airport passenger duty.
  Mark Boleat, director-general of the Association of British Insurers, says:
  "The increase in insurance premium tax is regretted. It will result in higher premiums and could further encourage some people not to insure. It will hit people on the lowest incomes hardest and those starting up new businesses."
  So much for this caring, family-friendly Budget. This Budget makes it more difficult for people to take out insurance. It means that more people will not take out insurance, and will not protect their families, homes and businesses.
  The Budget has a nice, easy, soft target. The increase in insurance premium tax is rather like the Chancellor's earlier raids on pension funds. This is a soft target, and a stealth tax. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, this is a pick-pocket Chancellor, who proves time after time that he believes in stealth taxes.
  Even some Labour Back Benchers have referred this afternoon to the difficulties in controlling smuggling to which the Budget will lead. Certainly, the Budget has done nothing to reduce smuggling; in fact, the incidence of smuggling will increase. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) referred to the "white van trade"—a black economy in white vans. That is the black and white truth of this Labour Government.
  The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about the implication of his own Chancellor's Budget for small breweries. There is one in my constituency—the Hog's Back, an excellent real ale brewery whose product I take great pleasure in sampling whenever I am in my constituency. Such small breweries will certainly be hit, as will the entire brewing industry. I declare my interest as joint treasurer of the parliamentary beer club. I am very concerned on behalf of those who buy and enjoy beer. I want them to enjoy British beer lawfully rather than smuggled beer, and the same applies to wine and spirits.
  Labour Members have raised concerns about shipping and hauliers. My constituency contains several hauliers' firms, most of which cannot afford to take their businesses abroad. Earlier, a Labour Member said that he feared that some hauliers would indeed take their business abroad. The small hauliers whom I represent—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I welcome the Government's broad strategic approach, which is consistent with their desire to create a society that is both enterprising and fair.
  I want to concentrate on two issues. I want to discuss what the Budget does for pensioners, and its ground-breaking efforts to promote environmental objectives through the tax system. I shall make particular reference to the climate change levy, which represents a radical departure.
  My constituency contains more pensioners than any other Welsh constituency, and is among the top 20 in the United Kingdom in that regard. The announcement of a substantial increase in the winter fuel payment to

  563
  £100 has met with universal acclaim. It is indeed a generous measure. Pensioners may look forward to a warmer winter, thanks to that increase.
  The Budget has improved the position of the poorest pensioners with the introduction of a minimum guarantee on tax, and the minimum income guarantee, which introduces an above-inflation increase. A commitment has also been made to link the minimum income guarantee to earnings. Those measures are very welcome.
  The Chancellor has agreed to extend the new deal to the over-50s. I agree with Age Concern that the measure is
  "a welcome recognition of the particular problems experienced by many in this age group".
  However, I concur with many groups involved with older people that it is important to tackle age discrimination and make job opportunities available to older people. Older people are an increasingly powerful force in society. They represent an increasing percentage of the population; it is highly significant that the Budget acknowledges that.
  More needs to be done to tackle the plight of pensioners in poverty. I should have liked the Government to say more about the need to tackle fuel poverty. There should be a cross-departmental integrated strategy to deal with the scandal of fuel poverty. According to objective research, no fewer than 8 million households in the United Kingdom cannot afford to heat their homes properly. Perhaps we may look forward to future announcements in that regard, because something needs to be done.
  The climate change levy on the business use of energy is a radical measure. It conforms with the recommendations of the Marshall report on using economic instruments to promote environmental protection. It shifts the burden from economic goods, such as jobs, to environmental bads—pollution, waste and inefficient use of energy. Significantly, the proposal is revenue-neutral in so far as it has been offset by savings in employers' national insurance contributions.
  I agree with the Chancellor that this important measure will improve energy efficiency. It will enable the United Kingdom to meet its crucial international commitments in combating climate change and it will encourage employment opportunities, especially in sectors dealing with the new environmental technologies. Crucially, it will do so without affecting UK firms' competitiveness. I congratulate the Chancellor on having squared that circle, and on having achieved a balance between the need to maintain economic competitiveness and the need to take significant strides towards environmental sustainability.
  I welcome the reform of company car taxation, the reduction in vehicle excise duty for small cars and the increase in landfill tax to promote sustainable waste management. Money raised by the landfill tax is of special advantage to many people in my constituency. One scheme, in Old Colwyn, is known as the "Fairy Glen". Money from the landfill tax has been used to improve the environment in that locality, by improving amenities such as footpaths; that work is to be welcomed. I congratulate the people involved in that scheme.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I will not because, with respect, I am coming to the end of my speech.
  564
  The Budget is to be welcomed. It provides a substantial boost to enterprise and fairness; I welcome it wholeheartedly.
  4.45 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that I did not manage to hear the two opening speakers in today's debate. As they are not present to hear me, I suppose that honour is in some ways satisfied, but I apologise to the House.
  Naturally, I heard the Chancellor make his Budget address. He has been very fortunate. He inherited an inflation rate on target, in a world where inflationary pressures were subsiding fast. He had the sense to continue, for his first two years, with sound Conservative spending policies and reap the benefit. But, behind the screen of election promises not to raise personal taxation, he has, since 1997, contrived systematically to increase a battery of other taxes and imposed, in the process, heavy extra costs on industry and commerce, in no way offset by the decrease in corporation tax.
  The Prime Minister was wrong to say, in the House yesterday, that this was a tax-cutting Government, not a tax-raising Government. The way in which the Government have chosen to raise the extra money has reduced the ability of industry and commerce to invest and create jobs. What is worse, by abolishing dividend tax credits for pension funds they have diminished savings and future pensions.
  The Chancellor has with some ruthlessness—and, as my right hon. and hon. Friends like to say, with stealth—built up a very tidy balance, a part of which he is giving back in this Budget. To give credit where it is due, he gave it back last Tuesday with such a commanding flourish that, at the time, hardly anyone appeared to notice that they were being treated with their own money—and with only a part of it at that, and a good part of that part filched from their future pensions.
  Despite the Chancellor's prudence in hanging on to so much of that money, the growth forecasts on which his Budget is based look very optimistic. He expects lower growth in the coming year, but his figure is higher than most informed commentators expect and he predicts a rapid bounce back to trend in the following year.
  With Asia in recession, Japan stuck fast, Europe struggling and the world kept going by a dazzling performance in the United States—which surely cannot be sustained at that level indefinitely—it is difficult to see how the United Kingdom can be expected to be so buoyant while the pound is so high and we are so dependent upon exports. I hope that the Chancellor is right, but the Budget speech would have been a good place to justify his confidence, as it is essential to his whole Budget strategy. Perhaps one of the Ministers winding up today or on Monday will do so before the Budget debates end.
  It is very difficult to see what the Chancellor has actually done in the Budget, especially from his speech. He constantly uses figures for one year, two years or three years; cumulative figures or figures for the period of the whole Parliament; last year's tax changes are sometimes included and sometimes not; and sometimes next year's changes are included. It depends on what point the Chancellor is trying to make. The aim is presentation, not

  565
  clarification. That is not setting the Budget in context, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) suggested. It is not a contribution to open government and serious debate. It is too often a public relations exercise in obfuscation and spin.
  It is possible to get near the truth from public documents, but that takes time. No doubt by the time the objective position is laid bare, the Budget debate will be over, the headlines will have been written, and public attention will have moved on to other matters. However, I expect that the minds of more people than the Chancellor cares to admit will return to those headlines when they look with disappointment at the various stoppages that continue to be made in their pay cheques. I also suspect that a good many pensioners who caught the words "increased in line with earnings" will be a little downcast when they find that their pension increase continues to be in line with inflation.
  Similarly, it is difficult to weigh up the merits and the real effects of the multitude of tax changes that the Chancellor has proposed. Despite the green Budget discussions and the leaks—which would have obliged Hugh Dalton to resign 50 times over—most of the changes have not been properly weighed and discussed. Now that the Chancellor has nailed them to his mast, they will no doubt eventually arrive on the statute book, whatever their merits. It would be good to hear from the Minister in her winding-up speech that, if effective argument is deployed against any of the proposals, the Government will not feel unmanned by dropping or changing the measure in question.
  I welcome the ending of MIRAS—although not all my hon. Friends do. It has served its Conservative purpose most triumphantly by creating a property-owning democracy. It had been much reduced by Conservative Chancellors in the interests of simplicity and neutrality in the tax system, and it is time that it went.
  Unlike even more of my hon. Friends, I also welcome the end of the married couples allowance. It did absolutely nothing to sustain marriage. It is absurd to argue that a husband or wife are kept out of the divorce court and away from the warm embrace of the Child Support Agency, or were originally propelled into church, by the lure of a £200 tax advantage. One cannot buy a sound marriage in that way, and it demeans such marriages to pretend that one can. Indeed, if it is possible to bribe a family unit to stay together—which it is not—child tax credits might be more effective. Therefore, I guardedly welcome their appearance in the Budget, although it seems that they are being introduced with a built-in anomaly in the taper, which means that, unlike child benefit, they will disadvantage the many families in which the wife chooses to stay at home and look after the children.
  Too many of the other changes look ike window dressing. There will be a 10p tax band: how much better if the threshold had been raised and more people had been taken out of tax altogether. No doubt the scheme for tax-free purchase of shares by employees is well-intended, but it is not a good idea for people to put much of their savings in the company on which their livelihood depends. It would have been much better if the Chancellor had left PEPs alone and had sought to devise workplace schemes to promote them.
  566
  I do not have the time to mention other changes, but I fear that it will be accountants who will prosper from many of them, while management will find them a time-consuming distraction, and the intended benefits will not materialise.
  The Chancellor has been less than frank with this Budget. There was no need for him to be disingenuous, as in many respects he had a good story to tell of the performance of the United Kingdom economy in a troubled world. He has been busily increasing taxes rather than reducing them, and the electors will find that out. Where he has reduced taxes, he has made a little seem to go a long way. The reductions are spread far more thinly than he has persuaded people to expect, and they will not be pleased. Where he has made reductions and given incentives, he has often made the system more complex and time consuming—especially for business and the Revenue—than is justified by any likely benefit.
  The Budget is a strange mixture of new Labour spin on the macro side and old Labour intervention and manipulation on the micro side. I do not think that it will wear well.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have found the debate fascinating, especially the speech by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who started by making some sensible points and then disappeared into a peroration designed to beat the clock, and was unwilling to participate in a debate. However, he made a compelling point. He said that those who pay taxes want to know, above all, that the money will be spent wisely. It was noteworthy that he did not say that one of the aims of prudent taxation is to so engineer the matter, if it is humanly possible, as to enable wealth creation to continue, so that funds are made available for the better provision of money to the Government in subsequent years. The Government consistently fail on that. Indeed, a succession of Governments have shown themselves unable to deal with the issue.
  One of the problems that faces a Labour Government is that they cannot get away from the belief that those people who may have money are not justified in having it and that the Government can make better use of it. All the evidence suggests that those who have money are the best redistributors of wealth, because they make use of it to better their fellow men by investing it in business—their own or other people's.
  What are we to make of what the Government have done? I shall take just one example, because I want to have time to move to another topic. We are told that stamp duty will be raising £340 million per annum by 2001. It is an easy tax, but it is a straightforward capital tax. It started under previous Governments as a modest charge on the conveyancing of property and leases, but it is rapidly being transformed by the Chancellor into a substantial fiscal instrument.
  Those who carry out business will suffer the most. As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) rightly said earlier, those who have the most need of houses as capital assets are those who conduct small business. It is a particular disaster that they will suffer the most when they are unable to use such assets easily as collateral, by which they run their businesses. If ever one wanted an example of a form of

  567
  taxation that was easy and tempting to the Chancellor, but bad and nefarious in its effects, raising stamp duty as he has done fits the bill. When I see such policies, I start to view with considerable suspicion the entirety of what the Chancellor had to say.
  In one respect, I awaited the Budget with some excitement. I am a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit and I am mindful of the fact that fiscal instruments are one method by which we may achieve changes in people's behaviour to promote environmental goods and prevent what are commonly called environmental bads. However. one has to be careful. If we start inhibiting wealth creation, we have to ask seriously whether we are getting the balance right and succeeding in securing environmental benefit rather than simply putting an extra burden on those who are being taxed. The proposals in the Budget are, I suppose, intended to put the environment at the heart of government, as the Government promised, but the results are exceptionally disappointing.
  I commend the Government on the climate change levy. It is a difficult matter, but if the Government get it right—we shall have to wait and see whether they do—they will have taken an important step towards promoting the efficient use of energy in industry and preventing wastefulness. I am happy to welcome that and to congratulate the Government on introducing it. However—I hope that hon. Members will excuse my cynicism—I see that the Government have said that the measure will be fiscally neutral and that there will be no extra burden on benefits by the cutting of national insurance charges. A 5 per cent. cut has been suggested. I am not in a position to judge whether that will be sufficient to balance out the impact of the levy, but the measure had better be fiscally neutral, because otherwise business will see it as a betrayal. Subject to that caveat, I am happy to welcome the measure.
  The picture is far less happy on the other instruments that are designed to achieve environmental improvements. Let us consider the levy on fuel. There is absolutely no evidence that raising fuel taxation is having any impact on diminishing motor car use. The reasons are simple. Motor cars are ubiquitous, they are essential in modern society and for millions of people there are no reasonable alternatives to their use. The point has been made about rural areas, but the same applies in many urban settings.
  Viewed as a separate item, the decision to raise taxes on petrol appears to be simply a device for raising money. I do not believe that it will create any of the environmental good that the Government say they desire. We are told that it will be balanced by a reform of vehicle excise duty, but it does not require much intelligence to see that if raising petrol taxes has no impact on motor car use, reducing vehicle excise duty as a compensation is nonsense. The truth of the matter is that unless one is using one's car on a limited basis, a reduction in vehicle excise duty will come nowhere near removing the extra burden that the fuel escalator will place on individuals. There is no point in putting escalators in place and encouraging people to climb higher and higher in their transport costs if there are no proven environmental benefits in doing so. Only when the Minister can persuade me that there are will I be willing to consider that measure, but there is no evidence that it works, and on that basis it is seriously flawed.
  568
  Similarly, I have some anxieties about the landfill tax. It is not that I disagree with the principle of trying to reduce landfill—heaven knows, landfill takes up a major part of the acreage of my constituency and anything to reduce it would be welcome. However, the evidence from my constituency is that fly tipping is increasing. I also find it difficult to see that landfill is in less demand. The reason for that is that the Government do not have a strategy for waste disposal. It is all very well to raise the landfill tax to discourage people from landfilling, but landfilling remains the easiest way of disposing of waste. Until the Government produce concrete suggestions and say whether they support the growth of waste incineration on a grand scale, for example, increasing tax does nothing except raise money to go into the Chancellor's pocket. That brings me to my final conclusions on the matter.
  The Budget is an ingenious piece of money raising. All the decoration that is placed upon it—the promises that it will produce all kinds of benefit—does not convince me otherwise. In reality, it is a tax-raising Budget and it is a great pity that the Chancellor has failed to be frank with the House and the nation about its underlying intention. The best I can say about the Budget, looking at its environmental aspects which I had hoped to welcome, is that it is a real beta double minus Budget. As such, the Government should go away and think again. If they wish to impose environmental taxes they must produce a total package instead of nit-picking, which serves only to conceal tax raising by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: Having listened to the Budget debate this afternoon, it is a pleasure to contribute to one of the most important debates of the year. It provides an opportunity to discuss matters about which our constituents care deeply.
  Let me start with inheritance—the Government's inheritance from the previous Administration, which was a golden legacy in terms of the economic management of the country. In 1992 the economy emerged from recession. It grew consistently year on year and when the present Government took office, they inherited a growing economy, falling unemployment, stable inflation and a situation that most Governments since the war would have considered well blessed.
  As a result, our economic outlook and ability to withstand shocks are far better today than 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, before the Thatcher Government. The previous Government took many tough decisions that were not popular but were for the national benefit. That is reflected in the fact that we are now the world's fifth largest economy.
  From the moment they came to office, the Government started raising taxation: an extra £40.7 billion in this Parliament. One of the major areas of increase was in advance corporation tax and dividend tax credit, hitting pension funds. One of the previous Government's greatest achievements was the development of private pensions and private responsibility. At the end of that Government, there were more private sector pension funds here than in all the other European countries put together; but one of the first acts of the Labour Government was an act of political vandalism, taxing many of those funds and taking £5 billion a year out of them.
  The changes in dividend tax credit have hit many pensioners. I have had letters from pensioners, many of them too poor to pay tax, not believing that the

  569
  Government, as a deliberate policy, had changed the tax system so that their income was cut. I am afraid, as the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) said in an interesting speech, that the Government have not addressed that problem, and that many thousands of poorer pensioners are struggling because of the changes to the tax system.
  We have heard about the Government's stealth tax. This year, an extra £7.2 billion will be raised in taxation; next year, £10.5 billion; and the year after, £9.3 billion. There are certain matters for which collective action and raising money through taxation for the common good are justified, but as a general principle, taxing people, families and businesses takes choice out of their hands and says that Whitehall or the council chamber spends money better.
  I have always believed that people spend their own money better when they make choices for themselves, their families and their communities. If we continue to raise the tax take as a percentage of gross domestic product, and to raid people's budgets, we will take real choices and decisions out of families' hands, which is not good for a nation.
  One of the headline topics over the past six to 12 months has been the problem with manufacturing. Hardly a day goes by without jobs being lost in manufacturing, but the Budget did not really tackle the problem. It is expected that manufacturing output will drop by 1 to 1.5 per cent., and the National Audit Office report said that the presumption is that unemployment will rise over the next two years by 400,000. That is very bad news, and I do not feel that the Government have taken the issues on board, especially in the west midlands, where I fought a seat in 1992.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend mentioned the National Audit Office prediction on unemployment. That is supported by the Chancellor's estimate in the Red Book of an increase in welfare spending, principally because he knows—in my judgment—that the Government will have to bear the extra cost of unemployment.
  Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Despite what the Chancellor said, welfare spending is still growing strongly, and I am sure that he will have to eat his words as the consequences become clear over the next year or two, especially when we consider the trajectory of the economy, see how fast it slows, and learn whether the Government's prediction of 1 to 1.5 per cent. growth is realistic or whether the private predictions of less than 1 per cent. are realised.
  The Budget certainly increased taxation. MIRAS was scrapped, and I am afraid that I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who welcomed that. MIRAS helped those who were on the margin of being able to buy a property and wanted to get on the property ladder. By scrapping the relief, we are restricting people's choice to own a property, which many aspire to do.
  Married couples allowance was abolished. I agree that in its current state it did not mean much, but that is after a systematic reduction, for which the previous Government must bear some responsibility. As a state we should give
  570
  a signal to the public about what we believe in. The fact that the tax system is neutral on marriage is not a good thing.
  Company cars have been hit. Little has been said about that, but many people will pay substantially more for their company cars after the changes in the Budget. We hear much about the Kyoto summit, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) rightly said, there is no evidence that increasing fuel taxes reduces motoring use. However, it does take money away from people who have to use cars, especially those in rural counties such as Dorset. If parents have to take children five miles to school, they do not drive four miles and make the children walk a mile because the tax has gone up. People still have to go all the way to Sainsbury's, and to see the doctor. Many rural dwellers have to visit local towns to use services because those services are not available in the villages.
  The Government are cynical about fuel taxes, as they are about the smoking tax. They know when they put petrol tax up that it will raise the revenue and that is why they do it. Before the Budget changes, £9 billion was raised and, according to the Automobile Association, £8.50 of every £10 now spent on fuel goes in tax to the Government. Almost all the food that is sold in supermarkets and all the other goods we buy travel by road. If the Government keep on putting up diesel and petrol taxes, the cost of living will increase.
  If the Government were really serious about Kyoto and reducing pollution, they would tackle the issue through the tax system by making people buy newer and more fuel-efficient cars that had better technology, such as catalytic converters. They would not do it by raising fuel taxes. The other problem with raising fuel taxes is that it is regressive. If someone is wealthy and drives a Jaguar—
  Mr. Hayes: Or two Jaguars.
  Mr. Syms: If someone drives two Jaguars, he can probably afford fuel taxes, but for many less-well-off families living in rural areas—who need a car—it is a large part of their family budget. When fuel taxes are raised, other parts of their budget suffer. They may have to go without a family holiday or trainers for the children.
  The landfill tax was increased and that will affect the budgets of local authorities. Poole borough council is struggling to pay that tax. It has not had the best standard spending assessment settlement from the Government, and rising landfill taxes are a constant annoyance. In effect, the landfill tax is a tax on local authorities which have a limited amount of money.
  Mr. Grieve: Has anyone suggested to Poole council how else it should get rid of its rubbish, with the Government's approval?
  Mr. Syms: The council is examining all options, but sometimes it does not have a great choice. The landfill tax is costing my constituents dear.
  The Chancellor said in his Budget statement that enforcement measures on smuggling would be increased. However, market forces are at work. If people can travel to the continent, buy beer and cigarettes cheaper, sell them back here and make a profit doing so, they will. The way

  571
  to combat that is not to have more customs officers, but to address the problem of price. That means not a freeze but a reduction.
  This is a consequence of the single market. If people can cross boundaries, the Government have to address differential pricing by introducing a competitive price structure for tobacco and drinks; otherwise rolling tobacco and beer will be smuggled in large quantities and cost us billions of pounds a year. The consequence is that British jobs are lost and British companies are affected.
  I am sorry that this Budget has been introduced. It is not good for Britain and I shall vote against it on Monday.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I apologise for having been in and out of the House this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as I am sure you will understand, I have had one of those days.
  Private Eye may give me the order of the brown nose for this, but I should like to say how brilliant the Budget is, and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Front-Bench team on it. Around my kitchen table, we believe in two things—stability and fairness. Stability and fairness seem to shine from all that the Budget has introduced.
  We want low inflation and low borrowing, and those are being delivered. We want a child-centred approach to the United Kingdom's future, and that is being delivered. We have been unreasonable to our old age pensioners, and that is being addressed. My family wants good schools, better health services, a friendlier business attitude and a better environment. The Budget stimulated me, and it will stimulate the country. I congratulate the Treasury team once again on the Budget.
  The most sensational announcement was about the 1,000 computer centres, which beggars belief. I wonder, however, whether the Treasury team might reconsider the proposal because it may be that different communities will establish different centres with different practices, different technologies and perhaps even different purchasing systems or teaching mechanisms. My right hon. and hon. Friends might join Peter Fanning at 4PS in considering a private finance initiative system.
  Such a system might include Tesco, which has a long history in the area, and McDonald's, which has a long history in the internet and computing. It could create a kind of public service company that might be the buying and delivery agency for the 1,000 centres without taking away from local authorities the opportunity to design something to suit their libraries, post offices, village halls or schools. It would give purchasing power to the centre, which might achieve better value for money.
  A few weeks ago, I was the first Member ever to have an Adjournment debate on libraries, and it is fantastic that our schools are being given £2,000 for libraries. Many schools are information poor, even before we start talking about computers or the internet. I have been to 33 of my 44 schools. Some have no librarian, one or two have libraries in halls and aisles on the way to classrooms; and some have books that are 20 or 30 years old. That is not fair or reasonable. The gift of £2,000 is most generous, and my schools are thrilled about it. I congratulate the Treasury team on that gift.
  Giving teachers an opportunity to get on the net at home, through laptops, is a terrific idea. It is a real sea change. Teachers do not find technology easy and they
  572
  are sometimes uncomfortable with it. It is not life-threatening, but they do not find it easy to deal with. The opportunity to get on the net at home and to upgrade their skills is a double plus.
  May I ask Treasury Ministers to reconsider the risk element mentioned in relation to the university fund for venture capital? Some books and economic forecasts name the UK as the seventh largest economy, with California the eighth. However, 0.5 per cent. of our economy is driven by venture capital, while in California the figure is more than 35 per cent. Of the 0.5 per cent. in the UK, most is accounted for by mergers and acquisitions. It is not risk capital.
  Although we have put more money into universities, I wonder whether we might do so differently. Would Ministers consider creating a fund that could be shared between chambers of commerce and universities? The amount could be increased, and we could say—as with the £2,000 for libraries—that a set amount of £1 million or £2 million should be given to each chamber for venture capital. Then they, in association with the universities, could develop brand new, scientifically based software industries to increase at a local level our knowledge of how capital works and our understanding of the modern business world—its model is set by California, not Europe. In that way, we could improve our whole knowledge base.
  A good example of how that might work is the Prince's Trust, the only fund in the UK that has given small amounts—£2,000 or £5,000—to kids who understand pop music, design, internet access, web architecture and much more. Three of their companies were so successful that they sought listings on various markets. That is a sensational success story. We should build on what the prince has done and borrow from that model so that, at the bottom level, sums of £5,000 or £10,000 get to the community and to the sort of garage entrepreneurs who created companies like Apple and Intel in America 25 years ago.
  Lastly, I make a plea. I have a port in my constituency, Sheerness, which is the fifth largest in the country. North Kent is affected by the tunnel and the ferry and by the differences in the prices of two commodities: alcohol, and diesel and petrol. The new 40-tonne lorries from France have flat-bed petrol holders. Instead of holding the petrol in a designed area at the back, it is held flat along the bottom. That has more than doubled the amount of petrol that they can take. In consequence, they come to Kent, and instead of going back, they can take business off us.
  I understand that it is a competitive world—but hang on. Our hauliers have to pay a licence of £10 a day in France and Germany to travel on their roads. Their hauliers pay nothing, but they add to our pollution, and now they are taking our business away. It is a serious problem. I was briefed by one of my companies, WH Hunt, whose turnover is £8 million. However, that is at the margins; it is making not a 10 per cent. return on capital but 4 or 5 per cent. It is a family company and it will get through; but many people are involved in road haulage in every constituency. It does not matter what party one is in; the problem affects the way in which they do business.
  Mr. Hayes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about haulage. His point has been made by hon. Members on

  573
  both sides of the House. The Government knew about this before the Budget. The hon. Gentleman described the Budget as marvellous and wonderful, but why did the Government not do something about this? They have exacerbated the problem.
  Mr. Wyatt: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am trying to mark the Chancellor's card for the next Budget.
  In the same way, it is ironic that the £6.50 bottle of Chapel Down wine that I bought in Tenterden on Saturday costs £1.90 in Calais. There is no logic in that. People will go to Calais to buy it. It is the same with beer. Shepherd Neame, a family company, is in a neighbouring constituency but has 60 pubs in mine. It has gone on and on about a level playing field for beer tax. It is ironic that its beer is cheaper in Calais than in Sittingbourne or Sheppey. It has tried hard with its lobbying and may get permission to go to the House of Lords to appeal.
  The business of Britain is with family companies. In Germany, they do not go to the market; it is the middle stratum companies that make the wealth in communities. We must enable middle order companies. It is important to reconsider on haulage and on the beer and wine trade. Despite what the hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said, this was an otherwise cracking Budget.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had notice from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he will make a statement to the House about the important announcement that has been made on European Union farm reform?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order. The answer is no, but the hon. Gentleman might have regard to the usual practice in these matters, and it is possible that a statement may be volunteered in due course.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: I apologise to the House for not having been unable to attend the whole debate, but I have heard many speeches. I will not follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) in his eulogy of the Budget. It is good in parts. I take the position of the curate rather than the enthusiast.
  My first point is perhaps naive. Can we have practical action to put into effect all the rhetoric about transparency in Budgets and clarity about figures? The habit of recycling figures and confusing the public, whether deliberate or not, does not help people. It creates such confusion that the Secretary of State had to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) to satisfy him that some of the money involved was new money. It would be helpful if we could have some arrangement such as a letter N beside a figure so that we knew what money was new and what was recycled.
  Surely the essence of civilised debate is that we agree on the facts and then argue about what they mean and how we achieve what we want. If we are confused about
  574
  the figures, we will not have a civilised debate. I urge the Government to set out the figures in a consistent way so that we know whether we are working on one or three years, what baseline we are working from and whether the money is new.
  Members of the Government do not yet accept that, despite the welcome improvements in some areas of funding, there is a big black hole at the centre of local government expenditure, not only on education but on many other services. There were fairly persistent cuts for the many years of Conservative Government and they have continued in most cases in the first two years of Labour government. To take one example, the welcome increased expenditure on books, as far as I can find out from the figures, which I am still exploring—getting accurate figures is very difficult—does not fill the gap in expenditure on books caused by cuts year on year. The increased expenditure helps a bit, but it does not recover the many losses of the past. In many areas, there is still a major reduction in education and associated services. By funding attractive individual programmes, the Government have still left a big black hole in the core funding of councils.
  For example, the Government do not adequately fund pay increases. It is a shibboleth—if that is the right word; it is a false notion, in any case—to say that pay increases can be funded out of productivity or improved efficiency. If pay increases are not adequately funded, it merely means that councils sack some staff or are compelled to fight fiercely to keep pay increases down. So the pay of teachers and those in further education, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bath mentioned, has been held down. Welcome improvements are being made in some public services based on the slave labour of those employed therein. That is not a civilised and acceptable practice. The Government should adequately fund pay increases. If the resulting Budget means that there must be a cut, it should be a clear and open cut. The failure to fund pay increases adequately is, to use a Conservative word, a sneaky or stealthy cut.
  There are ways in which the Government could achieve good value for money. The Scottish Accounts Commission has said that if both human and computer administrative support was better in schools, we could save the equivalent of 1,500 full-time teachers. So if the Government invested—it would be a substantial investment—in more administrative staff and more computers, it would cost less than the salaries of 1,500 new teachers, but they would get the equivalent. Surely such well-targeted investment would be profitable.
  The Treasury should set up a bumf-busting committee, or anti-bureaucratic paperwork committee. Wherever one goes—schools, colleges, local authorities or enterprise companies—one hears complaints of too much paperwork. I am sure that other hon. Members have heard such complaints.
  Mr. Hayes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that paperwork has increased because of the initiatives, particularly in schools, that the Government have taken in their two years in office? Teachers tell me—as I am sure they have told him—that they have initiative fatigue. So

  575
  many initiatives and bits of paper are coming from the Government that the paperwork problem has been exacerbated during Labour's tenure, not countered.
  Mr. Gorrie: I partly agree. However, the Tories seem to think that all evil things started with the election of the current Government. The Conservative Government, too, produced masses of paperwork. Nevertheless, setting aside any party points, paperwork is an issue. If the Government could have a task force—if that is the language that they prefer—to reduce paperwork, they would receive huge financial benefit, and we would get more bangs for our buck.
  As my better-informed hon. Friends tell me, even with the new computers, over 90 per cent. of teachers will still not have a computer. It is also most important that the Government should fund the charges for computer access to the internet. That issue has not yet been properly addressed. Although we welcome the Government's interest in computers, and obviously everything cannot be put right in a year, help with funding computer access charges would be very helpful.
  The cuts in local authority funding made by both the previous Government and the current Government have reduced expenditure in the community on services such as community education and social work, and especially on the services provided by voluntary organisations that provide the type of support and help needed by families who live in deprived areas and suffer from social exclusion. If we could put more money into supporting the community and supporting those people in the community, we should do a great amount to improve pupils' attitude when in school, and thereby achieve much better results in schools. Most education happens outwith, not within the school. The cuts have had a very serious effect on youth clubs and other excellent activities that help to create the right frame of mind in pupils.
  On a technical point, the Government persist in treating local authority self-financed expenditure as within the control total. The Government are therefore preventing councils from developing enterprise in spending their money sensibly.
  The Budget has also neglected the issue of student finances. Many students are experiencing a real crisis in their finances. The Government have to address the issue, either by putting more money into altering the student fees regime or by putting more into helping students with living costs, which could be done simply by giving universities and colleges more for hardship and access funds.
  The 1p income tax reduction that we have been promised for next year is not what is wanted by most people in Scotland. They would prefer to keep tax at the current level, and to have the money invested in better services. It will be very interesting to see whether the Scottish Parliament addresses the last two issues: student poverty and using tax money for investment rather than for a small tax rebate.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Tony McNulty: It is a great pleasure to follow the usual Liberal Democrat whinge of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie). I have not heard the hon. Gentleman—either when I was watching the debate on television, or since I have been in
  576
  the Chamber—manage to say one kind word about the Budget, which, in line with the previous two Budgets, is yet further evidence of the direction in which the new Labour Government are taking the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrats, who are always whingeing and dancing on the head of a pin, should know better.
  It is very clear why the Conservatives do not know any better. In last year's Budget debate, Conservative Members had difficulty in grasping some basic concepts which are, in essence, completely alien to them. The first concept—I shall say this nice and slowly so that they will perhaps understand—is long-term stability. They have never heard of it; that concept is completely alien to the Conservatives, in or out of Government. They struggle with stability—even short-term stability, which, for the last Government, ran from October to October and from Blackpool, to Bournemouth, to Brighton or to wherever else the blue rinse brigade met once a year to harangue them and occasionally wave handcuffs by way of developing policy. The Conservatives, in or out of Government, have not heard of long-term stability. They do not have a clue.
  The second concept underpinning this Government with which the Conservatives have great difficulty is economic prudence and responsibility. The Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, the Liberal Democrats—it is always a lesser extent with them—now come to the House and whinge about politicising the economy. It is not as though the Conservative's actions over 18 years were somehow clean, pure and independent from any vexatious notion of political intervention in the economy. This and the previous two Budgets have demonstrated a real concern for prudence, economic responsibility and competence. Political considerations have played no part.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision taken early in the Parliament to give operational independence to the Bank of England has been of major strategic importance because it has engendered an environment of stability that is the absolute antithesis of the boom-and-bust cycles that were prevalent under the previous Government?
  Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment because nothing could be more true. The Conservatives have no idea of the strategic economic importance of that single decision—and why should they? After all, for 18 years, they played proverbial golf with only one club in their bag. God alone knows how the Conservatives would survive in government now that the Bank of England is independent.
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. McNulty: Perhaps the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is going to tell us.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he regret the fact that the majority of City economists and commentators believe that, as a result of this week's Budget, we are far less likely to see the interest rate cuts that the economy needs?
  Mr. McNulty: As ever, the hon. Gentleman—whose family I believe owns half of Cornwall—has demonstrated clearly that he has, first, more front than

  577
  Harrods; and, secondly, amnesia to the nth degree in political terms. The Conservatives presided over an economy in which inflation shot up to well over 20 per cent. and interest rates rose past 15 per cent. We will take no lectures about economic competence and management from Guildford or anywhere else.
  That is the key to my point about economic stability. The Conservatives have no licence to complain because they messed things up so badly—my constituents will certainly never let them anywhere near power again, either locally or nationally. The Liberal Democrats—that sixth-form debating society—have had no sniff of power since Lloyd George. They have had no chance of power, at least in a national context, for ever and a day thereafter—not least because of the endless, mindless witterings of those who parade as the Liberal Democrat economic and Treasury spokespersons, whom I would not trust with an abacus, let alone a calculator.
  Mr. Caplin: I know that my hon. Friend is in touch with the Liberal Democrats about many issues. Has he had an opportunity to ask them whether 1p will now become 2p or 3p?
  Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There was a wonderful comedy show on television the other night called, "Despatch Box", on which a certain young gentleman from Kingston, and on, and on, and Surbiton, and on, and on—or was it the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)?—waxed lyrical on that subject but never answered the question. All he would say was, "One penny equals £2 billion and all we want is £2 billion." When it was pointed out to him that there is a £2 billion hole because we have taken a penny off income tax, and he was asked "Does not two billion plus two billion equal four billion?" he said, "No, we only want £2 billion."
  The only conclusion that we can draw is that the Liberal Democrats would put up income tax by 1p to get £2 billion, but they would not fill the resulting £4 billion hole, so there would be even more cuts, which is typical of the Liberals. That is why they were so severely kicked out of Harrow last year. They did not have a clue. They are lovely when it comes to call my bluff, silly little party games and sixth-form debating, but when it comes to real power and decisions that impact on people's lives, they are utterly useless.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Liberal Democrats, will he tell the House whether he agrees that part of their problem is that they have not formed a Government in living memory, so have not been subjected to the disciplines of a major party in rationally formulating policy?
  Mr. McNulty: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If we have regional balance, we can say the same of Plaid Cymru and the SNP—the Scottish nobody party.
  I return to my serious point about concepts. On economic stability, the Tories were found wanting. They could not even recognise that concept. The evidence of 18 years demonstrates that they have no regard for the notion of some degree of financial redistribution to
  578
  poorer people, which is my third concept. They cannot contemplate that—it is sacrilege and blasphemy to them. Yet we have achieved much in the better deal for families, the working families tax credit—the Conservatives will all be up on their hind legs railing against that next week—and the £3 billion package for pensioners. They have no answer to that.
  The Liberal Democrats whinge that there should have been more money and announce their own Mickey Mouse Budget—the one that they announced last week—which says nothing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) implied, that is wonderful, back-of-a-fag-packet stuff drawn up by people who think that if they call someone an economic spokesperson, he will suddenly become imbued with economic knowledge. That does not work for the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and on and on or the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Mickey Mouse "Brucean" economics do not make serious economic considerations.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNulty: I give way to the Disneyland contingent.
  Mr. Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on the 10p rate of income tax are supported by a large number of bodies, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Does he ever take note of what such bodies have to say?
  Mr. McNulty: I was almost going to take the hon. Gentleman seriously until he mentioned the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  My next point calls for a plague on both the houses of the Opposition. Starting with our first Budget and continuing through to this Budget, we are restoring not only public services but the professions that work within them and ensuring that their morale is second to none. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) had the cheek to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "Well, there was £19 billion for education in the comprehensive spending review but nothing in the Budget." That is complete effrontery and, at the very least, does a disservice to his constituents and those of other Conservative Members. The restoration of public services in health, education and other areas that we are achieving would not have happened under the Conservatives. One has only to project their public expenditure figures from the last Budget of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to realise that.
  What the Liberal Democrats say about our not doing enough is equally facetious and entirely malevolent, but it is rooted in their fundamental lack of any knowledge of reality and responsibility in Government.
  Our Budget takes a long-term view of the economy, works towards stability, provides money for those with less ability to enter the workplace and will achieve a fundamental revamping of public services. It is not rhetoric, and there are no back-handers or brown paper bags or brown envelopes for ex-Ministers from the previous Parliament to sit on boards of directors with fat salaries. The Budget provides genuine and substantive structural support, especially for small businesses. There

  579
  is reality behind our rhetoric about full support for enterprise. That is another concept that the Conservatives do not understand at all, not least because some of them have a perverse understanding of what are the most important sectors of business and an even more perverse background of how they earned their own money. Because those five key concepts are completely alien to Opposition Members, I feel quite sad about the paucity of any intelligence or substance in their contributions to the Budget debate. They speak empty-headed rhetoric. There is no substance, joy or pleasure in their suggestions for the people of this country. They present no genuine critical opposition.
  Mr. Gardiner: Following my hon. Friend's remarks about the empty-headed nature of the Opposition, does he recall the opening comments of the shadow education spokesperson, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)? When asked whether he appreciated that the effect of the lack of support for the windfall tax and the £5.2 million fiscal tightening—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Will the hon. Member please sit down? His intervention was too long.
  Mr. McNulty: I am sure that, had my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) been allowed fully to elaborate, his intervention would have been entirely appropriate. I fully agree with what he says about the Opposition's approach to the new deal, and shall end there.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I apologise to the House for not being present for today's debate. I was serving on the Committee considering the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
  In overall macro-economic terms, it looks as if the Budget is about right. Whether this economy stays on smooth track will—I fear—depend not on the Budget or even the Bank of England, but on what else goes on in the world, especially in the United States of America.
  Many Labour Members have referred to the praise of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund for the success of British economic management. As they well know—to ensure that the record is set straight—this country has been given such praise since 1992, and the recovery, which has continued to this day, got going in 1992, mainly on the back of all the major supply-side reforms of the 1980s, analogous to what has happened in the United States, and our escape from being locked into continental European interest rates via the exchange rate mechanism when Europe's cycle was different from ours. Let it be a warning to this Government that, if they proceed with their euro ambitions, they might face precisely the same problems.
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: No, I will not give way. I have only 10 minutes to speak.
  The Budget was unnecessarily complex and tinkering. A great deal of its objectives could have been achieved simply by raising personal allowances. It was clearly an
  580
  electioneering Budget. The Chancellor achieved the sort of publicity the next day that he wanted and obviously felt extremely clever presenting all the good news and concealing all the bad, but I shall point to one or two groups of people in my constituency who are not so happy.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: No, I will not give way—sorry.
  Mr. Caplin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.
  Mr. Caplin: We are trying to engage in a debate, but the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) seems to be of the opinion that he has just 10 minutes to speak. My understanding of the House's rules is that extra time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that your time was wasted.
  I shall comment on three groups of people in my constituency who have approached me. One is what I would call the post-war baby bulge generation—people typically aged from their late-40s to their mid-50s. When those people were bringing up their children, they suffered from the abolition of income tax allowances for children and from the fact that the last Conservative Government failed to transfer personal allowances. Just as their children are off their hands, these people are now losing their married couples allowance. They are not pleased about that. Those are just the sort of people whose votes Prime Minister Blair has been so keen to get.
  The second group is pensioners of the future. The worst example of deviousness in the Chancellor's presentation was the fact that he said clearly that pensioners would continue to receive the married couples allowance. What he meant was current pensioners. People born after 1935 will not get the married couples allowance in the future.
  That is grossly unfair. Many people have planned carefully for their retirement. They are not rich, and they assumed that they would get the married couples allowance. The change will cost them several hundred pounds a year. What the Chancellor did was just as bad as stealthily abolishing the widow's pension, except on a means-tested basis. People have taken the married couples allowance into account in their financial plans for the long term.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: No, I will not be giving way.
  The Chancellor will not reap the success that he had hoped for, in terms of winning votes. The Budget was supposed to be family-friendly, but the total being taken back through the abolition of MIRAS and the married couples allowance is some £600 million more than is

  581
  being given out in total to families through the new child credit and the increased child allowances. It is not a family-friendly Budget.
  Mr. Caplin rose—
  Mr. Flight: It was an act of stealth to abolish the married couples relief this year, before the new family credit comes in next year. The abolition of the married couples allowance is wrong in principle. The Chancellor brushed it under the carpet with a few feeble excuses. The institution of marriage should be buttressed by both tax and welfare facilities.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: I am not giving way. In Britain, as elsewhere, children are brought up better with two parents in a married family unit.
  Let us consider entrepreneurship and another example of the Chancellor's deviousness. It sounds extremely attractive to reduce the rate of tax on small companies to 10 per cent., but the overwhelming majority of small entrepreneurs are not companies—they cannot afford to be. They are ordinary sole traders, who will still be liable to existing standard rates of income tax, and certainly will not be paying 10 per cent only.
  In my constituency small businesses are howling at me to try to reduce bureaucracy and red tape. They find that they cannot compete and comply.
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: The introduction of the European social chapter measures was the last straw. Small businesses faced with the possibility of having to pay out £50,000 if they make a mistake in the way that an employee is dismissed will go bust as a result.
  I spent part of my career in the United States of America. I welcome US-style measures to get entrepreneurship going in this country. However, those were not the measures in the Budget. The most crucial requirement is to abolish an excessive 40 per cent. rate of capital gains tax.
  Mr. Gardiner rose—
  Mr. Flight: There is clearly a regressive element in the tax on cigarettes and petrol. Speaking on behalf of rural constituents, as other hon. Members have done, I can tell Ministers that the 4p a litre increase on petrol will hit hard all levels of society in rural areas, especially pensioners.
  I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) began his speech by saying that he was brown-nosing. I suggest that this was a Brown-nosing Budget, designed, somewhat early, to win votes in the next general election. It was an immoral Budget, because the one thing that it did nothing about was charities.
  The Government have increased taxation on charities by £500 million per annum as a result of the abolition of advance corporation tax recovery. I have been
  582
  corresponding with the Treasury on this matter for some time and was assured that something would be done in the charity review that would be announced in the Budget, but what is in there? Absolutely nothing.
  The Prime Minister prides himself on being the moral and spiritual leader of half the world and yesterday I asked him about tax changes for charities. Why is he imposing the greatest taxation ever on all the charities in this country? I suggest that Labour Members should pause to think about the morality of the Budget and all the charities that will suffer as a result of it. Yesterday, I was at a meeting of one of the charities with which I am involved. It will be cutting expenditure by £500,000 per annum as a result of these measures. It has been lobbying the Government for some time in order to achieve some form of compensation, but in vain.
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: I am about to conclude my speech.
  This Budget, like all the Chancellor's other Budgets, sounded clever and wonderful when it was announced. All the nasties were left unsaid or hidden away and there are one or two measures that it was wrong not to have made clear, such as the treatment of the married allowance for old-age pensioners. As one constituent said to me, "Well, it sounded all right, but I don't trust him at all." I believe that that, substantially, will be the reaction of the middle classes, whose votes the Prime Minister is after and, as all the papers have pointed out, which continue to be treated negatively, as they were in previous Budgets. This is not a bad Budget for the economy as a whole, but it is not nearly as clever as the Chancellor would like to think.
  Mr. Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.
  Mr. Gardiner: Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman not to take interventions, because he fears that he will use up his 10 minutes, and then not to use his full 10 minutes? Does he not realise that the clock stops when an intervention is received?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my response to a previous point of order, which was in similar vein. It is up to each hon. Member to decide whether to take an intervention and the reason for refusing to take an intervention is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is slightly different. Will you clarify whether the time taken to respond to an intervention is included in the 10 minutes allowed for a Member's speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time taken to reply to an intervention is taken out of a Member's 10 minutes. I might add that the clock stops only at the discretion of the Chair. The rule clearly states that the Chair may allow time for interventions.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: We all owe it to the House, to our constituents and to the country to speak the truth as far as we can possibly know it. The truth is that the Budget is very good in many aspects and we should acknowledge that.
  Although we would have liked to have achieved an inflation rate of 2.5 per cent. much sooner than we have, it is a matter for congratulation that the Government have managed the macro-economic situation in this country and conducted tax affairs in such a way that we are able to keep to such a rate. However, our inflation rate is twice that of France and of Germany, and I should have liked the Budget to have aimed at a rate lower than 2.5 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) criticised the Conservative Administration for not aiming for a stable macro-economic framework in which to conduct the public finances. In fact, that is the reverse of what the Conservative Government aimed to do when they came to power in 1979. The introduction of a medium-term strategy was one of the measures that were designed to reduce inflation and interest rates, and to keep the economy stable and predictable so that there could be growth in the economy, along with real, sensible, non-inflationary investment, to increase our productivity and output—in other words, our gross domestic product.
  The Conservative Government succeeded in their aim for a large part of their 18 years in office, but did not do so during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the economy—not just in this country, but throughout Europe and indeed the world—was stricken by recession. Counter-cyclically, the Government introduced extra spending, and had to raise interest rates by much more than they would otherwise have done.
  Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Harrow, East has disappeared, having had his rant. He did not even show the normal courtesy of staying for the duration of the speech that followed his. I hope that such traditions will nevertheless continue in the House. The hon. Gentleman was, however, right in saying that we should all be aiming for a stable financial background to our Budget, and, by extension, to the Government's tax and spending plans.
  I congratulate the Government on keeping the macro-economic framework under control. Interest rates are lower, and I hope that they will fall further before long: they need to do so. I also hope that we shall aim not for the Government's objective of a 2.5 per cent. inflation rate, but for the rate of between 0 and 1.5 per cent. which obtains on the continent and in the United States.
  Having said that, I must add that I have never felt more ashamed than I did during yesterday's exchanges about the Budget during Prime Minister's Question Time, which reduced the politics of public finances to the level of pantomime. We had to endure a vituperative and meaningless trading of statistics between the Dispatch Boxes. At one point, the Prime Minister said that everyone in the country had experienced tax cuts.
  In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), he said:
  "There is a net tax cut for everyone—direct taxes of £9 billion."
  My right hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister to explain. Two answers later, the Prime Minister said:
  "There is a net tax cut of £4.5 billion."—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c.358.]
  584
  In the space of two answers, the cut had been reduced by a half.
  The House proceeded to further unseemly exchanges, in which hon. Members swapped statistics of a totally meaningless character, which thoroughly misled the House and undoubtedly confused the public. That is no way in which to conduct public debate on these matters. Sensible inquiries should be made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about exactly what statistics they are discussing; that would avoid the "No, I'm right", "No, you're wrong", exchanges.
  Anatole Kaletsky explains the Budget extremely well in his article in The Times today. There is an increase in taxation, and I do not think that the Prime Minister, having imposed that increase on the British public, should apologise for it if that is what he wants to happen. But it is no good telling the public that there are not increases in taxes when there are.
  I welcome some of the additional expenditure that the increased taxation will enable the Government to make. I welcome the increase in the international development budget over three years to—it is hoped—£3.5 billion in the final year of the increases so far announced. I also welcome the increases in spending on education and health. However, I do not believe that, when we have taken into account the effect of the minimum wage and of wage increases to nurses and teachers, the amount of money in the classroom will increase. The schools in my constituency will be worse off in real terms. The test must be: what effect does the Budget have in classrooms, hospitals and GPs' surgeries in our constituencies? At the moment, the answer is that they will receive less money, not more.
  Although those increases in spending seem very great, they are not much greater than the increases that Conservative Governments managed to achieve, year on year, for much of their time in office. There is more work to be done, and more increases are needed to provide the type of public health care that the Government have promised, and which I believe we should aim for. There are good points about increasing taxation to pay for such things. If we believe in better public services, we should recognise that taxes must go up.
  However, taxes have gone up, essentially, on middle-income people, who have saved and worked hard throughout their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) drew attention to the attack on married couples allowances, on pensions and on savings. It is important, as we consider the Budget, to note that United Kingdom savings levels have decreased significantly. That is very serious, because it prevents capital formation and prevents investment from going into productive areas of the economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly believes that investment is vital to increase the productivity of this country, which again lags behind that of its European partners. I strongly believe that we must increase productivity so that we are competitive in order to get the jobs, because the economy is starting to contract too fast and we are starting to fear—and, in many places, experience—increases in unemployment. That would be the worst imaginable outcome of the Budget.
  Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman's speech has been extremely thoughtful, and there is much in it with which

  585
  I agree. I wanted to pick up his remarks in relation to middle-income Britain bearing the burden of tax increases. Has he had the opportunity to see the Institute for Fiscal Studies report that shows that every decile of the population has benefited from the Budget? Obviously, there are some losers in each decile, but every decile of the population has benefited overall, especially the lower deciles.
  Mr. Wells: I admit that I have not had a chance to focus on the IFS analysis of the Budget, and if we start to talk about deciles of the population, we shall soon lose the attention of most of our constituents. I believe that our constituents must experience what happens in their schools, what happens to bus and train fares, what happens to food prices and, if they have a car or a motor cycle, what happens to the cost of petrol, before they decide whether the Budget has been a good thing for them. That is the sort of thing that they understand, although I am sure that those in the IFS will—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. I apologise to the House for not having been present throughout the debate, but I have been in my constituency with the Minister for the Armed Forces. The Minister cut the first sod, which required the tearing up of the tarmac on the old Mons barracks parade ground, for the creation of a brand new, world-class swimming pool and sporting complex for the Army in Aldershot and for wider public use. I was pleased to entertain the Minister in my constituency.
  It is significant that, on my return to the House about an hour ago, I was astonished to find that the Chamber was so empty. I had been reading in the newspapers about what a fantastic Budget this was and about how it was being lauded by Labour Members. The tabloid newspapers were swooning over the Chancellor's extraordinary munificence to the British people. I thought that if it was so good, there would be many more Labour Members wishing to participate in the debate. I was shocked to find that there were not.
  Mr. Caplin: I understand that the hon. Gentleman had an important constituency engagement, but if he had been present at half-past one, he would have seen a much more crowded Chamber. There have been about 15 speeches on either side, so it has been a well-attended and well-received debate.
  Mr. Howarth: There may have been 15 speeches, but I understand that the majority of contributions have come from the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): That is not so.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has responsibilities similar to those of the hon. Gentleman, tells me that that was the case.
  586
  However, I wish to move on, because this is an important Budget. My hon. Friend for Faversham and Mid-Kent said to me on Tuesday while the Order Papers were fluttering and huge cheers were going up on the Labour Benches, "Do you remember when we last witnessed this?" It was in 1989, during the Budget of my noble Friend Lord Lawson. We had cause subsequently to reconsider the impact of that Budget. My hon. Friend said to me, "They will experience the same thing." We have not had to wait months or years for this Budget to unravel: it has done so within a couple of days. This was a Budget of presentation and appearance: it was not a Budget of substance.
  I am happy to acknowledge that I agree with one or two measures in the Budget. Some of my hon. Friends felt that mortgage interest tax relief could be allowed to wither on the vine. Indeed, that was the policy of the previous Conservative Government, and we welcomed that. It was inevitable that it would disappear in the natural course of events.
  However, the substance of the Budget is much more damaging. It has been presented as a tax-cutting Budget when it is no such thing: it is a tax-increasing Budget. It is old Labour coming back—the tax and spend party. It is astonishing that the Labour party fails ever to acknowledge the sound basis on which the economy was left when the Conservatives left office in 1997. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) may laugh, but the truth is that, although we got things wrong in the late 1980s and early 1990s, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) did a superb job in putting the economy back on track.
  It is deeply distressing when Ministers go to the City and say, "Aren't we good, aren't we prudent? We have stuck to the Tories' spending limits." When their hon. Friends ask for more public spending, they say, "I'm sorry, we can't do that, because we are stuck with the Tories' spending limits. We've inherited them." If the economy is in such sound shape, it owes a great deal to the way in which the Conservative Government, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), managed to restore it and put it once more on a sound footing. Labour Members never acknowledged the achievements of the Conservative Government, such as the conquering of inflation and the reduction in interest rates. It is about time that they did so.
  Mr. McNulty: Given that the hon. Gentleman is renowned as one of the Conservatives' economic experts, will he remind us of the level of debt that the Conservative Government had got us to by May 1997 and the projected level of debt for this year? If he thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was such a genius, did he vote for him in the leadership election?
  Mr. Howarth: The great advantage of our party is that we have an extensive range of talent, of which my right hon. and learned Friend is a very good example. We had a rich array from which to choose.
  I am well aware of what the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) is saying. We allowed the public sector borrowing requirement to grow. Many of us were critical of the fact that we had got to that position.

  587
  However, my right hon. and learned Friend had got the problem under control. What is happening now is the natural corollary of the policies put in place by the previous Conservative Government. This Government have continued those policies by sticking to the previous spending limits. I praise them for that, but the policies are Tory, not socialist. They said that they would stick to the spending limits because they wanted to ensure that they did not frighten the middle classes at the election. The best way in which to make themselves appear prudent was to pretend that they were Conservatives. That is how they won the election.
  One of the most galling characteristics of the Government, after their lack of respect for the House, is the way in which the Prime Minister repeatedly dismisses the facts put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as wrong—and therefore as lies—when it is the Prime Minister who is guilty of misleading the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) mentioned Anatole Kaletsky's article in The Times today. It would be instructive if I mentioned some of the points in it.
  Mr. Kaletsky reminds his readers of the question that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister yesterday:
  "'How much has the Government raised taxes in its first three Budgets?' Mr Hague repeatedly demanded. 'We have not raised taxes, we have cut them,' Tony Blair insisted again and again. Yet this was simply false",
  Mr. Kaletsky maintains. He continues:
  "As shown unambiguously in the Government's own Budget statement, taxes have risen in each of the past two years and will rise even more in the next financial year."
  The Prime Minister is incapable of differentiating between the truth and falsehood. I have quoted a respected commentator who has analysed the figures and realised that the Prime Minister's claims are false.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No Member of Parliament deliberately misleads the House or is involved in any falsehoods.
  Mr. Howarth: Thank you for pointing that out to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply pointing out what commentators outside the House have been saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot use someone else's words to defame another Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Howarth: I am perfectly content to believe that the Prime Minister had not had time to read all the facts and figures in the Red Book. He may wish to make a correction in the House in due course, when he has had an opportunity to study the various press comments. I did not intend to suggest that the Prime Minister deliberately lied to or misled the House, but I hope that he will pay attention to the remarks of commentators.
  Let me refer to one other aspect. Yesterday, the Chancellor said that the Government had cut the social security bill. However, according to table B13 on page 159 of the Red Book, social security benefits are forecast to be £93.5 million this year and to rise to £99.1 million in 1999–2000. That is an increase of twice the rate of inflation; it is not a cut in social security benefits—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I speak on behalf of my rural constituents in Lincolnshire for whom car ownership is not a luxury, but an absolute necessity. Some 80 per cent. of householders in rural Lincolnshire need to own a car. My constituency, at 700 sq miles, is the same size as Greater London, which comprises some 70 constituencies. What are those people supposed to do? Many of them are self-employed or pensioners, who will now have to pay £3.13 for a gallon of petrol. They have been hit by the Budget.
  I have sat in the Chamber and listened to 15 or 16 Budgets and I have become rather cynical about them. The general rule of thumb is that Budgets tend to increase public spending or the money available to consumers by about 1 per cent. in the two years running up to a general election. In the first two years of a Parliament, they tend to take 1 per cent. from consumers and give it to the Treasury. What the Chancellor gives with one hand he takes back with the other. We live in the real world and we all understand that. However, this year, we have to be aware of the particular hit that has been made against rural people who are utterly reliant on their cars. It is quite disgraceful for the Government to suggest that, in pursuit of some general environmental aim which may or may not be worth while, they can load escalators on to fuel and hit rural people so very hard.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No. I have only five minutes, and I know that others wish to speak.
  The next category of person to be affected by the Budget, apart from pensioners, farmers and people who live in rural areas, is the self-employed, who will be hit very hard indeed by the increase in class 4 national insurance contributions. As the Federation of Small Businesses says, this is hitting the
  "real entrepreneurs and risk takers".
  Road hauliers are also heavily represented in rural areas. We have all received a large number of letters from them, but the Government have ignored their representations. There is a real danger that the flagging-out process will continue apace. It has happened in the past when Britain lost its Merchant Navy. I know of a business that was based in Lincolnshire and has now moved to France because of the far lower costs there. The Road Haulage Association has calculated that, on average, the Budget will cost its members £20,000 extra a year. As fuel accounts for some 36 per cent. of a haulier's budget, one can appreciate the devastating effect of an increase of this magnitude in fuel duty. It is no surprise that the Road Haulage Association referred to the "anger and disbelief' among its membership and the death knell for some 56,000 jobs.
  I apologise for having missed the earlier part of the debate, but I was in Committee all afternoon considering the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. It is extraordinary that the Government should argue in favour of giving people a wider choice of pensions—the stakeholder pension and the second pension—when they are attacking the contributory principle. Very few people have commented on the fact that the Chancellor is increasing the minimum income guaranteed for pensioners in line with earnings, but not the basic state pension. The basic

  589
  state pension is no longer withering on the vine; the Government are pouring poison into its roots. It is a direct attack on the contributory principle. One already needs about £40,000 in a private pension fund to make it worth while continuing to invest in a pension; otherwise, one is better off on income support. As the minimum income guarantee increases, there will be less and less incentive for ordinary people to put money aside for their old age, and that is a disaster for our country.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: One of the most important things to remember about the Labour Government's handling of the economy is that they were elected not to run an alternative economic strategy, but to continue with the one that they inherited. If they had proposed an alternative strategy, as they did in the 1980s, it would again have been rejected by the electorate. A key reason why Labour is in power is that it committed itself lock, stock and barrel to carrying on with almost every aspect of Conservative economic policy, including, for the first two years, sticking to Conservative spending plans.
  Mr. Caplin: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber all afternoon, but I can inform him that Conservative Members have been complaining about our windfall levy. They cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Tyrie: I am sorry, but I missed part of that point because one or two other people were talking to me at the same time, so I cannot answer it as thoroughly as I would like.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) suggested that the Government had somehow miraculously brought down the huge debt that they inherited from the Conservative Government. The truth is that Britain is the only major country to have reduced the overall burden of debt as a proportion of gross domestic product in the period from 1979 to 1997. Other countries' debts have risen substantially.
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyrie: I am terribly sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions, as I am told that I have only three minutes left.
  That debt reduction was a dramatic and remarkable performance by the Conservative Government over those 18 years.
  When the Labour Government came in, they were given the task by the electorate of continuing broadly with the policies that they inherited. Initially, to their credit, they did so. I supported their decision to make the Bank of England independent, although they did not do it in the manner that I would want. They made a bit of a botched job of it, although it seems that they are getting away with it. Further reforms may well be needed to make independence work properly.
  The Budget represents some first steps away from the Conservative inheritance and towards picking away at what has made Britain outstandingly successful in the 1980s and 1990s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the United Kingdom economy grew at about two thirds of the
  590
  European Union average; in the 1980s and 1990s—on any reasonable projection for the remainder of this decade—it grew at slightly more than the EU average. That dramatic transformation in the performance of our economy took place because we got taxes down, deregulated, freed up the economy and brought in a culture of free enterprise.
  I am worried that the first salami tactics on those policies are being undertaken by the Labour Government in the Budget. There are large rises in taxation by stealth. If taxes go up, there will be a reduction in our enterprise culture. If regulations are imposed, businesses will be less profitable and less successful.
  The Government have introduced a raft of schemes in the Budget, allegedly to improve supply-side performance, that will simply clog up the system with distortions and excessive regulation. The spending on research and development is very hard to justify from the perspective of the economy as a whole.
  The absolute heart of the Budget will be whether it promotes growth. On growth, above all other issues, it represents the triumph of hope over probability. The Government say that growth will be strong in the years ahead, when almost every other outside forecaster says something different. With astonishing cheek, the Government have published a table purporting to contain alternative economic scenarios, but it contains only one alternative which is even more upbeat than the Government's forecast of 2.25 per cent. growth in the long term. The Government should have published something more realistic and more in line with what outside forecasters have said. The Government will be judged on long-term growth, and they may well be found wanting.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: This has been an excellent debate. One of the reasons for that is that 48 hours have passed since the Chancellor delivered his Budget and we have all had the chance to see past the gloss of his speech and have a look at the small print. That has been obvious from the quality of the speeches today, especially from Conservative Members. It has been noticeable that there have been more speeches from Opposition Members than from Labour Members. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), but it was questioned by the Whip. Therefore, I wish to place on record the fact that we have heard 18 speeches from Opposition Members compared with 12 speeches from Labour Members. I understand that this is the second day running on which the Government have been unable to find sufficient numbers of supporters to defend the Budget. That is extraordinary when one considers that there are 417 Labour Members of Parliament. Only 12 could be bothered to come to the Chamber today to defend the Chancellor's proposals.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that while Conservative Members wish to attack the Budget, my hon. Friends are more concerned about basking in its glory with their constituents?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I would have hoped that Labour Members would have Parliament as their first priority, but recent experience shows that that is no longer the case.
  Mr. Fallon: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the morale of Labour Members, would he care to

  591
  comment on the news that the German Finance Minister has had to resign for attacking business and championing tax harmonisation? Is not that an example that might be usefully followed here?
  Mr. Whittingdale: It is a good precedent, but if it was followed by the Government there would not be very many Ministers left.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did a superb job on Tuesday in highlighting some of the obvious flaws in the Chancellor's Budget, but he was handicapped by having to rely only on the actual speech delivered by the Chancellor. As we have come to expect from the Chancellor, he spent much time highlighting measures such as the £20 million start-up funding for high-tech venture capital funds, but he made no mention of the £240 million increase in national insurance contributions for the self-employed, a measure that we discovered only when we looked at the Red Book. It is in there under the heading, "Increasing Employment Opportunity". The Chancellor talked a lot about the new starting rate of lop, which was rightly described by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) as perhaps the biggest gimmick in the Budget. We discovered later that it will apply to only the first £1,500 of income. The raising of the rate on the next £2,800 of income from 20p to 23p was not mentioned by the Chancellor at all.
  Mr. Caplin: I do not wish to stop the hon. Gentleman in full flow, but I consulted Hansard this afternoon on that point and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House in his speech on Tuesday that income tax rates would be 10p, 23p and 40p.
  Mr. Whittingdale: That is correct, but the hon. Gentleman confirms that the Chancellor did not say that the 20p rate will, from this Budget, be abolished. It would have been nice to hear that from the Chancellor's lips, instead of having to read the Red Book to discover it.
  The Chancellor told us that the married couples allowance would be replaced by a new children's tax credit. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) pointed out, he glossed over the fact that the married couples allowance will disappear next year, but the children's tax credit will not be introduced until 2001, with the result that families will have a full tax year without either relief. Even when the children's tax credit arrives, it will cost the Exchequer £1,400 million compared with £2,050 million taken in tax as a result of scrapping the married couple's allowance.
  Pensioners were told that they would keep the married couples allowance. It transpires, however, that that will be the case only for those who reach retirement age before April next year. If one's children have grown up, and if one is unfortunate enough to have a 65th birthday after April 2000, one will be hit by the full tax increase with no corresponding benefit.
  The Chancellor also made no mention of the 11 per cent. rise in duty on diesel, a measure that is a kick in the teeth for the British haulage industry. It will put at risk more than 53,000 jobs.
  The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have tried to pretend that the Government are cutting tax. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said yesterday, and as my hon. Friends the
  592
  Members for Aldershot, for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) have said today, the truth is precisely the reverse. As a result of the Chancellor's three Budgets, an extra £7.1 billion will be taken in tax this year, an extra £10.5 billion next year and an extra £9.3 billion in the year after that. According to the House of Commons Library, the total increase in tax as a result of the Labour Government's actions will amount to more than £40 billion.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) pointed out, the tax system will also be made far more complicated. The Chancellor has built on what he did last year to capital gains tax. He has made it so complex that most people believe that he will have to correct his changes in due course. This year, he has made direct taxation more complicated. The one group of people in the community who really will gain from the Budget will be the accountancy profession.
  There were some notable omissions in the Chancellor's Budget. There was no help for savers, despite the fact that the savings ratio has fallen by more than 30 per cent. in just two years, a point highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whittingdale: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not, as time is moving on.
  It is a direct consequence of the Government's attack on savings that the ratio has fallen. The Government have taxed pension funds and scrapped personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, which will be replaced with an unattractive and inferior product. It is hardly surprising that billboards all over London are telling people to put their money into a PEP or a TESSA during the next three weeks before the Government abolish them.
  Instead of encouraging saving, the Government have introduced, for the first time in 20 years, differential tax rates for earned income and savings income. I shall not use the phrase "unearned income", because the truth is that savings accumulate as a result of extremely hard work by people up and down the country. In future, the new 10p tax rate will apply only to earned income. The old 20p rate will still apply to savings income.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) pointed out that the Budget speech contained nothing to relieve charities of their extra tax burden as a result of the abolition of dividend tax credits. Nor was there anything to reverse the most mean and spiteful measure introduced by the Government—tax on dividend income of non-taxpayers. That measure will cost more than 600,000 people on the lowest income an average of £75 a year. Despite all the reassurances from Ministers during last year's Finance Bill Committee, and despite protests from pensioners up and down the country, the Government are going ahead with that measure. The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) thought that pensioners would be disappointed that nothing had been done to correct that. They will not be disappointed; they will be very angry indeed.
  I shall now deal with individual measures in the Budget. Many groups in the community have been hit badly by the Budget. House purchasers were hit twice over by the abolition of mortgage interest relief and the

  593
  increase in stamp duty. Those measures come at a time when the housing market is unsettled, and there was a fall of 0.5 per cent. in house prices last month.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) have pointed out, the real burden of the increase in stamp duty falls not on house purchasers but on business. Commercial property is an enormously important asset in the economy, contributing about 10 per cent. of gross domestic product. Yet the increase in stamp duty will immediately reduce the capital value of commercial properties, making it harder for companies—especially small and medium-sized companies—to secure loans to meet their needs. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made an interesting point when she noted the measure's damaging effect on high-tech companies dealing in intellectual property rights. That again is a direct consequence of the Budget.
  Business faces a new threat in the form of an energy tax. The Chancellor claims that it will be revenue neutral, as he intends to cut employers' national insurance contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out that it is vital that he makes it so, but the fact that it will impact most severely on manufacturing industry just when it is in recession and facing huge competition from overseas has been ignored. The additional encouragement for energy efficiency is welcome, but hardly likely to offset the extra burden that the tax imposes. Because it is levied downstream rather than upstream, it cannot affect the type of energy consumed and is likely to result in little environmental benefit. Its effect on the competitiveness of British industry is potentially devastating. The most likely consequence of its introduction is more business closures and lost jobs.
  In one area, the Chancellor did not raise tax. He froze duty on beer, wine and spirits. That was a belated but welcome recognition of the huge damage done by the smuggling of alcohol into Britain from abroad, which is a direct result of the enormous differential in duty rates. A freeze will do little good. The present level of duty led to a 25 per cent. increase in smuggling last year alone. On the Government's own figures, that led to a revenue loss of £220 million, a figure which will go on increasing unless something is done. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath pointed out the effect that that will have on the brewery in his constituency. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) recounted his experience of the differentials.
  The smuggling and loss of revenue resulting from differential alcohol duty rates pales into insignificance compared with that resulting from tobacco duties. The Chancellor ignored that and increased the rate of duty by a further 5 per cent. That means that the tax on a packet of cigarettes has gone up by 62p under this Government. A packet of 20 now retails at £3.82 compared with less than £2 in France. Last November, the Government estimated the loss of revenue from smuggling at £1 billion. On Tuesday, only four months later, the Chancellor provided a new estimate of £1.5 billion, which is still only half the amount estimated by the industry.
  Of course, the Minister will point out that the escalator in duty was introduced under the previous Government. However, there is now overwhelming evidence that it is
  594
  not working. Tobacco is now smuggled not by opportunists filling their vans, but by organised crime, which has discovered that more money can be made from smuggling tobacco than from hard drugs. Smoking is no longer declining, and a worrying number of young people are taking up the habit. The ability to prevent under-age smoking is being undermined because those who are refused cigarettes at the corner shop can now get them for half the price in the pub car park.
  The Red Book shows that despite the increases in duty, revenue from tobacco duties was £8.4 billion in 1997–98, is estimated to have been £8.3 billion in 1998–99 and is forecast to be £7 billion in 1999–2000. We have only to consider the experience with hand-rolling tobacco to see what is likely to happen. While consumption has grown steadily, the proportion taken by UK duty-paid hand-rolling tobacco has fallen year on year, so that more than 70 per cent. of the market is now non-UK duty paid. We are in real danger of the same thing happening in the market for cigarettes.
  The Budget measure that has caused most anger, particularly in my constituency, was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), for Beaconsfield, for Poole (Mr. Syms), and for Arundel and South Downs. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said that it was synthetic anger but that merely demonstrates that he represents an urban constituency. I refer to the increase in road fuel duties.
  I have no doubt that the Minister will say again that the road fuel escalator was introduced by the Conservative Government, but the Labour Government have increased it and brought it forward so that we shall have had three increases in two years. We introduced it when road fuels were cheaper than on the continent. We now have the highest petrol prices in Europe and perhaps the world. The Chancellor has made the escalator steeper, yet for many people, especially in rural areas like mine, there is no alternative to the car. Those people are an easy target for the Chancellor, who is much more interested in raising money than cutting emissions.
  One particular group does have a choice, and that is people in the road haulage industry. They have suffered the most as a result of the Budget. Just a few days ago, hundreds of lorry drivers came to Westminster to express their anger at the damage that diesel duty is doing to the British haulage industry. Instead of listening to them, the Chancellor has increased the rate not by 6 per cent., but 11 per cent. It is hardly surprising that the Road Haulage Association has said that hauliers reacted to the Budget with anger and disbelief.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, it is an old rule of thumb that Budgets that receive the greatest plaudits from the press the next morning usually turn out to be the most unpopular and damaging in the long term. The Chancellor certainly got good coverage on Wednesday, but already the shine is coming off, and I have no doubt that as time passes more and more people will come to see that this is a tax-raising Government who achieved office only by lying to the British people.
  6.46 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I start on one note of agreement with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford

  595
  (Mr. Whittingdale). This has been an excellent debate, with many good speeches from the Opposition Benches. However, I thought at one stage that we were about to have a big policy announcement. The hon. Gentleman proudly announced the number of speeches that there had been from the Opposition Benches. Of course, he forgot that three Liberal Members had spoken. Perhaps we are about to see a new Conservative/Liberal Democrat pact. He failed to mention a number of other things, such as the fact that 96 per cent. of properties would be unaffected by the changes in stamp duty.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the escalator. It is amazing how the Conservative party has collective amnesia, as if the past 18 years had not happened at all. Conservative Members were there. The hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament, but he takes no responsibility. Presumably, he just trooped into the Government Lobby then without thinking. Presumably, too, he predicted that his party would lose the next election so that he could disown the Conservative Government's actions as promptly as possible.
  I understand what the hon. Gentleman had to say on alcohol and tobacco smuggling. Again, let me sound a note of agreement with him. I agree that we are talking about very serious organised crime. It is worrying, and I know that it worries the police and the law-enforcement authorities. However, if one followed the hon. Gentleman's logic, we would give in to organised crime. Is that really what Conservative Members are saying? I do not think so.
  We also had many passionate and good speeches about education from my hon. Friends. We had a very honest admission from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), whom I remember well from our university days. I think we have debated against each other in the past, although he may have been a member of a different party at the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us more."] I am well known for my discretion so I will say no more. The hon. Gentleman said that his business went bust as a result of the previous Government's failure of policy.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sorry to be reminded tonight that my youthful mistakes were corrected, but the hon. Lady's were not. Perhaps I can help her see the light by making it clear that when a business goes bust, the cause is to do with the business and little to do with the Government of the day. However, under the previous Government, there was always the opportunity to come back and win back, and many of us took that opportunity. There will be far fewer of those opportunities under her Government because of higher taxes and more regulation.
  Mrs. Roche: I really do not want to add to the hon. Gentleman's distress. He will, understandably, have ambitions in this place and in the Conservative party, and I should not like to add any further to his discomfort because of his admission. He also mentioned in his speech the huge growth in private pensions under the previous Government he did, however, not mention that the previous Government presided over the pensions mis-selling scandal, which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has done so much to correct—for which I pay tribute to her.
  Tuesday's Budget was another step on the road to delivering a stronger economic future for Britain. It is a Budget that builds on a strong foundation of economic
  596
  stability and offers a better deal for business. It is a Budget that delivers a better deal for Britain by rewarding work and, most important, by supporting families. We are locking in economic stability to achieve those aims.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister said that the Budget will support families. In the Chancellor's entire Budget speech, not once did he mention the word marriage. Marriage and married couples are the big losers in Budget.
  Mrs. Roche: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman—and I was about to say something reasonably nice about him. I still shall. He was absolutely right when he made some very encouraging remarks about our handling of the economy.
  An appreciation of families and of children was expressed throughout the Chancellor's speech on Tuesday. When the Chancellor quite rightly said that children are not 20 per cent. but 100 per cent. of our future, the resonance of the remark was felt not only in the House but across the country. The Budget promotes families. Net tax cuts—worth £4 billion—are targeted at working families. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may sneer, but they are sneering only because, on Tuesday—as Labour Members clearly saw—their faces dropped and dropped, becoming ever gloomier as the Chancellor continued his speech.
  We heard today some very important speeches. I did not understand the point on families made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), but I should give him a little credit—he said that it was not a bad Budget for the economy overall. He made a point on charities, but I should tell him that United Kingdom charities already receive more than £2 billion a year in tax relief. The Government are extremely proud of that record.
  As the debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, there has been a great concentration on education in the debate. Some incredibly valuable points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on the importance of books and poetry. Hers was a moving speech. I was glad that, at long last in our House, someone is speaking up for literature and poetry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) quite rightly spoke about Tory failure in education and the legacy that we have had to put right.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made some points on education. An Education Minister was in the Chamber at the time, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's points will be taken into consideration.
  Although the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is not in the Chamber, I should say that he made some interesting points. I did not agree with them all, but he was very kind and courteous and paid tribute to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
  The Government are making work pay, with a new 10p tax rate and a cut in the basic rate to 23p. We are, of course, giving more support to our pensioners, with a rise in the winter allowance to £100. In the debate, some Opposition Members mentioned pensioners. I tell them that I know, both from what I have seen in my own

  597
  constituency and from what I have heard elsewhere, that our package for pensioners will be warmly welcomed across the country.
  We are giving a better deal to lower and middle-income families, with a new children's tax credit and a rise in child benefit, which is very important.
  There was also discussion during the debate of macro-economic policy and public finances. The Chancellor was able to deliver such a positive Budget on Tuesday because the Government have dealt prudently with public finances.
  Mr. Gill: The Chancellor said on Tuesday that the employers' rate of national insurance would be reduced to 11.7 per cent. How can that be true when the current rate is 10 per cent.?
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. [Interruption.] It is good to ask questions, but it is also sensible for Conservative Front Benchers to listen to the answers. Our national insurance reforms will help to ease low-paid workers into the employment market. As a result of those reforms, 9,000 people will no longer have to pay national insurance. The Government have implemented some of the recommendations of the Taylor report and provided a real incentive for working families in this country.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made a thoughtful speech in which he raised several valuable points about public finances, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—particularly regarding macro-economic policy. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned savings. The worst enemy of savers in this country is high inflation, which is why the Government have introduced the relevant fiscal measures.
  I remind Opposition Members that the savings ratio collapsed to just 3 per cent. in 1988—that is a record of which they should be really ashamed. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made some welcome remarks about public debt. I thought that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) would congratulate the Government on clearing up the Tory mess, but he failed to do so. [Interruption.] I live in hope that the Conservatives will come to their senses, realise why they are in opposition and try to improve their fortunes.
  598
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made an excellent speech about the importance of science and the science base. She raised several valuable points—she always does—and I pay tribute to her great expertise in that area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) also made a valuable contribution about the importance of information technology. He referred also to venture capital and productivity. The Government are attempting to reduce the productivity gap—which stands at 40 per cent. vis-à-vis the United States. That is why the growth measures in the Budget that the hon. Member for Chichester attempted to denigrate are so important.
  Mr. Tyrie rose—
  Mrs. Roche: I am sorry, but I have only a short time left to speak. I have been generous in giving way.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Mr. Caplin) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) made some interesting points about the film industry with which I agree absolutely. I should point out that my constituency is well known in London as the setting of the wonderful film "Truly, Madly, Deeply". The film "Fever Pitch" was also filmed in my constituency.
  There were many contributions about the small business measures, which were warmly welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). The hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) also made some generous comments. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who I know takes an interest in these matters, did not welcome the measures more warmly. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) cast some doubt on the business expertise on this side of the House.
  It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday 22 March, Standing Order No. 99 (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment) shall have effect with the substitution in paragraph (2) (b) of the word "seven" for the word "ten".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  Supermarkets (North Norfolk)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  7 pm
  Mr. David Prior: As many hon. Members will know, supermarkets have had a major impact on our environment and our way of life. They offer variety, quality and, perhaps above all, convenience. There are more than 1,200 supermarkets of over 25,000 sq ft. The multiple chains, dominated by Asda, Safeway, Tesco and Sainsbury's, control some 75 per cent. of food retailing in this country, of which over 50 per cent. is now own label. To a large extent, they also control food production. At some time, surely we shall have reached saturation point, and in some areas I have no doubt that we have gone beyond it.
  The massive impact of supermarkets was confirmed by the recent report by CB Hillier Parker, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, called "The Impact of Large Foodstores on Market Towns and District Centres". The report is of particular interest to me because five new supermarkets are proposed for north Norfolk, and I have seen at first hand in Cromer and Fakenham how a supermarket can affect the high street and local shops and producers. The report was welcomed by the Minister, who said:
  "The research firmly established that out of town supermarkets can seriously damage the health of small towns and district centres. Arguments about clawing back trade and creating jobs simply do not hold water."
  Let us briefly examine the impact of a supermarket. Most obviously, it has a direct impact on the town centre and the high street, especially in rural towns, many of which are already under great pressure. The Hillier Parker report took a close look at Fakenham when Safeway opened in 1994. It found a 64 per cent. decline in the market share taken by town centre convenience shops.
  It is not just food retailers that suffer. Supermarkets now account for some 25 per cent. of all petrol sales, and 2,000 independent garages are going out of business each year. Similarly, 10,000 newsagents are predicted to close over the next three years. Home delivery of milk, pharmacies and a wide range of other services are under threat. The research demonstrates that smaller towns such as those in my constituency are less able to adjust than larger town centres and that a new store can supplant the role of the town centre. In addition, the research confirms that the trade that is clawed back as a result of a new store rarely leads to any tangible benefits for a town centre.
  Village shops are also threatened, and many have closed. Many villages have no community services at all. For people without a car, the closure of the shop is a disaster and can lead to social isolation because the shop not only sells goods, but is a meeting place and provides an invaluable service, especially to older people.
  Local food producers are also at risk. Work by Lady Caroline Cranbrook has revealed that local traders source a surprisingly large amount of their produce from local suppliers. In a survey of 81 food shops close to Saxmundham in east Suffolk, she found 295 local and regional suppliers. It is not unusual for a butcher to buy the meat from local farms, slaughter it locally and produce
  600
  his own range of sausages, freezer packs and cooked meats. Eggs, drinks, bread, fruit, honey, vegetables, sauces and jams are all typical local foods.
  Mr. John Hayes: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the impact on communities of the close relationship between producer, retailer and consumer is uniquely created by the network of small shops and producers that he describes? In my constituency in Lincolnshire, communities thrive and rely on that very relationship.
  Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Lady Cranbrook took a particular look at farm shops. She found that eight farm shops source products from 86 local producers and 11 local wholesalers, as well as providing 22 full-time jobs, 28 part-time jobs and 100 jobs for seasonal casual workers. That well illustrates my hon. Friend's point.
  There are also transport implications. Supermarkets, especially ones out of town, generate traffic. Nowadays, 75 per cent. of us use the car to do our shopping. Supermarkets also generate delivery traffic, with heavy lorries. Centralised stocking and distribution systems mean that food is transported for hundreds of miles.
  There is also the effect on jobs. It is a myth that supermarkets create jobs. Research by the National Retail Planning Forum into the effect of opening 93 supermarkets concluded that each one resulted in a net loss of 276 full-time jobs. Large supermarkets inevitably increase the trend of large farms, large fields, longer travelling times, more traffic, large abattoirs and large processing plants. Is that the kind of society that we want?
  Mr. Tony Colman rose—
  Mr. Prior: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose mother lives in Sheringham in my constituency.
  Mr. Colman: As somebody who was born and bred in north Norfolk, I support the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's proposals. But, as somebody who is very concerned about the high prices in many of the shops in many rural towns in north Norfolk, may I suggest that an answer could be the smaller supermarket shops which Tesco and Sainsbury are tending to develop, which are of no more than 10,000 sq ft or 20,000 sq ft and could ensure that people who live in north Norfolk are able to enjoy the much lower prices that supermarket chains can offer, as well as real competition, without the damage undoubtedly done by large supermarkets and large out-of-town developments?
  Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but it does not answer the one about local supplies from local producers.
  The Minister summed up the position well in a speech in Birmingham on 5 November 1998, in which he said:
  "We want to focus new development in town centres, to secure their revitalisation, to ensure greater social inclusion and to achieve environmental benefits, particularly less dependence upon the car. This is not a pious hope. We have a clear policy to focus development in town centres and we are going to stick to it."

  601
  In a speech in Wellington on 25 September 1998, the Minister said:
  "The impact of superstores is greatest on smaller towns and where the superstores include a wide range of in-store services, such as dry cleaners, pharmacies and banking facilities. They effectively take over the traditional town centre activities and can seriously threaten the viability of existing town centre facilities. The smaller the town or district centre, the less they are able to cope with the threat.
  But it is not just a question of what the store sells. If a superstore is disproportionately large compared with the amount of shopping in the centre, then it can again swamp the centre. And that applies whether the store is located in the town centre, on the edge of the town centre or out of town."
  Given all that background and the Minister's comments, it is pretty hard to understand why north Norfolk is confronted with five new supermarkets in addition to the four that we already have. At various stages in the planning process, there are plans for supermarkets at Statham, North Walsham, Sheringham, Wells and Aylsham.
  I am not for one minute advocating a blanket ban on all those proposals—far from it. There may be strong arguments in favour of an individual proposal, and I accept that public opinion is never at one on the issue. That is illustrated by the excellent work of year 6 children at Millfield primary school in North Walsham. About half the children were for a new supermarket, and half against. Those against felt that it would ruin the town and create more traffic, and those for felt that they needed a wider range of shops and that it would put North Walsham on the map. Their views probably reflect those of the adult population.
  I feel strongly that the planning procedure, especially planning policy guidance note—PPG—6, should be tightened up and made more effective, so that the overall impact of a supermarket can be taken fully into account prior to planning permission being granted.
  Indeed, the Minister recognised that when he stated:
  "Over recent years…assessment has become more complex about the best way to assess impact. PPG6 gives quite a lot of guidance, but it needs to be bolstered… The main message"—
  of the Hillier Parker report—
  "and one which heartens me greatly, is that they wish PPG6 to be strengthened."
  Hillier Parker made a number of recommendations, which the Minister should consider urgently. First, the need for a new food store should be more clearly defined in PPG6. The method used, for example, in the Nathaniel Lichfield study in Norfolk does not have sufficient credibility.
  Secondly, the distance guideline of 200 m to 300 m in PPG6 may be too wide. It is essential that people can walk from the supermarket straight into the high street. Thirdly, all new food store proposals for stores of more than 1,000 sq m should be accompanied by an independent assessment of their impact, using the CREATE methodology proposed by Hillier Parker. At present, such studies are often paid for by the retailer, and are neither independent nor comprehensive.
  To those three points, I would add further suggestions. First, PPG6 should be extended to include as a material consideration the effect on the rural hinterland, as well as
  602
  the effect on the town and the village. That would include farm shops and local food producers. It would also assess the traffic implications.
  Secondly, consideration should be given to adopting a provision similar to the loi Raffarin in France, which requires a public inquiry into any new development in excess of 6,000 sq m. The French Minister described the law as being designed to defend
  "social and economic cohesion and the fabric of society",
  which shows how seriously the French take the matter.
  Thirdly, high street shops affected by a supermarket development should be eligible for a rates review, and for rate relief, which has already been introduced for village shops. That should be funded, at least in part, by increasing the uniform business rate charged to supermarkets. Moreover, it is quite wrong that the new food tax should apply to all food outlets at the same rate of £90, regardless of their size.
  Fourthly, supermarkets should be encouraged to develop national policies for sourcing local products, and planning permission for supermarkets should include a condition that a certain amount of floor space be devoted to locally sourced food.
  Finally, the financial balance between hard-pressed district councils and supermarkets should be recognised. It is wrong that district councils can be bought off so easily by section 106 agreements, and wrong that district councils sometimes feel unable to press their case, for fear of being liable to costs if an appeal is lost.
  The Minister accepts that PPG6 needs to be bolstered and strengthened. He accepts Hillier Parker's findings. He has said:
  "When we revise PPG6 we will certainly take Hillier Parker's recommendations into account."
  He has said that he wants to bring about a renaissance of our market towns. He has said that that should not be a pious hope. He has it in his power to do that. I hope that he will tell the House today that the time for talking and researching is over, and that the time for action has begun.
  7.13 pm
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on initiating the debate. I fully understand why he has raised the subject, but I am sure that he will understand that I cannot comment on the merits of any case to which he referred that is the subject of a planning application. For me to do so could fetter the impartiality of the Secretary of State, should the case be referred to him at a later date.
  I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has chosen the subject, as we are concerned about what is happening in the rural economy and about the quality of life and the opportunities open to people in rural areas. We recognise the importance of maintaining the vitality and viability of market towns such as those in north Norfolk.
  I am familiar with the problems of north Norfolk, and I appreciate the strong interest taken by all the local Members of Parliament. Our research on the impact of supermarkets on market towns—which, incidentally, chose Fakenham for a case study—shows what can happen. I therefore welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and to set out Government policy.

  603
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the previous Administration, 50 per cent. of all out-of-town shopping was built in five years, from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. That was unmanageable, and I am sure that he will reflect on the possible mistakes made by the Administration whom he supported, but let me assure him that the Government are committed to tackling the problems faced by rural areas and to creating sustainable rural communities. We want to make rural communities attractive places in which to live, to create more opportunities for all types of people who live there and to enable those people to take part in decisions affecting their lives.
  That is why we are producing a rural White Paper; rural England is changing and we must respond to those changes. The White Paper will look at the long-term future of the rural areas and our policies, across the board, will support sustainable rural communities for the future. It will present our vision for rural areas to complement our urban White Paper. We will therefore be looking closely at how the urban and rural White Papers can complement each other to build a clear and comprehensive strategy for the future.
  The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we recently issued a discussion document, "Rural England". That sets the context for the rural White Paper and poses questions on a wide range of issues, on which we invite comment. However, it is vital that a local authority's vision for its area should address specifically the needs of the rural areas, including the relationship between town and country; where and how local facilities, such as shopping, should be provided; and, in particular, the role of the small market towns. That vision must be projected in development plans.
  The thrust of the Government's planning policy for rural areas, which is set out in planning policy guidance note 7, is that change through development should improve the environment, as well as yielding economic and social benefits. New developments outside the existing settlements or areas not allocated for development in the development plans should be strictly controlled. That is particularly true of supermarkets.
  The Government's planning policy on retail development was set out in our response to the Select Committee's report of July 1997 on shopping centres. Our response reaffirmed our commitment to PPG6, which deals with town centres and retail developments, and aims to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of our existing centres in urban and rural areas by focusing new development and investment, particularly for retail and leisure uses, in them. In rural areas that means getting supermarkets into town centres, but it also means protecting village shops at the same time.
  We also want to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, employment, services and facilities to which people have easy access through a choice of means of transport. We encourage local planning authorities to be proactive in planning to accommodate new retail development, which means that they should first assess the need for additional retail development as a basis for preparing their development plan strategies and policies for accommodating such development. They should aim to safeguard and strengthen the local centres and the rural economy.
  604
  Having established their need for further development, in quantitative and qualitative terms, local planning authorities should then apply a sequential approach to identifying suitable locations and sites to accommodate their need. That approach places the onus on the local authorities and the developers to develop town centre sites first or, failing that, sites on the edge of town, before looking at out-of-centre sites.
  If there is no need for additional development, there will be no need to identify additional sites. Local planning authorities should adopt a plan-led approach to handling planning applications involving new retail developments. As we have recently made it clear, where retail development is proposed, but was not envisaged in the development plan, applicants should show the need for additional facilities, and that a sequential approach has been applied to the selection of the site.
  When that has been established, and if an out-of-centre site has been chosen, the local planning authority is now required to take into account the likely harm to the development plan strategy, accessibility by a choice of means of transport, the likely effect of the proposals on overall travel patterns and the likely impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres, and on the rural economy. I think that responds to the claim in the report that the definition of need should be strengthened and clarified.
  That last factor is especially relevant to the debate. The hon. Gentleman identified a number of problems that can result from large retail developments in rural areas, including their possible impact on the lives of local people, on employment, purchasing and supply chains, and on the local economy. Taken individually, those factors may be deemed to be "material planning considerations". As the hon. Gentleman may know, only the courts can determine the position; but, taken overall, the impact of a proposal on the vitality and viability of the rural economy is a material planning consideration that local authorities should take into account in deciding planning applications involving retail development. There is scope for local planning authorities to consider those factors, and to determine whether collectively they would have an adverse impact on their town centres and/or the rural economy more generally.
  The scale of new supermarkets is another important factor, especially in relation to rural areas and market towns such as Fakenham, Stalham and Wells. That is why PPG6 advises local authorities to adopt policies that encourage appropriately sized local supermarkets, relative to the size and type of centre to be served. Authorities should discourage inappropriate proposals—proposals for developments for which the need has not been established, or for developments that are too large in relation to the centre. To do that, planning authorities will need to understand the need for additional retail floor space, in terms of both quantity and quality. They will also need a clear vision and strategy for their centres, and clear plan policies based on that.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a report published recently by my Department, entitled "The Impact of Large Foodstores on Market Towns and District Centres". The researchers looked specifically at the impact of large food stores on the edges of towns, and out of town, on market towns and district centres. The report confirmed that large food stores built on the outskirts of market towns attract people at the expense of town centres, and do not add to

  605
  net overall employment in food retail. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that. With fewer people visiting the town centre, trade would be lost, there would be less new investment, and closures and overall job losses could well result.
  The report confirms what we already know: large food stores on the edge of market towns can seriously damage the vitality and viability of their centres. It provides further justification for the Government's policy.
  Mr. Prior: When does the Minister plan to incorporate some of the recommendations of the Hillier Parker report in PPG6, and strengthen the guideline, in the way that he has talked about publicly on other occasions?
  Mr. Caborn: I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman reads my speech in Hansard, he will see that we are strengthening the guidelines. We are defining need, and what can be considered material, in regard to planning authorities throughout the country. We have a plan-led system, which evolves through the democratic process. I hope that planning authorities take account of what I have said this evening, and that it will be "material" to their planning regimes.
  I believe that the future of local shops and services in market towns is crucial to the quality of rural life. It is therefore essential to plan new retail developments,
  606
  especially supermarkets, with great care. We must ensure that where there is a need for additional food stores, they are developed. We must also ensure that we carefully consider the possible impacts of additional retail development, especially on market towns and the rural economy, before we allow them.
  I am committed to bringing new life into our town and local centres in both urban and rural areas—I believe that the hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned that. Supermarkets should be located to reinforce the strength of our centres and small towns in rural areas, not to undermine them.
  I believe that PPG6 enables local planning authorities to plan positively to encourage the right development in the right place, and to effectively prevent new retail development that would have adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of existing centres in rural areas, and on the rural economy. We are closely considering ways in which we may help them to implement the policy effectively, and to improve day-to-day practice.
  I believe that I have very fully answered the points that the hon. Member for North Norfolk raised. His speech clearly showed that action must be taken. The Government are taking that action, and we are very clear in our minds that we shall not only drive the urban renaissance but renew our rural economies.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Admission Charges
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Council if she will ensure that no charges are imposed for admission to the Palace of Westminster which could affect British citizens without a debate and decision on the floor of the House.[75943]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, on 3 February 1999,Official Report,column 625.

  Contracts
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what assessment is made of the industrial relations record of private contractors as part of the tendering process for contracts to provide services to the House; and if he will make a statement.[75443]

  Dr. Moonie
  No formal assessments are made of the industrial relations records of private contractors tendering for contracts to provide services to the House. The supplier appraisal process can, however, cover such matters as recruitment procedures to avoid discrimination, training policies, quality standards and good employment practices.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  River Tigris Dam
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the economic impact on British companies of the bidding process for dam construction on the River Tigris in Turkey. [74873]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The contract is the subject of continuing negotiations and, until these are complete, the actual values will not be known, but the company concerned expects that very substantial procurement of UK goods and services would take place as a result of the Ilisu hydro-electric project on the River Tigris in Turkey.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the Conclusions of the EU Presidency on Economic Reform which were debated at the EU Internal Market Council on 25 February. [75724]
  306
  Mr. Wilson
  The Conclusions on Economic Reform agreed at the Internal Market Council of 25 February were published as part of a Council press release (document No. 6215/99), following the meeting. They are available on the Council's website at http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the Conclusions of the Internal Market Council on 25 February.[75725]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Conclusions of the Internal Market Council of 25 February were published as part of a Council press release (document No. 6215/99), following the meeting. They are available on the Council's website at http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the conclusions of his Department's inquiry into the disappearance of weapons grade uranium in the 1960s from Dounreay; and if he will make a statement. [75942]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 315, to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

  Fifoots Point Power Station
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet in a position to make his decision on AES Fifoots Point Ltd' s application to extend the Fifoots Point coal-fired power station near Newport in South Wales.[76735]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to AES Fifoots Point Ltd.'s application to construct a re-circulating cooling water system (the extension) at its existing power station at Fifoots Point. The decision has 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).

  The relevant planning authority, Newport County Borough Council, has not objected to the application.

  Decisions on other applications under consideration will be announced in due course.

  Copies of the Press Notice are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions he has had with the regional electricity companies to encourage them to use more renewable energy; [75686]

  (2) what target, in terms of the percentage of electricity provided through renewables, each of the regional electricity companies has set themselves; and what progress was made in achieving this in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [75687]

  Mr. Battle
  Orders placed under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) arrangements require the Regional Electricity Companies (RECs) to contract collectively for specific amounts of renewable generation.
  307
  As an illustration of the progress made to date, in calendar year 1997, NFFO projects supplied 2.63 Terra Watt hours (TWh) of electricity. In calendar year 1998, that rose to 3.29 TWh, an increase of 25 per cent.

  In September last year I laid the fifth NFFO Order—NFFO-5—which followed immediately on from a consultation with the RECs. That Order is the largest to date, for a total of 261 projects with a total Declared Net Capacity (DNC) of 1177 Mega Watts (MW).

  Missile Purchases
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the total value of missile purchases other than Rapier which the USA has made from the United Kingdom in the past decade. [75018]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I wrote to the hon. Member about this matter on 8 March 1999, in reply to his earlier question on 2 March 1999, Official Report, columns 659–60, and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response she has made to the Fourth Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of session 1997–98 on the Prison Service in Northern Ireland. [76587]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  A copy of my response has, by the Committee's leave, been placed in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pilot Projects
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the pilot projects instigated by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating the area in which each pilot took, or is taking, place. [72633]

  Mr. Mudie
  Since 1 May 1997 the Department has instigated a number of pilot projects, a list of which has been placed in the Library.

  Education Standards Agency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each(a) metropolitan district council,(b) shire district council,(c) unitary council, (d) shire county council and(e) London borough council the sums of money they will be required to pay towards the education standards fund in the 1999–2000 financial year. [74771]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table lists the allocations offered so far to each local education authority in England for the 1999–2000 Standards Fund programme, including the contribution to be made by each authority and by the Government if the allocations are accepted in full.
  308
  The number of individual Standards Fund grants (previously Grants for Education Support and Training) fully funded by the Government has increased from two under Grants for Education Support and Training in 1996–97 to nine so far allocated under the Standards Fund for 1999–2000. The Government's contribution has increased from £163 million to £493 million over the same period.

  Local education authority and government contributions to the 1999–2000 standards fund programme

  £

  Local education authority

  Local education authority contribution

  Government contribution

  Total allocation

  Metropolitan District Councils

  Barnsley

  1,693,679

  2,017,821

  3,711,500

  Birmingham

  10,645,287

  13,697,682

  24,342,969

  Bolton

  2,475,548

  3,334,191

  5,809,739

  Bradford

  7,711,438

  8,545,751

  16,257,189

  Bury

  1,301,553

  1,632,455

  2,934,008

  Calderdale

  1,908,560

  2,577,892

  4,486,452

  Coventry

  3,418,047

  4,622,998

  8,041,045

  Doncaster

  2,054,708

  3,158,415

  5,213,123

  Dudley

  3,794,501

  3,974,038

  7,768,539

  Gateshead

  1,458,458

  2,065,948

  3,524,406

  Kirklees

  4,787,464

  5,426,361

  10,213,825

  Knowsley

  1,696,731

  1,946,878

  3,643,609

  Leeds

  5,080,891

  6,330,252

  11,411,143

  Liverpool

  3,875,215

  4,721,881

  8,597,096

  Manchester

  4,965,936

  7,715,765

  12,681,701

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,202,880

  2,473,607

  4,676,487

  North Tyneside

  1,779,288

  2,021,948

  3,801,236

  Oldham

  2,838,916

  3,807,210

  6,646,126

  Rochdale

  2,028,574

  2,775,957

  4,804,531

  Rotherham

  2,111,205

  2,927,562

  5,038,767

  Salford

  1,698,466

  2,265,888

  3,964,354

  Sandwell

  2,456,966

  3,461,104

  5,918,070

  Sefton

  1,955,668

  2,693,040

  4,648,708

  Sheffield

  4,019,798

  5,093,741

  9,113,539

  Solihull

  1,268,203

  1,521,157

  2,789,360

  South Tyneside

  1,322,097

  1,690,990

  3,013,087

  St. Helens

  1,352,701

  1,503,403

  2,856,104

  Stockport

  2,155,969

  2,677,349

  4,833,318

  Sunderland

  2,000,180

  2,387,779

  4,387,959

  Tameside

  1,712,385

  2,131,766

  3,844,151

  Trafford

  1,540,301

  1,924,019

  3,464,320

  Wakefield

  2,430,161

  3,394,134

  5,824,295

  Walsall

  2,868,183

  4,081,404

  6,949,587

  Wigan

  2,143,429

  2,556,170

  4,699,599

  Wirral

  1,968,552

  2,680,071

  4,648,623

  Wolverhampton

  3,563,643

  4,183,481

  7,747,124

  Unitary Councils

  Bath and North East Somerset

  977,163

  1,297,040

  2,274,203

  Blackburn and Darwen

  2,636,421

  3,249,350

  5,885,771

  Blackpool

  968,923

  1,083,497

  2,052,420

  Bournemouth

  991,130

  1,090,310

  2,081,440

  Bracknell Forest

  706,985

  858,431

  1,565,416

  Brighton and Hove

  1,650,655

  2,084,791

  3,735,446

  City of Bristol

  3,327,058

  3,856,719

  7,183,777

  Darlington

  770,716

  1,023,122

  1,793,838

  Derby

  2,409,479

  3,183,489

  5,592,968

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,997,853

  2,912,051

  4,909,904

  Halton

  1,038,083

  1,177,597

  2,215,680

  Hartlepool

  853,725

  1,097,151

  1,950,876

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,025,114

  2,715,039

  4,740,153

  Leicester

  3,352,063

  4,695,447

  8,047,510

  Luton

  2,075,996

  3,217,181

  5,293,177

  Medway Towns

  2,243,367

  2,596,687

  4,840,054

  Middlesbrough

  1,503,890

  2,016,652

  3,520,542

  Milton Keynes

  1,654,769

  2,133,006

  3,787,775

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,394,708

  1,658,820

  3,053,528

  North Lincolnshire

  1,141,048

  1,572,633

  2,713,681

  North Somerset

  1,139,376

  1,537,102

  2,676,478

  309

  Local education authority and government contributions to the 1999–2000 standards fund programme

  £

  Local education authority

  Local education authority contribution

  Government contribution

  Total allocation

  Nottingham City

  3,145,542

  3,991,475

  7,137,017

  Peterborough

  1,697,588

  2,289,054

  3,986,642

  Plymouth

  1,934,358

  2,200,280

  4,134,638

  Poole

  740,481

  823,086

  1,563,567

  Portsmouth

  1,441,958

  1,626,648

  3,068,606

  Reading

  1,271,888

  1,443,885

  2,715,773

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,265,471

  1,726,797

  2,992,268

  Rutland

  318,015

  351,245

  669,260

  Slough

  1,532,655

  1,751,723

  3,284,378

  South Gloucestershire

  1,666,774

  2,234,329

  3,901,103

  Southampton

  1,527,156

  1,929,567

  3,456,723

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,039,894

  1,213,607

  2,253,501

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,457,300

  2,050,248

  3,507,548

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2,454,097

  3,031,857

  5,458,954

  Swindon

  1,398,767

  1,559,715

  2,958,482

  Telford and Wrekin

  2,079,334

  2,252,930

  4,332,264

  Thurrock

  1,230,579

  1,409,924

  2,640,503

  Torbay

  697,978

  841,965

  1,539,943

  Warrington

  1,248,087

  1,464,471

  2,712,558

  West Berkshire

  994,330

  1,355,697

  2,350,027

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  883,786

  1,182,304

  2,066,090

  Wokingham

  871,442

  1,048,480

  1,919,922

  Worcestershire

  3,429,440

  4,458,250

  7,887,690

  York

  1,110,079

  1,607,721

  2,717,800

  Shire County Councils

  Bedfordshire

  2,967,767

  4,246,714

  7,214,481

  Buckinghamshire

  3,876,947

  4,952,692

  8,829,639

  Cambridgeshire

  3,262,482

  4,146,811

  7,409,293

  Cheshire

  3,861,467

  4,680,451

  8,541,918

  Cornwall

  3,034,320

  3,656,490

  6,690,810

  Cumbria

  4,131,116

  4,672,392

  8,803,508

  Derbyshire

  4,537,842

  5,317,106

  9,854,948

  Devon

  4,029,382

  4,925,577

  8,954,959

  Dorset

  2,062,204

  2,457,669

  4,519,873

  Durham

  4,074,378

  5,480,315

  9,554,693

  East Sussex

  2,618,153

  3,971,759

  6,589,912

  Essex

  7,754,988

  8,914,779

  16,669,767

  Gloucestershire

  3,648,730

  4,450,722

  8,099,452

  Hampshire

  6,261,935

  7,967,280

  14,229,215

  Herefordshire

  1,169,537

  1,482,360

  2,651,897

  Hertfordshire

  7,072,521

  9,023,019

  16,095,540

  Isle of Wight

  923,613

  1,328,431

  2,252,044

  Isles of Scilly

  78,904

  86,751

  165,655

  Kent

  10,158,893

  11,834,439

  21,993,332

  Lancashire

  9,012,037

  11,049,830

  20,061,867

  Leicestershire

  3,414,348

  4,610,792

  8,025,140

  Lincolnshire

  4,213,885

  5,384,242

  9,598,127

  Norfolk

  5,012,506

  6,055,798

  11,068,304

  North Yorkshire

  3,386,302

  4,722,577

  8,108,879

  Northamptonshire

  4,374,951

  6,042,579

  10,417,530

  Northumberland

  2,106,048

  2,544,702

  4,650,750

  Nottinghamshire

  4,751,984

  5,580,929

  10,332,913

  Oxfordshire

  3,887,391

  4,974,369

  8,861,760

  Shropshire

  1,839,538

  2,178,510

  4,018,048

  Somerset

  3,610,490

  4,339,950

  7,950,440

  Staffordshire

  5,647,167

  7,363,883

  13,011,050

  Suffolk

  3,652,101

  4,786,964

  8,439,065

  Surrey

  5,295,773

  6,762,694

  12,058,467

  Warwickshire

  3,745,470

  5,055,382

  8,800,852

  West Sussex

  3,697,996

  5,186,266

  8,884,262

  Wiltshire

  2,729,790

  3,448,268

  6,178,058

  London Borough Councils

  Barking

  1,900,272

  2,089,860

  3,990,132

  Barnet

  2,366,416

  2,891,920

  5,258,336

  Bexley

  1,418,228

  1,821,321

  3,239,549

  Brent

  2,666,955

  3,367,994

  6,034,949

  Bromley

  1,585,772

  1,853,334

  3,439,106

  Camden

  2,903,952

  3,144,973

  6,048,925

  City of London

  49,537

  58,634

  108,171

  310

  Local education authority and government contributions to the 1999–2000 standards fund programme

  £

  Local education authority

  Local education authority contribution

  Government contribution

  Total allocation

  Croydon

  2,751,957

  3,416,323

  6,168,280

  Ealing

  3,172,997

  3,507,708

  6,680,705

  Enfield

  2,712,542

  3,391,802

  6,104,344

  Greenwich

  3,021,145

  3,375,022

  6,396,167

  Hackney

  3,723,571

  4,438,089

  8,161,660

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,561,934

  1,831,641

  3,393,575

  Haringey

  2,921,447

  4,431,582

  7,353,029

  Harrow

  1,378,358

  1,931,663

  3,310,021

  Havering

  1,181,605

  1,407,355

  2,588,960

  Hillingdon

  1,859,310

  2,248,609

  4,107,919

  Hounslow

  2,167,800

  3,129,166

  5,296,966

  Islington

  2,923,391

  3,081,140

  6,004,531

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,064,503

  1,499,011

  2,563,514

  Kingston upon Thames

  959,307

  1,094,954

  2,054,261

  Lambeth

  3,546,274

  3,749,938

  7,296,212

  Lewisham

  2,913,948

  3,104,126

  6,018,074

  Merton

  1,276,035

  1,620,069

  2,896,104

  Newham

  2,550,122

  2,723,674

  5,273,796

  Redbridge

  2,271,169

  2,722,722

  4,993,891

  Richmond upon Thames

  914,294

  1,027,980

  1,942,274

  Southwark

  2,853,458

  3,093,472

  5,946,930

  Sutton

  1,117,877

  1,262,297

  2,380,174

  Tower Hamlets

  4,871,681

  7,603,711

  12,475,392

  Waltham Forest

  2,438,859

  3,336,517

  5,775,376

  Wandsworth

  2,278,024

  3,040,012

  5,318,036

  Westminster

  1,904,441

  2,664,768

  4,569,209

  England

  391,711,239

  492,566,360

  884,277,599

  Independent Committee on Technology in Schools
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the reports he has received from the Independent Committee on Technology in Schools. [74791]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An independent committee chaired by Sir Dennis Stevenson was established in 1996 to examine the role that ICT should be playing in primary and secondary education. The committee published its findings in a report entitled 'Information and Communications Technology in UK Schools'.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each(a) metropolitan district council, (b) shire district council, (c) unitary council, (d) shire county council and (e) London borough council the amount of money they will receive to contribute towards the teachers' pay award in the 1999–2000 financial year. [74770]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Local Government Finance settlement was announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 2 December 1998,Official Report, columns 883–84. It included. Education Standard Spending Assessments, which increased by 5.7 per cent. overall, but it did not identify separately funding in respect of teachers' pay.
  311

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the provision of guaranteed nursery education for all four-year-olds. [74780]

  Ms Hodge
  Early Years Development and Childcare Plans demonstrate how, since September 1998, a free part time early education place, for three terms before compulsory school, has been available for every child whose parents want one.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority, how much money.(a) has been spent and (b) is estimated will be needed to be spent on (i) employing new teachers and (ii) building new classrooms in order for schools to ensure that no five to seven-year-olds will be in classes with more than 30 pupils. [74736]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out by local education authority the allocations of revenue funding for additional teachers and capital funding for new classrooms made for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. In total, we have made available £620 million to ensure that our pledge is delivered in full by September 2001 and in virtually all schools by September 2000.

  Allocations to reduce infant class sizes

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  LEA name

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  142

  46

  —

  Barnet

  146

  192

  273

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  379

  616

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  140

  161

  178

  Bedfordshire

  —

  744

  650

  1,030

  Bexley

  225

  423

  360

  185

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  72

  421

  Blackburn

  107

  268

  263

  625

  Blackpool

  73

  415

  285

  278

  Bolton

  —

  280

  779

  628

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  77

  1,583

  Bracknell

  —

  174

  110

  277

  Bradford

  625

  202

  1,351

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  74

  Brighton and Hove

  88

  110

  268

  576

  Bristol, City of

  —

  203

  192

  303

  Bromley

  200

  520

  571

  339

  Buckinghamshire

  146

  160

  1,313

  1,608

  Bury

  584

  1,145

  1,082

  199

  Calderdale

  162

  100

  308

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  543

  946

  768

  Camden

  —

  —

  15

  92

  Cheshire

  —

  801

  1,370

  1,076

  City of London

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  —

  320

  760

  659

  Coventry

  452

  40

  604

  227

  Croydon

  100

  369

  298

  0

  Cumbria

  146

  113

  834

  779

  Darlington

  —

  170

  186

  266

  Derby, City of

  1,000

  878

  1,402

  160

  Derbyshire

  1,160

  1,597

  2,294

  1,926

  Devon

  1,000

  576

  1,505

  594

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  507

  291

  Dorset

  324

  254

  1,067

  746

  Dudley

  —

  374

  233

  608

  Durham

  250

  167

  810

  508

  Ealing

  291

  111

  442

  607

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  250

  85

  720

  1,099

  312

  Allocations to reduce infant class sizes

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  LEA name

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  East Sussex

  116

  547

  878

  515

  Enfield

  —

  380

  393

  644

  Essex

  —

  543

  1,183

  1,149

  Gateshead

  100

  200

  181

  0

  Gloucestershire

  —

  238

  804

  629

  Greenwich

  —

  80

  0

  200

  Hackney

  —

  —

  91

  0

  Halton

  —

  297

  317

  85

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  —

  1,025

  1,490

  1,093

  Haringey

  146

  —

  148

  0

  Harrow

  —

  —

  69

  0

  Hartlepool

  100

  69

  194

  180

  Havering

  —

  77

  0

  257

  Herefordshire

  146

  65

  323

  985

  Hertfordshire

  510

  399

  1,369

  440

  Hillingdon

  291

  864

  427

  1,126

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  160

  507

  Isle of Wight

  135

  170

  308

  164

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Islington

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Kent

  —

  850

  1,126

  1,169

  Kingston upon Hull

  —

  —

  315

  434

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  131

  3,306

  Kirklees

  500

  540

  1,138

  719

  Knowsley

  —

  80

  164

  428

  Lambeth

  —

  578

  69

  359

  Lancashire

  1,000

  1,285

  2,390

  4,064

  Leeds

  500

  320

  1,313

  725

  Leicester City

  584

  158

  650

  587

  Leicestershire

  291

  566

  943

  510

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  102

  318

  503

  690

  Liverpool

  —

  85

  124

  224

  Luton

  —

  59

  110

  574

  Manchester

  —

  817

  41

  30

  Medway

  —

  188

  384

  244

  Merton

  —

  —

  131

  1,939

  Middlesbrough

  146

  94

  244

  0

  Milton Keynes

  —

  —

  195

  294

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  500

  367

  759

  70

  Newham

  257

  278

  329

  569

  Norfolk

  291

  470

  1,217

  1,086

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  518

  253

  172

  North Lincolnshire

  675

  410

  889

  140

  North Somerset

  —

  212

  260

  87

  North Tyneside

  —

  352

  192

  241

  North Yorkshire

  —

  459

  1,018

  1,470

  Northamptonshire

  —

  234

  349

  1,061

  Northumberland

  324

  224

  738

  893

  Nottingham, City of

  146

  452

  412

  149

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  405

  1,100

  3,113

  Oldham

  —

  1,112

  589

  1,287

  Oxfordshire

  584

  842

  1,011

  1,263

  Peterborough

  150

  —

  368

  415

  Plymouth

  500

  —

  870

  0

  Poole

  —

  246

  164

  324

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  91

  401

  Reading

  —

  92

  144

  311

  Redbridge

  —

  320

  131

  325

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  253

  69

  326

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  762

  117

  847

  Rochdale

  —

  320

  471

  711

  Rotherham

  219

  85

  471

  1,140

  Rutland

  —

  —

  50

  0

  Salford

  146

  139

  416

  221

  Sandwell

  1,000

  1,159

  1,212

  293

  Sefton

  59

  359

  357

  552

  Sheffield

  525

  —

  1,005

  148

  Shropshire

  —

  591

  540

  249

  Slough

  88

  —

  275

  717

  Solihull

  584

  942

  848

  685

  Somerset

  —

  378

  795

  618

  South Gloucestershire

  500

  873

  1,008

  704

  313

  Allocations to reduce infant class sizes

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  LEA name

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  South Tyneside

  100

  —

  160

  0

  Southampton

  —

  —

  123

  161

  Southend on Sea

  —

  190

  123

  80

  Southwark

  —

  —

  0

  160

  St. Helens

  —

  344

  110

  608

  Staffordshire

  —

  350

  1,201

  713

  Stockport

  204

  190

  749

  698

  Stockton on Tees

  —

  384

  137

  163

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  151

  278

  1,077

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  234

  883

  Sunderland

  —

  55

  82

  155

  Surrey

  —

  419

  990

  341

  Sutton

  168

  453

  295

  358

  Swindon

  —

  527

  343

  0

  Tameside

  291

  —

  590

  813

  Telford and Wrekin

  291

  329

  468

  100

  Thurrock

  —

  80

  82

  434

  Torbay

  —

  198

  167

  504

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Trafford

  —

  487

  288

  422

  Wakefield

  60

  765

  427

  530

  Walsall

  146

  397

  360

  454

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  0

  285

  Wandsworth

  146

  —

  150

  223

  Warrington

  59

  332

  151

  963

  Warwickshire

  584

  169

  1,139

  294

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  94

  534

  West Sussex

  —

  826

  521

  798

  Westminster

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Wigan

  290

  726

  659

  968

  Wiltshire

  291

  522

  935

  1,903

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  99

  128

  167

  Wirral

  —

  202

  273

  924

  Wokingham

  —

  414

  82

  527

  Wolverhampton

  —

  357

  288

  753

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  548

  1,156

  York, City of

  146

  116

  350

  180

  GM Schools

  680

  1,113

  —

  —

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for (i) each of the past four years and (ii) the current year to date(a) the number of jobseeker's allowance recipients who have been interviewed and (b) the number subsequently awarded a nil benefit. [74159]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: 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. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 11 March 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your question about how many jobseekers, who receive Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), have been interviewed and how many, subsequently, had nil benefit awards. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.

  The Employment Service conducts many different types of interviews with jobseekers. These start at the new claims stage and develop as unemployment lengthens. The new jobseeker's interview is important in establishing whether jobseekers meet the labour market conditions for receiving JSA. It is normally at this stage that a Jobseeker's Agreement is drawn up and jobseekers are made aware of their responsibilities in order to receive JSA. Thereafter,
  314
  entitlement to JSA is reviewed at interviews every fortnight. We also use these opportunities to offer jobseekers further advice and help in their search for work. Jobseekers are also asked to attend a Restart Interview at regular six monthly intervals at which they are offered further advice and information about employment and training opportunities. Beyond this interviews may take place for a variety of other reasons.

  Questions about a jobseeker's entitlement to JSA could arise at any of the interviews referred to above. In these instances, there may be a reference to an independent Adjudication Officer for a decision on benefit entitlement.

  On the specific issue of nil benefit awards, since JSA was introduced in October 1996, the number of claims processed and the number of nil awards by operational year has been as follows:

  Claims processed

  Nil awards

  7 October 1996 to 31 March 1997

  1,280,960

  164,460

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  2,966,185

  470,047

  1 April 1998 to 31 January 1999

  2,339,348

  403,897

  These figures are based primarily on information held by the JSA Payments System. The figures for the period ending 31 March 1997 include a small number of claims held on the income support computer system because they linked back to an earlier Income Support claim.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current ratio of school leavers to the numbers entering higher education. [75024]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on the number of school leavers who entered higher education directly is not available centrally. In some cases, progression to HE will be direct from FE or tertiary college, and some students will enter after a year abroad or other sabbatical. The entry rate of young people to HE is measured by the Age Participation Index (API) which measures the chance of a young person entering full-time higher education before they are 21. In 1998–99 the API was in the range 30–32 per cent.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many special schools he estimates will close as a result of the Programme of Action for meeting special educational needs. [74814]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Programme of Action makes it clear that we see a continuing and vital role for special schools. We want to build on their strengths and ensure that they are an integral part of an inclusive local education system for children in their area, and in some cases beyond. We recognise that some local education authorities may wish to propose changes to individual schools, both special and mainstream, to reflect changes in demand for special needs provision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, however, informed authorities that the Programme of Action should not be interpreted as providing justification on its own for making proposals to close special schools.

  Grammar School Ballots
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on Trafford
  315
  Borough Council's advice to parent teacher associations regarding the dissemination of information to parents who are involved in grammar school ballots. [75226]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Council's action is not contrary to the provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The letter from the Chief Executive merely points out that it would be prudent for parent teacher associations with charitable status to check their constitutions before disseminating any information from lobby groups to ensure that their actions would not be in breach of Charity law.

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to reform school performance tables to allow schools to omit from their statistics those children who have been disregarded from SATs and public examinations by virtue of a statement of special educational needs. [75206]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no current plans to treat pupils with special educational needs differently in performance tables. The inclusion of such pupils is supported by the Government's National Advisory Group on SEN.

  Many pupils with special educational needs are academically able or on a par with other pupils, and to ignore their achievements would be wrong. Schools do face particular challenges, however, in achieving results in line with national expectations for most pupils with special educational needs. The performance tables include information on the number of such pupils on roll, so that this can be taken into account in evaluating school performance.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment his Department has made of the improvements in employability of those passing through the New Deal programme; [75421]

  (2) allowing for displacement and substitution, what estimate his Department has made of the number of new jobs which have been created by the New Deal; [75422]

  (3) what percentage of those going through all stages of the New Deal for the young unemployed to date were without permanent employment at the end of the programme.[75423]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: 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. Graham Brady, dated 11 March 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your questions about the New Deal initiative for young people aged between 18 and 24. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The very early evidence from the New Deal suggests that it is having a significant impact on participants' employability. Comparing the pathfinder areas, where the New Deal commenced
  316
  in January 1998, to the rest of the country, where it commenced in April 1998, the pathfinder areas showed a six percentage point higher flow of young people into jobs between January and April 1998.

  In the longer term, as part of the overall evaluation of New Deal, we aim through a national survey of New Deal participants to make an assessment of employability in terms, for example, of improvements in basic skills and qualifications, increased work experience, increased levels of job search activity, increased levels of motivation and confidence about finding work and increased self-esteem. Findings from the first stage of the survey are expected to be available around September 1999; findings from the second stage around September 2000.

  Turning to the number of jobs created by the New Deal, I should say that the New Deal was not planned as a job creation initiative. Its aim is to tackle long term unemployment among young people by improving their employability and helping them find jobs.

  Finally, in respect of the percentage of young people without permanent employment at the end of their participation in New Deal, I should explain that the New Deal has a number of stages including Gateway, the options and a follow through period of support and guidance. Because New Deal only started nationally in April 1998 it is too early to evaluate what proportion of participants may not secure permanent employment at the end of their time on the programme. It may be helpful, however, to say that by December 1998 of the 214,300 young people who had started New Deal only 4,400 had started on the follow through period.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal for the young unemployed in Hendon.[75782]

  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. Andrew Dismore, dated 11 March 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the progress of the New Deal for young unemployed people in Hendon. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  I regret that separate figures are not generally available for individual towns, or for constituencies. Government Statistical Service figures are produced for Employment Service Unit of Delivery areas. Hendon falls within the Edgware and Leaside Unit of Delivery.

  The latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of December 1998, and including Management Information to the end of January 1999, show that 3,329 young people have started on New Deal for 18–24 year olds in the Edgware and Leaside Unit of Delivery. Of these, 509 have secured unsubsidised employment; 100 have started subsidised employment through the New Deal Employment option; and 564 have started on either the Full-Time Education and Training, or one of the work experience options. Of the remainder, the majority are still in the initial Gateway phase of the New Deal. There will be other young people who have left the New Deal for jobs, and stopped receiving the Jobseeker's Allowance, without telling the Employment Service their reasons for leaving.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Ofsted
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 107, if he will set out the

  317
  budget for Ofsted for the financial years (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, calculated on the same basis as the figures contained in his answer. [75488]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: Total provision for Ofsted in the financial year 1998–99 is £110.3 million and total expenditure for 1997–98 was £151 million. The reduction in 1998–99 results principally from the change, announced by the previous Government and confirmed in July 1997 in the "Excellence in schools" White Paper, from a four-year cycle of school inspections to a differentiated approach in which schools will be inspected at least every six years but more frequently where weaknesses are apparent, and from lower than expected contract prices for inspections.

  Child Minders
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review local authority circular 94/23 which permits child minders to smack minded children with parental permission. [75152]

  Ms Hodge
  The guidance was introduced following a High Court judgment. The Department of Health will shortly be consulting on how the law can be improved to better protect children from assault. We will review the guidance in the light of this consultation.

  A-levels (Review)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to announce the findings of his review of A-levels; and if he will make a statement. [75660]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: We expect to make an announcement shortly on taking forward our commitment to support broader A-levels and upgrade vocational qualifications, underpinned by rigorous standards and key skills. This will support A-level students studying more subjects particularly in the first year of sixth form, recognising the lower levels of taught time at this stage in England compared with other European countries. We have already made it clear that reforms will be introduced nationally for teaching from September 2000.

  National Curriculum (Review)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to announce the findings of his review of the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [75661]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: We will be consulting widely on draft proposals for revisions to the National Curriculum during the summer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will then make final decisions in the early autumn before the revised National Curriculum is sent to schools. Schools will then have most of the 1999–2000 school year to prepare for any changes from September 2000.

  Education Standards (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of education standards in(a) Tamworth Borough and (b) Staffordshire.[75651]
  318
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Statistics showing the standards of attainment by pupils in each school and local authority area are published in annual performance tables. A summary of recent results in Staffordshire and in primary and secondary schools in Tamworth Borough, which is not itself a local education authority, is set out in the following table. A sample of schools in each authority is inspected annually by Ofsted and reports published which include judgments about standards of attainment and the quality of education. A programme of inspections of all local education authorities is now being carried out by Ofsted, but none of the named authorities has yet been inspected. All authorities have just submitted for approval an Education Development Plan which includes a three-year programme for securing school improvement, and targets including those for pupil performance at ages 11 and 16 which will be monitored in future years.

  LEA performance at key stage 2, GCSE and GCE A/AS level of LEAs in Tamworth borough and Staffordshire

  Tamworth borough2

  Staffordshire

  England

  Key Stage 2

  Percentage of pupil's achieving level 4 or above

  English

  1998

  57.3

  65.9

  64.1

  1997

  55.5

  66.5

  62.5

  1996

  50.8

  56.3

  56.3

  Maths

  1998

  50.0

  60.2

  57.9

  1997

  54.1

  65.3

  61.3

  1996

  49.8

  51.5

  53.2

  Science

  1998

  60.9

  72.6

  68.6

  1997

  60.6

  72.2

  68.1

  1996

  56.2

  62.1

  61.2

  Aggregate

  1998

  168.1

  198.7

  190.6

  1997

  170.1

  204.0

  191.9

  1996

  156.8

  169.9

  170.7

  GCSE

  Percentage of 15 year olds achieving 5A1-C GCSEs

  1998

  38.2

  45

  46.3

  1997

  38.2

  45

  45.1

  1996

  36.5

  40.9

  44.5

  GCE A/AS level1

  Average point score

  1998

  15.1

  16.2

  17.8

  1997

  13.7

  17.7

  17.3

  1996

  14.7

  16.6

  16.8

  1 Only for those entering two or more GCE A/AS Levels

  2 Not including special schools

  Education SSAs
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the funding for education in Staffordshire in 1999–2000; [75652]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the current SSA formula for the distribution of education funding to shire authorities; [75653]

  (3) if he will review the current SSA formula for funding education; [75654]
  319
  (4) what meetings he has had with Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss the review of the SSA formula for education. [75655]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: The education SSA for Staffordshire for 1999–2000 represents an underlying increase of £18.2 million or 6 per cent., after allowing for local authority changes of function. An increase on that scale should be sufficient to meet the pressures faced by Staffordshire schools, although my right hon. Friend appreciates the concern expressed by schools in Staffordshire and elsewhere about the fairness of the current education SSA system. In announcing the conclusions of the comprehensive Spending Review for the three years up to 2001–02, Ministers made it clear that they would not seek to change the current SSA system. It will, nevertheless, be subject to review. That will be led by DETR Ministers, and it will involve local government representation, and Ministers with local government service interests.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to take account of levels of turnover in pupil enrolments in setting local education authority standard spending assessments. [75751]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: None in the immediate future. In announcing the conclusions of the Comprehensive Spending Review for the three years up to 2001–02, Ministers made it clear that they would not seek to change the system of calculating standard spending assessments. It will, nevertheless, be subject to review. That will be led by DETR Ministers, and it will involve local government representation, and Ministers with local government service interests.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the Employment Service targets under the New Deal had been achieved by 1 March 1999. [75667]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: 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. Graham Brady, dated 11 March 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your question regarding what proportion of the Employment Service targets under the New Deal had been achieved by 1 March. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The most recent information available relates to the position at the end of January. This shows that the Employment Service had by then achieved 55% of its target to place 100,000 New Deal for 18–24 year old participants into work during 1998–99. The target set for the Employment Service measures only those young people who secure employment as a direct result of a submission to a vacancy by the Employment Service or one of its partners.

  I hope this is helpful.
  320

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of those entering the New Deal Gateway in January 1998 were still in the Gateway on 31 December 1998. [75666]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: 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. Graham Brady, dated 11 March 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the percentage of young people who joined the New Deal Gateway in January 1998 who were still in the Gateway on 31st December 1998. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Of those young people who entered the New Deal Gateway in January 1998, 3% were recorded as still being in the Gateway at the end of December 1998. In some cases this will be because they have had a number of periods of sickness, or have left the Gateway for other reasons, but on each occasion returned within 13 weeks of leaving.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Early Years Education
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice has been issued to local education authorities on involving(a) parents and (b) governors in the development of early years education. [75564]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: The planning guidance on Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships for 1999–2000 asks Partnerships to ensure that the interests of parents, including those parents in employment, and of maintained schools, including nursery schools, are properly represented in drawing up the Early Years Development and Childcare Plan.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities have submitted their draft Early Years Development Plans to his Department for approval; and how many have been approved. [75563]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: All local education authorities have submitted Early Years Development and Childcare Plans for approval. I shall shortly announce which have been approved.

  Local Decision Making
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice has been issued to local education authorities on involving(a) parents and (b) governors in decision making on local education services, and giving them representation on (i) local education authority education committees and (ii) children's panels. [75565]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: We are keen to encourage parents and governors to become involved in decision making on education

  321
  services. The Department has not issued general guidance to local education authorities on how to achieve this, although guidance to authorities on specific functions has included appropriate advice, for example the guidance on Education Development Plans issued in September 1998. The Department is due to consult on draft regulations on parent governor representatives on local authority committees dealing with education in the next few weeks, and to issue the final regulations and guidance in the summer. I believe that the reference to children's panels relates to Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships which are covered in a reply given today by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), at column 320.

  Innovative Projects Programme
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to announce the outcome of bids for funding under the New Deal: Innovative Projects programme. [75748]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: 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. Robin Corbett, dated 11 March 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about when the outcome of bids for funding under the New Deal Innovation Fund will be announced. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  It may be helpful if I explain that New Deal Partnerships will have two opportunities a year to bid for funding from the Innovation Fund. Guidance will be issued to all partnerships in early April, alongside a timetable for bids to be received for assessment. We hope that the successful bids from the first round of assessments will be announced in July or August of this year.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75871]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999, Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of select committees giving me, or my ministerial colleagues, drafts of select committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor to the best of my knowledge there have been any occasions on which members of select committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in the Department. this excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.
  322

  Rainsford School, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 1999,Official Report, columns 951–52, concerning Rainsford School, when he expects (a) the further consultations to end with Essex Local Education Authority and local schools and (b) a decision to be taken on the case for admitting a pupil whose name has been sent to him. [76107]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have asked Essex Local Education Authority to provide details of this pupil and their handling of the direction process, along with information about alternative local schools, by Monday 15 March. Their response will determine whether we need to write to any other schools. Only once all local consultation is fully completed will it be possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a decision.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the Quinquennial Review report on the Higher Education Funding Council for England. [76734]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am publishing the report today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Funding
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much additional money would have been available to(a) the Arts Council, (b) the Sports Council, (c) the Millennium Commission and (d) the Heritage Lottery Fund in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99 if the Government had not introduced the New Opportunities Fund. [72175]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In line with the overall income forecast of £10.6 billion, we expect the arts, sport, heritage and charities (with £1.85 billion each) and the Millennium Commission (£2.017 billion) to receive more in the current licence period than was originally forecast.

  Any retrospective reallocation of the sums announced for the New Opportunities Fund (£1 billion) and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (£200 million) is entirely hypothetical.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74359]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".
  323

  Departmental Logo
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the cost of(a) developing and (b) introducing the new departmental logo. [75184]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: (a) The budget for developing the departmental visual identity was £26,000. We are still awaiting final invoices, but expect the final outturn to be close to budget.

  (b) Introducing the new visual identity incurred no further costs, and has already resulted in savings of over 25 per cent. on the procurement of the Department's printed stationery. This will be a continuing saving and further efficiency improvements are also expected.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what criteria the new departmental logo was chosen. [75296]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The logo, and the new visual identity of which it is a part, had to serve the overall purposes of the exercise. These were to improve the consistency and distinctiveness of DCMS communications. Further criteria were cost-effectiveness and acceptability to DCMS staff.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what colours the new departmental logo will be available; and what the criteria are for deciding how the different colour logos are to be used by his Department. [75298]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The new visual identity uses a palette of 15 colours which will be used on the Department's publications and printed stationery. The Pantone Matching System references for these colours are:

  3272

  286

  5483

  032

  5125

  279

  104

  382

  451

  124

  239

  626

  2735

  633

  130.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the contract for the design for his new departmental logo was put out to tender. [75297]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: Yes. (The contract, however, included much more than designing a new departmental logo.)

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many design options for his Department's new logo were put forward for consideration; and to whom. [75295]
  324
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The initial phase of the communications consultancy involved extensive discussions with DCMS staff and with a variety of "partner bodies". The design company then put forward three options for a new visual identity to Ministers and staff.

  Tourism Strategy
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to encourage the regeneration of traditional seaside resorts(a) through grant aid and (b) otherwise. [75699]

  Janet Anderson
  The Single Regeneration Budget brings together 20 separate programmes to create a flexible fund for local regeneration. In September, Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced that SRB funds—about £3.8 billion over the next three years—would be available to tackle pockets of deprivation, including coastal towns. 44 of the bids included proposals for the regeneration of seaside resorts.

  "Tomorrow's Tourism", our tourism strategy document published on 26 February, addresses this important industry sector and, through the eight-stage regeneration plan for resorts, will help to create the right framework in which tourism can flourish. The future of our seaside resorts depends on all those involved in both private and public sectors working together to develop the sort of products now needed and with the quality and value for money which visitors expect. The Government will continue to explore ways to encourage the regeneration of traditional seaside resorts.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the Government intend to implement their tourism strategy; and if he will make a statement. [75793]

  Janet Anderson
  Our strategy document, "Tomorrow's Tourism", sets out a number of specific proposals for action. The Government will review, and report annually on, the progress made in implementing the strategy.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for overseas promotions to encourage people to visit traditional British seaside resorts. [75698]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government sponsor the British Tourist Authority, who are responsible for the promotion overseas of Britain as a tourist destination. The BTA assists seaside resorts both by promoting them in its overseas campaigns—such as Waterfront Britain, British Arts Cities, the Millennium Touring Brochure, UK The Guide, Britain for Walkers and the Movie Map—and by encouraging resorts to participate in overseas marketing partnerships and in overseas consumer trade exhibitions.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what were the design, printing and distribution costs of the document, "Tomorrow's Tourism". [75185]
  325
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The costs of designing, printing and distributing 15,000 copies of the document "Tomorrow's Tourism" are as follows:

  Design
  We are awaiting the final invoice from the company responsible for design, typesetting, proof reading and the conversion of the text into a format suitable for the Internet. However, we expect the final cost to be approximately £35,000.

  Print
  The cost of printing 15,000 copies of the document was £25,510.00.

  Distribution
  The distribution was undertaken by DCMS employees. The overall cost of postage was £1,850.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions his Department held with each of the RDAs about the context of "Tomorrow's Tourism" prior to its publication. [75567]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Our strategy was developed with full involvement from the industry and other Government Departments with an interest in Tourism. This included the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who have the policy lead for the RDAs. I discussed our new tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism" with the Chairmen designate of all the RDAs on 18 February.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if copies of "Tomorrow's Tourism" were sent to each of the chairmen designate of the RDAs. [75566]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Chairmen and Chief Executives designate of the RDAs were each sent copies of "Tomorrow's Tourism" on 25 February.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with(a) the English Tourist Board, (b) regional tourist boards and (c) representatives of tourist attractions about proposals for a national quality assurance scheme; and if he will make a statement. [76068]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  One of the key aims of our new tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", published on 26 February, is to develop and spread quality. "Tomorrow's Tourism" was developed with full involvement from the industry, including the English Tourist Board and the Regional Tourist Boards. The strategy promotes the use of the new harmonised quality standards for accommodation being launched to consumers in September. The ETB is considering the use of quality assurance schemes for other industry sectors, including the attractions sector.

  Lottery Film Programme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been recouped to date by the Lottery Film Programme. [75750]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: To date, the Arts Council of England's Lottery Film Programme has recouped £2.33 million.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much of its funding from the 326
  National Lottery the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts will make available for projects to turn innovations into products and services. [76027]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts is funded by an endowment of £200 million from the National Lottery, which will provide an annual income of up to £10 million. It has yet to be decided how the amounts will be apportioned to the different parts of NESTA's remit. As well as funding innovative products and services, finance will be provided for mentoring and placement schemes; masterclasses; centres of excellence; showcasing and summer schools.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when regulations will be laid to bring into effect the television licence fee increases due to come into force on 1 April. [76731]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 15 December 1998,Official Report, columns 420–21, I announced that, from 1 April 1999, the fee for a colour television licence would increase to £101 and that for a black and white licence to £33.50. I have today laid before Parliament the regulations necessary to bring these fees into force.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to ensure that sufficient resources are deployed to counter serious fraud. [74110]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office deals with the most serious and complex fraud. The Comprehensive Spending Review resulted in an increase in financial resources available to the SFO over the next three years. In return, the SFO will be expected to increase its caseload and reduce average case costs and the average time it takes to investigate without sacrificing quality. Staff and other resources are sufficient to handle the current caseload.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of cases investigated by the Serious Fraud Office in the past 12 months have resulted in a conviction. [74111]

  The Solicitor-General
  In the year to the end of February 1999, the Serious Fraud Office concluded 20 trials involving 38 defendants. In 19 of these trials, at least one defendant was convicted, usually the principal defendant. Of the 38 defendants, a total of 32 were convicted.

  Private Prosecutions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applications he has received in the last year for him to halt private prosecutions. [74112]
  327
  The Attorney-General
  The only power vested in me to halt proceedings is the right to enter a nolle prosequi, which is confined to cases proceeding on indictment in the Crown Court. It is usually more appropriate for requests to stop proceedings to be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service, which does have the power to intervene in all criminal cases.

  Comprehensive statistics relating to applications for nolle prosequi are not kept and in any event would not separately identify those relating to private prosecutions.

  Cross-border Crime
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with colleagues in other jurisdictions on cross-border crime. [74113]

  The Attorney-General
  I maintain a close dialogue with colleagues on all matters of mutual interest, including how to prosecute effectively those involved in cross-border crime.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the appointment of area business managers of the Crown Prosecution Service as part of the reorganisation of the CPS. [74115]

  The Attorney-General
  An exercise to select 42 Area Business Managers was advertised to staff within the Crown Prosecution Service. This has been completed and 37 Area Business Managers were appointed on 1 February 1999.

  It is anticipated that the five remaining posts will be the subject of appointments in April. This step, together with the appointment of 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors, represents the most significant single step towards the restructuring of the CPS into 42 Areas as we promised on taking office.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to improve the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service. [74114]

  The Attorney-General
  Sir Iain Glidewell's Report on the Crown Prosecution Service made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Under its new Director of Public Prosecutions and Chief Executive, the Crown Prosecution Service is making good progress in considering and implementing the Glidewell recommendations. From April 1999, the Crown Prosecution Service will be reorganised into 42 geographical Areas; the appointment of 42 new Chief Crown Prosecutors for England and Wales was announced by the Director of Public Prosecutions this week.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of appointments of the new Chief Crown Prosecutors. [74116]

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions announced on Monday 8 March the appointment of 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors for the new Crown Prosecution Service Areas and three Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutors for London.
  328
  This complements the appointment of 42 Area Business Managers referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) at column 327. The restructuring of CPS into 42 areas not only fulfils our promise on taking office, but is an important milestone in restructuring the criminal justice system on a more rational basis—which will facilitate closer liaison between police and the CPS as well as greater co-operation among the criminal justice agencies as a whole.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police Manpower
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were(a) in each division of the Metropolitan police force and (b) in total, (i) on the last date for which figures are available, (ii) on 31 March 1998, (iii) 31 March 1997 and (iv) 31 March 1992. [75271]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the information is not available for the precise dates requested, but that it is recorded for different dates, as in the table. The various reasons why some entries are blank are that:

  (i) West Hendon and Golders Green Divisions amalgamated to form Collingdale in August 1997; and

  (ii) there were some different divisional boundaries, and a different area structure, within the Metropolitan Police District in 1992. The Area Headquarters in 1992 were not the same Headquarters as those in later years and the final 21 entries in the table, starting with WD, relate to divisions and areas that existed only in 1992.

  Metropolitan Police Manpower

  Division

  6 January 1999

  31 December 1997

  2 January 1997

  7 January 1992

  Greenwich

  292.45

  298.4

  302.5

  281

  Bexleyheath

  274.4

  282

  287.3

  285

  Croydon

  265.38

  272.84

  297.36

  323

  South Norwood

  324.34

  327.77

  327.98

  303

  Epsom & Sutton

  412.81

  404.5

  405.23

  402

  Area 5 HQ

  712.7

  753.7

  777.36

  508

  Heathrow

  340.73

  362.06

  364.99

  444

  Brixton

  290.58

  299.08

  322.65

  301

  Streatham

  253.6

  251.3

  272.71

  282

  Vauxhall

  350.11

  366.51

  371.94

  —

  Chiswick

  171.71

  186.3

  197.2

  204

  Hounslow

  266.3

  270.26

  272.7

  270

  Spelthorne

  180.08

  178.4

  198.2

  203

  Twickenham

  267

  283.15

  295.85

  333

  Kingston

  329.89

  366.89

  362.24

  403

  Wimbledon

  294.83

  292.48

  325.25

  —

  Battersea

  263.4

  268.7

  306.9

  257

  Wandsworth

  312.58

  327.18

  355.38

  231

  Hillingdon

  395.5

  398.2

  418.7

  —

  WD

  —

  —

  —

  231

  LK

  —

  —

  —

  180

  LM

  —

  —

  —

  225

  VW

  —

  —

  —

  313

  Area 3 HQ

  803.7

  831.9

  888.51

  495

  Shoreditch & Hackney

  329.32

  330.4

  326.8

  —

  Stoke Newington

  338.1

  346.24

  349.24

  300

  Limehouse

  259.8

  267.09

  267

  316

  Whitechapel

  301.3

  300.4

  329.4

  —

  Barkingside

  260.98

  268

  292.4

  292

  Chingford

  241.9

  238.7

  238.3

  244

  Ilford

  231.65

  228.95

  259.6

  263

  Leyton

  220.2

  224.8

  238.92

  228

  Havering

  326.38

  334.33

  351.05

  369

  Forest Gate

  295.48

  303.48

  314.48

  —

  Dagenham

  279.12

  299.8

  299.85

  279

  Plaistow

  286.88

  286.88

  311.4

  295

  329

  Metropolitan Police Manpower

  Division

  6 January 1999

  31 December 1997

  2 January 1997

  7 January 1992

  Edmonton

  267.68

  268.3

  261.78

  247

  Enfield

  277

  282

  292.1

  280

  Area 4 HQ

  658.2

  694.7

  680.43

  420

  Southwark

  296.87

  289.18

  308.88

  319

  Peckham

  296.76

  302.63

  303.78

  300

  Walworth

  282.8

  268.7

  265.5

  267

  Catford

  287.9

  290.85

  297.7

  269

  Lewisham

  307.56

  319.38

  328.6

  329

  Bromley & Orpington

  442.66

  464.1

  471.44

  —

  Plumstead

  303.04

  313.49

  320.35

  288

  West End Central

  298

  309

  308

  256

  Charing Cross

  295.2

  398.6

  403.7

  374

  Marylebone

  307.3

  329.1

  332.7

  255

  Paddington

  324.2

  352

  350

  —

  Fulham

  313.6

  230.76

  225.73

  184

  Hammersmith

  300.82

  311.02

  335.52

  352

  Area 2 HQ

  686.8

  708.8

  706.18

  514

  Hampstead

  186.5

  213.35

  208.15

  262

  Kentish Town

  291.66

  285.46

  274

  279

  Holborn

  206.90

  199.7

  199.8

  208

  Holloway

  245.01

  250.5

  255.9

  267

  Islington

  284.4

  298.9

  313.7

  —

  Harrow

  281.45

  289.05

  283.4

  288

  Wembley

  257.48

  266.48

  272.6

  258

  Kilburn

  336.18

  346.75

  367.26

  402

  Barnet & Hertsmere

  225.55

  277.26

  285.26

  298

  Golders Green

  —

  —

  215.15

  210

  Collingdale

  427.79

  428.73

  —

  —

  West Hendon

  —

  —

  235.65

  245

  Ealing

  312.8

  338.35

  354.28

  346

  Southall

  281.99

  288.16

  291.19

  258

  Hornsey

  245.4

  261.4

  263.3

  284

  Tottenham

  273.1

  265.1

  271.7

  293

  PN

  —

  —

  —

  238

  PR

  —

  —

  —

  285

  GH

  —

  —

  —

  351

  HB

  —

  —

  —

  206

  HD

  —

  —

  —

  206

  KW

  —

  —

  —

  300

  ND

  —

  —

  —

  332

  Area 6 HQ

  —

  —

  —

  441

  XY

  —

  —

  —

  214

  XU

  —

  —

  —

  253

  BC

  —

  —

  —

  210

  BD

  —

  —

  —

  230

  Area 7 HQ

  —

  —

  —

  504

  Area 8 HQ

  —

  —

  —

  486

  CV

  —

  —

  —

  137

  DD

  —

  —

  —

  289

  DR

  —

  —

  —

  224

  Totals

  21,517.18

  22,088.90

  22,761.38

  23,636

  Integrated Immigration Caseworking System
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department carried out a feasibility study before it agreed the contract for an integrated immigration caseworking system; and if he will make a statement. [75741]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The need for an integrated Information Technology system in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) was originally identified in an independent study carried out by Sema Group in 1994, which recommended a programme of computerisation to achieve productivity improvements. During the competition for the contract IND received confirmation of this assessment from each of the three shortlisted service providers, working on-site with full access to officials at all levels. Siemens Business Services proposed the extensive use of electronic imaging of documents. The 330
  technical feasibility of achieving this was established by visits to reference sites where such systems were already in use.

  Coldingley Prison
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 752, on HMP Coldingley, (1) if Wackenhut (UK) Limited paid the sums owing in relation to the contract at HMP Coldingley within the 30-day payment period; and if he will make a statement; [75731]

  (2) what other sums have been established by the Prison Service as due from Wackenhut (UK) Limited; and if he will make a statement; [75732]

  (3) what is the total amount which Wakenhut (UK) Limited has owed the Home Office in relation to the contract at HMP Coldingley; what sums are outstanding currently; and if he will make a statement. [75733]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Wackenhut UK Limited has paid all of the £170,531 which was owed at 29 January, together with invoices for £50,507 issued by the Prison Service since that date, and the Prison Service had paid Wackenhut £76,522 in respect of goods provided by Wackenhut.

  Work is continuing to ascertain other sums due from Wackenhut, and the Prison Service is considering claims made by the company.

  The payment of all moneys identified as being owed by Wackenhut to the Prison Service will be rigorously pursued.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of places at open prisons for women. [75713]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The table lists the three female open establishments. These prisons currently provide 519 certified normal accommodation (CNA) places for 481 sentenced adults and young offenders. There are no current plans to change the number of places provided.

  CNA places and population at open female establishments as of 8 March 1999

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation Places

  Number of prisoners

  HMP Askham Grange

  130

  128

  HMP and YOI Drake Hall

  295

  266

  HMP and YOI East Sutton Park

  94

  87

  Total

  519

  481

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average annual increase in the number of(a) women prisoners and (b) places at open prisons for women in each of the last five years and in total. [75780]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the average female prison population is given in table 1. This information, up to 1997, is published in "Prison statistics
  331
  England and Wales" (Table 1.2 of the 1997 edition), a copy of which is in the library. Information on the certified normal accommodation (CNA) for female open prisons is given in table 2.

  Table 1: Average female population in prisons in England and Wales 1994–98

  Year

  Average female prison population

  Difference

  1994

  1,811

  —

  1995

  1,979

  +168

  1996

  2,262

  +283

  1997

  2,675

  +413

  19981

  3,105

  +430

  Total change between 1994–98 +1,294

  1 Provisional figures.

  Table 2: Average Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) at female open prisons, 1994–98

  Year

  Female open prisons

  Female open young offender institutions

  Total

  Difference

  1994

  422

  53

  475

  —

  1995

  444

  53

  497

  +22

  1996

  453

  53

  506

  +9

  1997

  452

  53

  505

  -1

  19981

  459

  53

  512

  +7

  Total change between 1994–98 +37

  1 Provisional figures.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving life sentences have escaped from open prisons in each of the last 10 years; and how many were convicted for an offence committed while escaping. [75551]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Central records cover the period from 1 March 1991. The number of reported absconds by life sentence prisoners from within open prisons since that date is as follows:

  Date

  Number

  1 March 1991–29 February 1992

  7

  1 March 1992–28 February 1993

  12

  1 March 1993–28 February 1994

  13

  1 March 1994–28 February 1995

  10

  1 March 1995–29 February 1996

  18

  1 March 1996–29 February 1997

  9

  1 March 1997–28 February 1998

  9

  1 March 1998–28 February 1999

  12

  As there is no central record of either those absconds which occurred prior to 1 March 1991, or offences committed by prisoners whilst at large, the further details requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving life sentences are currently placed at open prisons. [75552]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 31 January 1999, there were 380 life sentence prisoners in open prisons in England and Wales.
  332
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the placement of life sentence prisoners in open prisons. [75558]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A period in open conditions is regarded as essential for most life sentence prisoners before they are considered for release on life licence. This period allows for the testing of areas of concern in conditions which are closer to those in the community than are found in closed prisons. Decisions to transfer life sentence prisoners to open conditions are taken by Ministers on consideration of recommendations made by the Parole Board.

  The Secretary of State's directions to the Parole Board in relation to mandatory life sentence prisoners require the Board, before making a recommendation for transfer to open conditions, to balance the risks against the benefits of such a move, taking into account:

  a. whether the lifer has made sufficient progress towards tackling offending behaviour to minimise the risk and gravity of re-offending and whether the benefits suggest that a transfer to open conditions is worthwhile at that stage; and

  b. whether the lifer is trustworthy enough not to abscond or to commit further offences (either inside or outside the prison).

  In each case the Board is also directed to consider whether:

  a. the extent to which the risk that the lifer will abscond or commit further offences while in an open prison is minimal;

  b. the lifer has shown by his performance in closed conditions that he has made positive efforts to address his attitudes and behavioural problems and the extent to which significant progress has been made in doing so; and

  c. the lifer is likely to derive benefit from being able to continue to address areas of concern in an open prison and to be tested in a more realistic environment.

  The same considerations apply in principle to recommendations for the transfer to open conditions of those subject to discretionary and other life sentences.

  Workplace Drug Screening
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that workplace drug screening programmes are applied equally to employees at all levels within the organisation. [75647]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office does not operate any drug screening programmes of its employees within the workplace.

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria for determining compensation claims under Option C for people required to hand in firearms and ancillary equipment; and how the criteria were established. [75619]

  Mr. Boateng
  Claims under all options of the firearms compensation schemes are determined by the eligibility requirements set out in the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997 and in the compensation schemes. To qualify for compensation, a surrendered handgun or small calibre pistol must be a prohibited weapon as defined in the Acts, and ancillary equipment must be of a type specified in the compensation schemes. The categories of ancillary
  333
  equipment covered by the schemes were drawn up in consultation with a number of shooting representative bodies.

  Derker and Stoneleigh Residents Association
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Derker and Stoneleigh Residents Association in Oldham. [75517]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Derker and Stoneleigh Residents Association wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 17 February 1999 and will receive a reply very shortly. I am not aware of any other representations.

  Refugee Arrivals Project
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees have been allocated to the North East Region by the Refugee Arrivals Project; where they have settled; and what is the unit cost per week in each location. [76127]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Refugee Arrivals Project provides an advice service to asylum seekers arriving at Gatwick or Heathrow who declare their application for asylum at their port of entry. Such asylum seekers may be entitled to income support and housing benefit. Because of current difficulties experienced by single asylum seekers in obtaining suitable accommodation in the London area, the Refugee Arrivals Project has advised some to seek support in other parts of the country. At present, about 350 asylum seekers have gone to the North East Region while their asylum claim is being considered.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action will be taken following the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons on HM Prison Chelmsford to rectify problems identified in that report; and if he will make a statement. [76080]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Work has already begun to address the issues raised in the report including installation of a new cell call bell system and the building of a new reception area.

  The Prison Service will, within 30 working days of the date of publication of the report, prepare an action plan addressing all the recommendations made by the Chief Inspector.

  Sexual Offences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been wrongly(a) arrested and (b) convicted for committing sexual offences from 1995 to date; and if he will make a statement. [74073]

  Mr. Boateng
  Data on wrongful arrest are not collected centrally. Data on wrongful conviction are available for persons whose appeals against conviction were heard at the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal and are as follows:
  334
  Appeals from persons against conviction (1) for a sexual offence where the conviction was quashed (2), 1995–1997.

  Appeals from persons against conviction1 for a sexual offence where the conviction was quashed2, 1995–97

  Year

  The Crown Court

  Court of Appeal

  1995

  22

  30

  1996

  6

  31

  1997

  16

  346

  1998

  4—

  366

  1999 (to 1 March)

  4—

  37

  1 Includes appeals against conviction and sentence

  2 Includes results where a lesser offence was substituted

  3 Complied by the Court of Appeal and may be on a different basis to previous years

  4 Not yet available

  Source:
  Data compiled by the Home Office using case data supplied by both courts

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals are currently being considered from individuals who assert that they are innocent of sexually related offences. [74074]

  Mr. Boateng
  At 1 March of this year, in the Court of Appeal, there were 264 outstanding applications from individuals against conviction for a sexually related offence.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the sexual offences currently being investigated relate to incidents which took place more than a year ago. [74075]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Sexual Abuse (Compensation)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average level of compensation paid to a victim of sexual abuse in the three most recent available years. [74076]

  Mr. Boateng
  Data are only available for claims received on or after 1 April 1996 under the tariff-based criminal injuries compensation scheme effective from that date. Details of awards made in respect of sexual abuse in childhood are as follows:

  £

  Period

  Average award

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  4,388

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  4,609

  1 April 1998 to 28 February 1999 (11 months)

  4,586

  Pascal Lissouba
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms are under which Pascal Lissouba has been given rights of residence in the United Kingdom. [76140]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not our practice to disclose details of individuals' immigration records.
  335

  Railway Stations (CCTV)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation has taken place between (i) his Department and Railtrack and (ii) the British Transport Police and Railtrack on the co-ordination of publicly funded CCTV and CCTV operated by Railtrack; in how many mainline railway stations there is currently(a) operational CCTV, (b) installed but non-operational CCTV and (c) no CCTV; and if he will make a statement. [75700]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  No specific discussions have been held between my Department and Railtrack concerning CCTV. The British Transport Police (BTP) hold discussions with Railtrack on an ad hoc basis regarding the installation of CCTV. Initiatives such as the Secure Stations Scheme and the Secure Car Parks Scheme require Railtrack, the BTP and the train operators to liaise on improving security at stations with measures such as CCTV.

  Eleven of the 14 mainline stations operated by Railtrack have some form of operational CCTV. At the remaining three, CCTV has been installed but it is not operational. No information is held centrally on the number of CCTV cameras and their operational status for the rest of the network.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost has been of his visits to Scotland in the current year, and if he will provide a break down of(a) travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security and (d) other costs; how many civil servants travelled with him for each visit and what the cost was for each; and if he will list the meetings he held on each visit, stating at which ones he performed in his capacity as Prime Minister. [72616]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: I have visited Scotland on two occasions since 1 January 1999: Glasgow on 5 February and Glasgow again on 4–5 March 1999.

  My programme on 5 February included a visit to the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama and to the Western General Hospital. These engagements were undertaken in my capacity as Prime Minister. Separately, the Labour Party arranged a Question and Answer session in the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama to which students were invited.

  During my visit on 4–5 March 1 undertook a number of official engagements in my capacity as Prime Minister. These included a visit to Marconi Marine Limited and Richmond Park School, Glasgow and a Question and Answer session in Carluke. I also addressed the Scottish Labour Party Conference as Leader of the Labour Party.

  On both occasions I was accompanied by five members of my Office and the usual number of security and secure telecommunications staff who travel with a Prime Minister on visits within the United Kingdom. This is in line with the practice adopted by previous Governments.
  336
  It is not possible to give costs for these visits as final bills are not yet in.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he plans to visit Scotland during the period of the Scottish general election campaign; from what source such trips will be financed; what role civil servants and special advisers will play on such visits; and if he will make a statement. [72617]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: My programme of visits during the campaign is yet to be finalised although I greatly look forward to visiting Scotland over the next few months. Depending on the nature of the visit, travel costs for any visits will be met from the appropriate source. All expenditure will be in accordance with the Ministerial Code.

  Involvement by civil servants, including Special Advisers will take place in line with the relevant guidance set out in the Civil Service Code, the Ministerial Code and the Model Contract for Special Advisers.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 16 February 1999, Official Report, column 721, setting out guidance to civil servants during the period before the forthcoming elections to the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) which countries of the G8 he has visited since 1 May 1997; [76155]

  (2) when he plans to make an official visit to Canada. [76137]

  The Prime Minister
  I have visited all the G8 countries, with the exception of Canada. I look forward to visiting Canada at the earliest possible date, thus reciprocating Prime Minister Chretien's successful visit to Britain in May last year.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received during the last six months on food safety; and how many of these mentioned(a) genetically-modified organisms,(b) genetic engineering and (c) biotechnology. [75064]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]My office has received 100,000 items of correspondence from members of the public in the last six months. Approximately 2,400 have related to food safety and biotechnology issues and, of these, approximately 100 have specifically mentioned genetically modified organisms or genetic engineering.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has responded to the allegations by the Prime Minister of Spain regarding criminal activity in Gibraltar. [75795]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: We are investigating these allegations, together with the relevant Gibraltar authorities. This involves careful and detailed research but we expect to respond shortly.
  337

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received advocating a moratorium on the planting of genetically modified crops. [74093]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received representations from a range of organisations and individuals advocating a moratorium on commercial planting of genetically modified crops.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about English Nature's recommendation on the planting of genetically modified crops. [74105]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government believe that the necessary protection of the environment can be achieved without the moratorium on herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops which English Nature have recommended.

  Food Safety Regulations
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about food safety regulations in other parts of the EU. [74094]

  Mr. Rooker
  Food safety is an area of EU competence. Most food law is harmonised across the EU and rules equivalent to those in place in the UK apply in other Member States. The Government see this as the best way to promote common food safety standards across the EU.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to his European colleagues to bring about an EU-wide ban on fur farming. [74096]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's primary concern is to bring about an end to fur farming in this country, which is why we are supporting the Private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). We have made it clear in Council of Europe discussions on welfare standards that the UK is opposed for ethical reasons to fur farming.

  Food Marketing
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to improve marketing in the food industry. [74098]

  Mr. Rooker
  We pursue a range of activities to help the agri-food industry to improve its marketing performance. We also work with industry initiatives in this area.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the impact of the operation of flood defences on fisheries. [74101]

  Mr. Morley
  Fishermen have an opportunity to make representations to the responsible authority when 338
  proposals for flood defence work are advertised under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. MAFF is not aware of any recent cases where the authorities have been unable to resolve any potential problems raised.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department plans to take to ensure animal feed including genetically modified ingredients is adequately labelled. [74102]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 576.

  British Fishing Industry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for ensuring that charges made by public bodies and regulated bodies to the British fishing industry are no higher than the charges imposed on the fishing industries in the rest of Europe. [74103]

  Mr. Morley
  Charges by public or regulated bodies to the British fishing industry can be made only within the statutory frameworks of the bodies concerned, which will include procedures for complaints or representations against levels set. It would not be appropriate for my Department to seek to vary these by reference to the actions of similar bodies elsewhere in Europe.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is intending to take to ensure better labelling of the products of humanely reared animals. [74104]

  Mr. Morley
  We will continue to encourage the growing number of organisations who have responded to consumer demand by introducing schemes which allow easy identification of food produced from animals reared to high welfare standards.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the accuracy and informative content of food labelling. [74088]

  Mr. Rooker
  Detailed and extensive rules on food labelling are already in place, including a general prohibition on falsely describing food or labelling it in a way likely to mislead. In addition new regulations on the labelling of genetically modified soya and maize will be laid shortly and, from February next year, further information covering the quantity of certain ingredients in certain foods will be required.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the practice of quota hopping in relation to the common fisheries policy. [74106]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on
  339
  30 July 1998, Official Report, column 467, and the reply given to my hon. Friend for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on 2 March 1999, Official Report, column 718.

  Organic Farmers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the help he is proposing to give to those farmers who wish to change to organic production. [74095]

  Mr. Morley
  We will be seeking Parliamentary approval shortly to double the rate of aid for farmers in England converting to organic practices, following approval of the revised scheme from the European Commission. We have also increased support for the Organic Conversion Information Service, which advises farmers about conversion.

  Organic Production
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is giving to research into organic production techniques. [74099]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF has a dedicated programme of research into organic farming methods. The value of this programme will rise to £2.1 million (an increase of 40 per cent.) in 1999–2000.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on biodiversity of the adoption of intensive farming methods since 1969. [74951]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry is a partner in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, which concluded that the adoption of intensive farming methods has had a substantial adverse impact on biodiversity. The Ministry is currently funding research into the effects of intensive management of arable land on birds, and of intensive management of grassland on birds and invertebrates. In addition the Ministry is continuing to fund work on the indirect effects of pesticides on birds.

  Intervention Board
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the Intervention Board performed against its targets for 1997–98. [76732]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Intervention Board's performance against its key targets in 1997–98 was as follows:

  Percentage

  Target

  1997–98 Performance

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  99.0

  91.3

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98.5

  99.5

  Cumulative running cost efficiency gains

  2.5

  0.4

  Improvement in index of productivity

  6.0

  -3.7

  Ratio of disallowance to EAGER funds handled

  0.40

  0.06

  To maintain expenditure within vote provision, cash and running cost limits

  —

  Met

  New value for money savings in procurement of goods and services

  6.5

  11.0

  Yield: cost ratio of anti-fraud activities

  3.0:1.0

  5.8:1.0

  340

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle now have passports issued by the British Cattle Movement Service. [76733]

  Mr. Rooker
  The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) has now provided more than a million cattle with passports since its launch on 28 September 1998. In addition BCMS has processed more than a million passports of slaughtered cattle, entered more than 600,000 live cattle movements on to the Cattle Tracing System database, and dealt with around 140,000 phone calls from farmers to its Helpline.

  These are impressive achievements. As a result of BCMS' work, it will be much easier to check where cattle have been during their lives. This will help to trace animals during disease outbreaks, and is an important factor in rebuilding confidence in British cattle and beef, at home and abroad.

  CAP Reform
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, with particular reference to wheat production. [74080]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government strongly support the European Commission's proposal for a 20 per cent. cut in the intervention price for cereals. If this is agreed by the Council of Ministers, European wheat prices would come into line with world prices, to the benefit of consumers.

  Supermarket Chains
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from(a) farmers and (b) consumer groups on the buying power of supermarket chains; and if he will make a statement. [74092]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a number of representations from both farmers and consumer groups on the buying power and pricing policies of supermarkets. These are matters within the competence of the competition authorities and are currently subject to an inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading which expects to report on their findings later this month.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the(a) number and (b) value of national insurance payments in arrears; and if he will make a statement. [74034]

  Mr. Timms
  The collection of National Insurance contributions is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, George Bertram. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. David Atkinson, dated 10 March 1999:

  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about the Contributions Agency and operational matters relating to the collection of National

  341
  Insurance contributions (NICs). I have been asked to reply to your question about the number of National Insurance (NI) debtors and the amount of NI in arrears.

  Although the Agency has the ability to collect information on the debt outstanding from some of our customer groups, problems with the implementation of the Agency's NIRS2 computer system mean that these figures are not readily available.

  Currently the Agency is concentrating its efforts on the NIRS2 Stabilisation and Recovery plan. However, when NIRS2 is fully implemented it will allow the Agency to provide improved debt management and accountability.

  The latest reliable information about NIC debt was reproduced in the National Audit Office report on the National Insurance Fund 1997–98 and used the information available within the Agency at 31 March 1998.

  At the time the only figures available related to self-employed contributors who pay Class 2 NICs monthly by direct debit, or in quarterly instalments. The figure quoted in the NAO report was an estimate based on the outstanding debt recorded on the Agency's three main systems for recording Class 2 debt and amounted to £513 million, which represents a significant proportion of the Agency's total debt.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost or uprating the pensions for UK citizens resident overseas in 1999–2000 in line with UK pensioners, for(a) all overseas pensioners and (b) only those overseas pensioners whose net income would increase as a result. [75238]

  Income support pensioners aged 75 and over, by weekly amount received and marital status—August 1998

  Thousand

  Weekly amount of Income support

  All amounts

  £0.01 to £2.99

  £3.00 to £4.99

  £5.00 to £9.99

  £10.00 to £14.99

  £15.00 and over

  All aged 75 and over

  931

  33

  34

  148

  186

  530

  Single

  861

  27

  28

  129

  173

  504

  Aged 75–79

  238

  14

  15

  69

  16

  124

  Aged 80 and over

  623

  14

  13

  60

  157

  379

  Couples

  70

  6

  6

  19

  13

  26

  Aged 75–79

  27

  3

  3

  6

  3

  12

  Aged 80 and over

  43

  3

  3

  13

  10

  14

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of all cases and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum due to rounding.

  3. The figures for couples relate to both married and unmarried couples, and will include cases where one member is aged 75 or over and the other is under 75.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1998

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in receipt of housing benefit have no one in work in (i) Bolton, (ii) the North West and (iii) England. [75634]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  342
  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The approximate cost of uprating pensions for all UK residents overseas in 1999–2000 in line with UK pensioners

  £ million

  Not frozen cases

  19

  Frozen cases

  18

  Total

  37

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on recent data and allow for some increase in the numbers of overseas cases.

  2. The numbers are presented in terms of the total cost of paying an annual uprating to all UK pensioners living overseas, including both cases that already receive annual uprating and those who do not (ie, the frozen cases).

  Source:

  Figures are provided by the Government Actuary's Department. The measure used to uprate pensions is the Retail Prices Index (RPI).

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (i) single and (ii) married pensioners aged(a) 80 or above and (b) 75 to 79 are receiving weekly amounts of income support of (I) £0.01 to £2.99, (II) £3.00 to £4.99, (HI) £5.00 to £9.99 and (IV) £10.00 to £14.99. [75538]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Housing benefit recipients in the North West and England who have no earnings

  North West

  England

  387,000

  3,287,000

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to those recipients where no earnings are declared, either full-time or part-time.

  2. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Annual 1 per cent. sample taken in May 1998—the sample is too small to give single local authority information.
  343
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of housing benefit live in(a) local authority properties, (b) housing association properties and (c) owner-occupied housing, in (i) Bolton, (ii) the North West and (iii) England. [75632]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Housing benefit recipients May 1998

  Bolton

  North West

  England

  Local authority

  14,810

  263,580

  2,135,100

  Housing association

  3,860

  79,560

  729,620

  Private tenants (excluding HA)

  4,030

  96,660

  861,200

  Notes:

  1. Figures for Bolton are estimated.

  2. Figures for North West and England include estimates where individual local authority data are not available.

  3. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  4. Figures rounded to the nearest ten.

  Source:

  Quarterly caseload inquiries.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what savings have been made so far by the Government as a consequence of the changes to council tax benefit regulations introduced on 1 April 1998; [75615]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the savings in financial year 1999–2000 resulting from the changes to council tax benefit regulations introduced on 1 April 1998; [75696]

  (3) when he will make a statement on the planned review of the changes to council tax benefit regulations introduced on 1 April 1998. [75695]

  Angela Eagle
  The information on savings made so far as a result of the April 1998 changes to the Council Tax Benefit regulations is not currently available. Savings for the financial year 1999–2000 are estimated to be £4 million (to the nearest million).

  We are committed to monitoring the effects of the changes to the Council Tax Benefit Regulations introduced on 1 April 1998, in partnership with local authorities. Officials have recently conducted a competitive tender for research to monitor the change. The results will be published in due course.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people over retirement age will be exempt from inspection under the replacement for the Benefit Integrity Project. [75646]

  Mr. Bayley
  The new system of periodic inquiry into the current entitlement of people receiving Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will be introduced from April 1999. Of claimants aged 65 or over, those with lower awards of DLA may be contacted from the outset of the new process. Those with an award of DLA which comprises the higher rate of the mobility component with either the highest or middle rate of the care component will not be contacted in the early stages, as evidence indicates a low level of change in the entitlement of this group over time. We intend to evaluate and refine the 344
  process as it develops, and will be taking decisions about the position of this group in the light of growing experience.

  State Earnings-related Pension
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the decision was taken to reduce the support available through SERPS to surviving spouses; and how this decision was published. [75683]

  Angela Eagle
  The Social Security Act 1986 reduced the amount of SERPS which a surviving spouse, who is widowed on or after 6 April 2000, can inherit from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent.

  The intention to make this change was first publicised in the White Paper "Reform of Social Security—Programme for Action" (Cm 9691) in December 1985. The House debated the change during the passage of the Social Security Bill.

  Details of the change have been published in DSS leaflets NP46 "A guide to Retirement Pensions" and NP45 "A guide to Widow's Benefits" since April 1996.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been received by him on the decision to reduce the level of support through SERPS available to surviving spouses. [75684]

  Angela Eagle
  We recognise that there is concern regarding the level of public awareness about the reduction, from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent., in the amount of SERPS which a surviving spouse can inherit on or after 6 April 2000. We are actively looking at ways of raising public awareness of this change.

  Benefits (Sanctions)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce benefit sanctions for those claimants who break their probation or community service orders. [76084]

  Angela Eagle
  We are currently looking into the possibility of testing arrangements which would link benefit entitlement to compliance with community sentences so, for example, someone subject to a probation or community service order may lose benefit if they breach the conditions of the order.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each social security benefit(a) how many pieces of information must be provided in order to make an initial claim for benefit, (b) how many separate pieces of documentation must be provided in order to make an initial claim and (c) how many person-hours are on average required to process a single initial claim. [75945]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 makes benefit entitlement conditional upon a benefit claimant providing sufficient information

  345
  for a NI No. for themselves and anyone else included in the claim to be traced and confirmed as appropriate to them.

  It provides powers to disallow a claim if identity cannot be established or confirmed. The Benefits Agency (BA) has introduced new procedures for checking identities thoroughly using the powers in the fraud Act; this commenced on a rolling programme from 1 December 1997.

  All claims to benefit must either be made in writing on a properly completed claim form relevant to the individual benefit being claimed, or in such other written manner that the Secretary of State will accept. The length and complexity, and therefore the amount of information required, varies from benefit to benefit and depends on an individual's personal circumstances. It is not possible to quantify exactly how many pieces of information must be provided.

  The volume of documentation is similarly dependent on the individual benefit. For those customers on Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance who are subject to the Evidence Requirement (ER) the claim form makes it clear which documents are required for a customer to satisfy that requirement. These include details of current and previous wages, any capital held, ground rent and service charges payable, details of any self-employment and any occupational pensions or other income which is received.

  For those customers not subject to the ER it is for the Adjudication Officer to decide the amount of documentation required in order that when deciding upon the claim they can make a sound and reasoned decision thus protecting public funds.

  Information on the time taken to clear a claim is in the tables.

  Average time taken to clear a claim in person hours

  Time

  Benefit

  Mins

  Hours

  Volumes

  Total hours

  1 Income Support (IS)

  1a) mortgage

  38.28

  0.64

  173,400

  110,976

  1b) self employed

  60.00

  1.00

  40,900

  40,900

  1c) people from abroad

  53.59

  0.89

  27,700

  24,653

  1d) habitual residence test

  58.20

  0.97

  30,600

  29,682

  1e) others

  31.33

  0.52

  1,493,800

  776,776

  Total for IS

  —

  —

  1,766,400

  982,987

  Note:

  Average IS claim 33.6 mins

  Average time taken to clear a claim in person hours

  Time

  Benefit

  Mins

  Hours

  2 Jobseeker's Allowance

  51.33

  0.86

  3 Incapacity Benefit

  44.58

  0.74

  4 Severe Disablement Allowance

  180.84

  3.01

  6 Maternity Allowance

  95.83

  1.60

  7 Retirement Pension (RP) Districts

  76.04

  1.27

  8 Widows Benefit

  113.56

  1.89

  9 Disablement Benefit (Dis Ben)

  9a) Dis Ben Normal

  67.63

  1.13

  9b) Dis Ben Accident

  85.52

  1.43

  9c) Dis Ben Rea

  98.47

  1.64

  10 Family Credit

  47.74

  0.80

  11 DLA normal

  147.2

  2.45

  346

  Average time taken to clear a claim in person hours

  Time

  Benefit

  Mins

  Hours

  12 DLA special

  86.08

  1.43

  13 AA normal

  130.31

  2.17

  14 AA special

  69.88

  1.16

  15 ICA

  116.74

  1.95

  16 DWA

  100.38

  1.67

  17 War Pensions

  332.78

  5.55

  18 War Pensions (Widows)

  636.65

  10.61

  19 Child Benefit

  19a) Child Benefit New

  35.39

  0.59

  19b) Child Benefit Duplicate

  92.35

  1.54

  19c) One Parent Benefit

  53.70

  0.90

  20 Pensions in Directorate

  20a) International Liaison Claim

  224.40

  3.74

  20b) Widows Benefit

  484.37

  8.07

  20c) RP claim

  327.08

  5.45

  Note:

  DLA—Disability Living Allowance; AA—Attendance Allowance; ICA—Invalid Care Allowance; DWA—Disability Working Allowance.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are estimated to be ineligible for benefits under the minimum income guarantee, despite having incomes that fall below its threshold, who are aged(a) 60 to 74, (b) 75 to 79 and (c) over 80 years (i) in total and (ii) by gender. [75895]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not currently available. We have previously estimated that the total number of pensioners who will be ineligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee because their savings exceed £8,000 but whose income is below the threshold is 230,000 (if income from savings is included in the assessment of total income) or 600,000 (if income from savings is not included).

  These estimates were based on the data used to produce the published estimates of take-up of income related benefits. These estimates are currently being revised following the discovery in December of an error, the effect of which was to understate income brought to account. The estimates will be republished in May.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are in place to vet key staff involved in issuing national insurance numbers. [76085]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently conducting a risk assessment and cost benefit analysis to identify the need for, and potential use of enhanced personnel checks.

  We have recently reviewed our recruitment procedures for all staff. Our procedures already follow Cabinet Office guidelines. We are implementing a number of improvements which include; more rigorous checks on identity; new mandatory management checks of our recruitment procedures; internal audit checks to provide a further level of assurance.
  347

  Pensions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the general levies payable under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 by occupational and personal pension schemes. [76730]

  Mr. Timms
  The general levy covers the costs of bodies which exist either to safeguard the rights of, or to provide information to, pension scheme members. These bodies are the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA), the Pensions Advisory Service, the

  £

  Occupational pensions

  Personal pensions

  Scheme size (members)

  Basis

  Amount per member

  Minimum payment

  Amount per member

  Minimum payment

  2–11

  Each scheme

  —>

  11

  —

  3.75

  12–99

  Member

  1.20

  —

  0.35

  —

  100–999

  Member

  0.85

  120

  0.25

  35

  1,000–4,999

  Member

  0.69

  850

  0.20

  250

  5,000–9,999

  Member

  0.53

  3,450

  0.15

  1,000

  10,000+

  Member

  0.37

  5,300

  0.10

  1,500

DEFENCE

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which countries had armed forces involved in the NATO joint exercise in Norway carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72828]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the NATO joint exercise in Portugal carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998;[72831]

  (3) which countries had armed forces involved in the NATO joint exercise in Portugal carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72835]

  (4) what is his assessment of the value of the NATO joint exercise in Norway carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72968]

  (5) what is his assessment of the principal benefits of the NATO joint exercise in Portugal carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72969]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Exercise STRONG RESOLVE, which took place in March 1998 jointly in Norway and in Portugal, consisted of two halves; exercise CRISIS NORTH, in Norway, and exercise CRISIS SOUTH, in Portugal. The aim of exercise STRONG RESOLVE was to exercise NATO's ability to cope with multiple, simultaneous crises in separate geographic regions, drawing on the resources of both Major NATO Commanders, and involving the full spectrum of NATO missions, and the exercise is assessed to have succeeded in its aim. Members of the armed forces of the following nations participated in CRISIS NORTH: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. Members of the armed forces of the following nations participated in CRISIS SOUTH: Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany,
  348
  Pensions Registry and the Pensions Ombudsman. Rates of general levy for the 1999–2000 year are shown in the table.

  The increase in the levy rates in respect of occupational pension schemes reflects, in particular, the steady increase in the number of cases OPRA is having referred to it and the complexity of the issues it is dealing with. It is important, therefore, that the Authority and the other bodies concerned continue to have the resources necessary to ensure that scheme members' interests are properly protected. The rates in respect of personal pension schemes remain the same as last year.

  Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

  NATO
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the minimum military readiness and training standards required of members of NATO; and whether the UK currently complies. [75274]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  NATO Allies, including the United Kingdom, hold forces at a range of readiness and training levels required to meet the full range of Alliance missions, so that NATO is ready to respond effectively to present and future needs. The UK reports to NATO on its forces through the Alliance defence planning process.

  Britannia Beagles Kennels
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to public funds of(a) the demolition of the Britannia Beagles kennels at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth and (b) their rebuilding elsewhere. [75525]

  Mr. Spellar
  The beagles at BRNC Dartmouth are funded by private subscriptions, and are not supported by public funds. The beagles are a registered encroachment, and as such the MOD can terminate the agreement at any time giving reasonable notice. The MOD is not liable for any damage or repairs and if notice was given for the beagle pack to leave BRNC Dartmouth, then any costs for a new facility outside the College would be the sole responsibility of the beagle pack.

  As an option within the College redevelopment plan, the present beagle kennels have been identified as a potential site for the College's new recreational facility. However, options are still being developed and no decisions have yet been taken. The approximate cost of any demolition of the kennels would be in the region of £1,000.
  349

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions were given to(a) service personnel and (b) civilian personnel employed at the Royal Hospital, Haslar concerning (i) participation in the save Haslar rally and march on Sunday 24 January and (ii) signature of a petition to save Haslar organised by Gosport Borough Council. [75213]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: Written instructions were issued to Service and civilian staff by the Hospital Commander at the Royal Hospital, Haslar concerning participation, by staff, in the 'Save Haslar' campaign. Those instructions reminded staff of their responsibilities as public servants. They also requested that items promoting the campaign should not be displayed within the hospital, directed that petition signatures should not be collected on site and advised Service personnel that they should not participate in the march, in accordance with joint Queen's Regulations and MOD policy.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the possible genetic effects on the children of veterans who served on Christmas Island during nuclear testing periods. [75831]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has not commissioned any research into the possible genetic effects on the children of nuclear test veterans who served on Christmas Island.

  As far as I am aware, there is no scientific or medical evidence to show that health or other physical problems suffered by the children or grandchildren of nuclear test veterans can be attributed to participation in the UK's nuclear test programme 40 years ago.

  In November 1997, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) published the results of a major epidemiological study of the children of radiation workers. The study, entitled "Cancer in the Offspring of Radiation Workers— A Record Linkage Study" discounted the hypothesis (known as the Gardner Hypothesis) that fathers' exposure to radiation before conception is a cause of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This study was peer reviewed and published in the British Medical Journal.

  The other major study in this area involved about 30,000 children of those Japanese nationals irradiated as a result of the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan in World War II. This was published in 1990 and failed to detect any significant excess of mutations, untoward pregnancy outcomes, childhood mortality or excess cancer.

  A report on the US Nuclear tests published by the US Institute of Medicine in 1995 concluded that the size of the US test veteran population was not large enough to make practical a scientifically adequate and epidemiologically valid study of genetic effects in the children of test veterans. This is despite there being over 210,000 US test veterans, ten times the number in the UK.
  350
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reinstate multiple myeloma as a pensionable condition for UK nuclear test veterans. [74729]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no prescribed list of medical conditions for which a war pension may be awarded. A war pension claimed more than seven years after discharge from service can be awarded for any condition, if, on the basis of reliable evidence, there is a reasonable doubt that disablement or death is due to service in HM forces. The Department's policy is that on current medical evidence and research a reasonable doubt has not been established that a causal link exists between multiple myeloma and participation in the UK nuclear tests programme. However, the Ministry of Defence has recently announced a further limited study into the incidence of multiple myeloma among veterans of the UKs atmospheric nuclear test programme in the 1950s. The results of this study are expected to be available by the end of next year.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the pension applications of nuclear test veterans that were rejected on the basis of the National Radiological Protection Board's conclusions on risk of cancer. [74727]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  We know of no reason to do so. We accept the current findings of the study by the National Radiological Protection Board. However, the Ministry of Defence has recently announced a further limited study into the incidence of multiple myeloma among veterans of the UKs atmospheric nuclear test programme in the 1950s. The results of this study are expected to be available by the end of next year.

CABINET OFFICE

  Biotechnical Industry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many unminuted pre-arranged meetings occurred between(a) himself, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) his officials and representatives of the biotechnical industry sector since 1 May 1997. [74835]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 25 February 1999, Official Report, column 430.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the biotechnical companies which have placed staff(a) on secondment and (b) on placement within his Department since 1 May 1997. [74841]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Secondments and attachments from other sectors of the economy are part of the Interchange Initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations.

  No staff from biotechnology companies have been placed in the Cabinet Office since 1 May 1997.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1999,Official

  351
  Report, column 430, on genetic modification, what criteria inform his decisions as to whether or not he releases information about meetings with private individuals or companies. [75187]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: I refer to the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9 March 1999, Official Report, column 168.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Discretionary Rate Relief
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each(a) metropolitan district council, (b) shire district council, (c) unitary council, (d) shire county council and (e) London borough council the sums of money in the 1999–2000 financial year they will be required to pay to the Government in respect of
  (i) discretionary rate relief and (ii) other grants issued in previous financial years. [74776]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have placed two tables in the Library. The first shows the amounts which local authorities have budgeted to pay into the non-domestic rates pool as a result of their own decisions to grant discretionary relief to businesses in 1999–2000. These payments ensure that the rates pool, and hence the amount to be redistributed to local authorities, is not adversely reduced by decisions taken by individual local authorities to reduce non-domestic rates bills for certain businesses. The table gives figures for each authority responsible for the billing and collection of non-domestic rates.

  The second table shows the effect on local authorities in 1999–2000 of the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997/1998: Amending Report 1999.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many housing associations received Government funding in(a) London, (b) the North West and (c) England as a whole in the last two years. [75264]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of housing associations receiving Government funding through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme in 1997–98 and 1998–99 is shown in the table.

  Number of housing associations receiving social housing grant through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme

  Region

  1997–98

  1998–99

  London

  183

  171

  North West

  57

  56

  England

  548

  500

  Note:

  1997–98 information is based on schemes given approval to start during the year

  1998–99 information is based on start of year allocations
  352
  In addition, the Housing Corporation provides revenue funding to housing associations, eg Supported Housing Management Grant and Innovation and Good Practice grants. Housing associations also received funding from local authorities under the Local Authority Social Housing Grant scheme.

  Mining Waste Disposal
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of safeguards on the disposal of mining waste. [75345]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The effectiveness of safeguards on the disposal of mining waste is kept under review by the Health and Safety Commission in respect of stability and safety, by the Environment Agency in respect of pollution aspects, and by the monitoring of planning permissions by local authorities. The comprehensive framework of UK legislation which deals with location, stability and safety, and the pollution potential of tips and related structures, has ensured that very few problems have arisen in recent years.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the rules on the disposal of inert mining waste. [75346]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no plans at present to change the rules for the disposal of inert mining waste. There are, however, proposals for new quarries health and safety regulations which will include safety and stability of tips. These would not lead to any diminution of health and safety standards at quarries.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he proposes to announce the next round of approval for housing stock transfers; and if he will make a statement; [75466]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding housing stock transfers; [75467]

  (3) how many applications his Department has received for housing stock transfers in the last year for which figures are available. [75465]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am today announcing the names of the 25 local authorities which will be able to proceed, on a voluntary basis and subject to the approval of their tenants, with proposals to carry out 31 transfers of all or part of their housing stock to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in 1999–2000. The programme will involve over 140,000 dwellings in large-scale voluntary transfers, generating capital receipts of over £822 million. Nine of the transfers will be supported by Estates Renewal Challenge Funding.

  Transfers can offer significant benefits for tenants. The new landlord must plan for proper maintenance and future repairs. Increased investment means that any backlog of repairs can be carried out more quickly than if the properties had remained in local authority ownership. Rent increases are normally limited by a guarantee that rents will not rise by more than 1 per cent. above inflation for the first five years. In addition, RSLs are regulated

  353
  by the Housing Corporation, a government body which requires RSLs to adhere to performance standards in areas such as housing management, tenant consultation, and rents.

  But housing transfers are voluntary and may take place only if tenants are in favour. The consent of the Secretary of State is also required before a transfer can proceed and will not be granted if it appears that a majority of tenants do not wish the transfer to proceed.

  The 1999–2000 programme reflects the Government's commitment to support a continuing programme of transfers as a means of generating private finance to repair and improve the condition of social housing.

  Both Coventry (20,349) and Tameside (16,959) are above the Department's size limit for transfers to one landlord. I am agreeing to proposals to transfer their stock to new group structure landlords involving, in each case, two asset owning RSLs.

  Two of the authorities on the 1999–2000 programme—Coventry City Council and Burnley Borough Council—expect to have housing debt remaining in their Housing Revenue Account (HRA) after their stock is transferred. This is because the capital receipt will not be sufficient to clear all of the debt in their HRA. Transfer will depend on the successful resolution of this issue. We plan to issue a consultation paper on how to tackle overhanging debt in the near future. Our objective is to enable as wide a range of authorities to consider transfer as possible.

  The authorities who have successfully gained a place on the programme, together with the intended recipient RSL are as follows:

  (a) a disposal by Boston Borough Council of not more than 5,114 dwelling-houses to Boston Mayflower;

  (b) a disposal by Burnley Borough Council of not more than 5,354 dwelling-houses to Burnley and Padiham Community Housing;

  (c) disposals by Coventry City Council of not more than 20,349 dwelling-houses to registered social landlords;

  (d) a disposal by Elmbridge Borough Council of not more than 5,022 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (e) a disposal by Fenland District Council of not more than 4,445 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (f) disposals by London Borough of Hackney of not more than 1,263 dwelling-houses on the Pembury estate to the Peabody Trust, and not more than 1,131 dwelling-houses on the Stamford Hill estate to the Stamford Hill Trust;

  (g) a disposal by Huntingdonshire District Council of not more than 7,134 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (h) disposals by London Borough of Islington of not more than 646 dwelling-houses on the Barnsbury estate to Newlon Housing Group, and not more than 739 dwelling-houses on the Ten Estates to the Peabody Trust;

  (i) disposals by London Borough of Lambeth of not more than 2,576 dwelling-houses on the Central Stockwell estate to Hyde Southbank Homes, and not more than 1,282 dwelling-houses on the St. Martins estate to South London Family Housing Association, Metropolitan Housing Trust and Presentation Housing Association;

  (j) a disposal by London Borough of Lewisham of not more than 7,213 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (k) a disposal by Liverpool City Council of not more than 4,685 dwelling-houses to South Liverpool Housing;

  (l) disposals by Manchester City Council of not more than 646 dwelling-houses on the Colshaw Farm estate to Riverside Housing Association, and not more than 1,036 dwelling-houses on the Whitefield estate to a registered social landlord;

  354

  (m) a disposal by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council of not more than 10,042 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (n) a disposal by New Forest District Council of not more than 5,883 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (o) a disposal by North Devon District Council of not more than 3,462 dwelling-houses to North Devon Homes;

  (p) a disposal by Preston Borough Council of not more than 1,123 dwelling-houses on the Avenham estate to Collingwood Housing Association;

  (q) a disposal by Restormel District Council of not more than 3,781 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (r) a disposal by London Borough of Richmond of not more than 8,780 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (s) disposals by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council of not more than 16,959 dwelling-houses to registered social landlords;

  (t) a disposal by Test Valley Borough Council of not more than 5,789 dwelling-houses to Testway Housing Ltd.;

  (u) a disposal by London Borough of Tower Hamlets of not more than 1,780 dwelling-houses in Poplar to Poplar HARCA;

  (v) a disposal by Tynedale Council of not more than 3,731 dwelling-houses to Tynedale Housing Ltd.;

  (w) a disposal by West Lindsey District Council of not more than 3,919 dwelling-houses to West Links Housing Ltd.;

  (x) a disposal by Weymouth and Portland Council of not more than 3,526 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (y) a disposal by Wyre Forest District Council of not more than 6,440 dwelling-houses to Wyre Forest Community Housing.

  Construction Standards
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the buildmark and related construction standards. [75505]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Buildmark is a housing warranty scheme run by the NHBC, but I keep closely in touch with the steps being taken by them aimed at reducing the incidence of defects in new housing and at improving the procedures for resolving problems when they arise. My Department is represented on the NHBC Committee which keeps under review the technical standards drawn up in support of the Buildmark scheme. My Department also maintains contact with the other main providers of housing warranties.

  Development Projects
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new housing developments have been based on public design competitions in the last five years; and if he will make a statement on the role of urban design guidance in promoting such developments. [75506]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No data are collected by the Government on design competitions. A number of such competitions—approximately 20–25 per year, 4 or 5 of which involve new housing developments—are run by the Royal Institute of British Architects for a variety of public and private clients. The guidance used to conduct many of these competitions is issued by my Department together with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, entitled "Architectural Competitions: A Handbook for Promoters" (1996). A copy of this publication is in the Library.
  355
  Forthcoming good practice guidance on design in the planning system will promote design competitions as a useful mechanism for achieving better quality housing development.

  Roundabouts (Lighting)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will remove the absolute requirement for roundabouts to be lit where they are situated in sensitive rural locations. [75101]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]There is no absolute requirement to light roundabouts. It is for the highway authority to decide whether to light, based on their assessment of the benefits to be gained and the potential adverse environmental impact.

  Good design, installation and maintenance practices can do much to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of street lighting. My Department has issued advice on this subject in "Road Lighting and the Environment" and, with the Countryside Commission, has published a guide "Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice". The Highways Agency's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges contains advice on lighting rural roundabouts, which is to be supplemented following research.

  Void Local Authority Properties
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of local authority properties are void in (i) Bolton, (ii) the North West and (iii) England. [75636]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proportion of local authority dwellings which were reported as void on 1 April 1998 was 1.8 per cent. in Bolton, 3.7 per cent., in the North West region and 2.5 per cent. in England.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the numbers of void social housing properties by housing authority in England and Wales. [75540]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]I have placed the information requested in the form of a table in the Library. The table presents the latest information on the number of vacant dwellings owned by each local housing authority in England, as reported by them at 1 April 1998, and gives equivalent estimates for stock owned by Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in those districts at 31 March 1998. The latter are based on information supplied by RSLs to the Housing Corporation.

  Corresponding information for Welsh housing authorities is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Carlisle Airport
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment of the future role of Carlisle airport he plans to include in his proposed statement on UK airport policy; and if he will make a statement. [75532]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As foreshadowed in a "New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" (Cm3950), DETR has recently commission, in conjunction with the Government 356
  Offices for the North West, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber, a Regional Air Services Study for the North of England. This will include an assessment of the future role of Carlisle airport within the UK's airport system, its potential for meeting the demand for air services in Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders and the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of doing so.

  Near-miss Air Incidents
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures are in place to investigate near-miss air incidents. [75706]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under Article 106 of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995, controllers and pilots report airproxes (near miss) in which they were involved to the UK Airprox Board (UKAB), an independent organisation funded by the Civil Aviation Authority and the MOD.

  Incidents involving commercial air transport, or which occur in controlled airspace, are passed to the CAA's Safety Regulation Group (SRG) for investigation. Where military aircraft are also involved, a separate investigation into the military aspects is conducted by the MOD. Once completed, the MOD's investigation report is sent to the SRG to be amalgamated with their own report of the incident.

  Incidents which only involve military aircraft are referred to the MOD for investigation. The UKAB themselves conduct investigations of incidents involving general aviation in uncontrolled airspace.

  SRG and the MOD forward their completed airprox incident reports to the UKAB which then independently assesses the degree of collision risk; and makes any necessary safety recommendations. The results are published.

  In addition, the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, who reports directly to the Secretary of State, has the right on any occasion to institute an investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB). The AAIB reports are published in due course.

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will be conducting a full investigation into the near-miss incident involving a Boeing 737 and a Gulfstream Jet over Chigwell on 26 February. [75705]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  DETR's Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) has begun an investigation of this incident and the results will be published in due course.

  In addition to the AAIB investigation, the Civil Aviation Authority's Safety Regulation Group (SRG) is carrying out its own investigation. Once completed, the SRG report is passed to the independent UK Airprox Board (UKAB) for its review and assessment of the incident.

  The UKAB will also publish its findings. These will include an assessment of the degree of collision risk and any appropriate safety recommendations.
  357

  SSAs (Snow Days)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the weather station sites and the respective local authorities in England which are used in the calculation of snow days for the purposes of the standard spending assessment. [75518]

  Ms Armstrong
  Information about the weather stations used in the calculation of the number of snow-lying days for the purpose of standard spending assessments has been placed in the Library.

  Haulage Companies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives his Department is taking to provide assistance to the British haulage industry. [75759]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]The Government want a road haulage industry that is safe, competitive, efficient and sustainable. On 2 March we published Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy, which sets out our approach and the range of initiatives which we will be taking forward to assist the haulage industry to meet these aims. The initiatives include integration of the sustainable transport of goods with our planning and roads policies; improvements in safety and enforcement which will benefit the law-abiding majority of the industry; and the promotion of best practice.

  Planning
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the average times taken for planning applications to be processed by each planning authority in the last year for which figures are available. [75302]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: The information needed to determine the average time for planning applications to be processed is collected centrally only for a small number of mainly minerals and waste development applications (known as 'county matters'). These represent less than 1 per cent. of all applications and include some large, complex and contentious applications which tend to raise difficult planning issues that take some time to resolve. Information on the average time taken to determine this category of applications for the year ending September 1998 is shown in the table.

  The speed at which decisions are made for the vast majority of applications, i.e. all except 'county matters', is measured in terms of the proportion of decisions determined within 8 weeks and 13 weeks. In the year ending September 1998, 62 per cent. of these applications in England were determined within 8 weeks and 83 per cent. within 13 weeks.

  The Department is currently considering whether average time taken to determine applications should be included in the suite of Best Value performance indicators on which the Department will be consulting later this year.
  358

  'County matters' planning applications decided: England, year ending September 1998

  Number of decisions

  Average decision time (days)

  County councils

  Bedfordshire

  23

  339

  Buckinghamshire

  36

  232

  Cambridgeshire1

  37

  165

  Cheshire1

  35

  188

  Cornwall

  38

  119

  Cumbria

  47

  116

  Derbyshire

  43

  230

  Devon1

  46

  179

  Dorset

  33

  95

  Durham

  25

  378

  East Sussex

  39

  107

  Essex1

  65

  171

  Gloucestershire

  31

  163

  Hampshire

  69

  170

  Hertfordshire

  31

  250

  Kent1

  57

  204

  Lancashire1

  53

  157

  Leicestershire

  27

  230

  Lincolnshire

  59

  127

  Norfolk

  57

  235

  North Yorkshire

  51

  208

  Northamptonshire

  34

  346

  Northumberland

  55

  152

  Nottinghamshire1

  38

  237

  Oxfordshire

  21

  328

  Shropshire1

  25

  308

  Somerset

  44

  168

  Staffordshire

  67

  331

  Suffolk

  46

  144

  Surrey

  53

  151

  Warwickshire

  28

  113

  West Sussex

  27

  169

  Wiltshire

  11

  223

  Worcestershire2

  7

  305

  London Boroughs

  Brent

  3

  189

  Camden

  2

  96

  Haringey

  1

  34

  Hillingdon

  1

  248

  Southwark3

  1

  121

  National Park authorities

  Lake District

  1

  92

  Peak

  16

  107

  Dartmoor

  2

  106

  Exmoor

  2

  57

  North York Moors

  5

  177

  Unitary Authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2

  346

  South Gloucestershire

  7

  937

  North Somerset

  4

  93

  West Berkshire4

  3

  120

  Slough4

  4

  87

  Windsor and Maidenhead4

  1

  290

  Milton Keynes

  2

  344

  Peterborough4

  3

  121

  Hartlepool3

  4

  73

  Middlesbrough3

  2

  92

  Stockton-on-Tees3

  6

  82

  Derby

  2

  102

  Bournemouth

  1

  52

  Thurrock4

  2

  108

  Portsmouth

  3

  152

  Southampton

  2

  203

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  17

  218

  North East Lincolnshire

  2

  98

  North Lincolnshire

  5

  138

  359

  'County matters' planning applications decided: England, year ending September 1998

  Number of decisions

  Average decision time (days)

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  3

  88

  Isle of Wight

  3

  264

  Medway4

  9

  109

  Leicester

  1

  129

  Rutland

  3

  216

  City of York

  4

  189

  Stoke on Trent

  2

  131

  Swindon

  5

  65

  Metropolitan districts

  Bolton

  6

  205

  Bury

  6

  160

  Oldham5

  5

  82

  Rochdale

  5

  235

  Salford

  1

  222

  Wigan

  8

  103

  St. Helens

  7

  179

  Barnsley5

  8

  158

  Doncaster

  13

  325

  Rotherham

  12

  125

  Sheffield5

  8

  129

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2

  91

  Dudley

  1

  133

  Wolverhampton3

  3

  117

  Bradford

  21

  210

  Calderdale

  10

  109

  Kirklees5

  18

  302

  Leeds

  41

  165

  Wakefield

  7

  261

  1 Excludes Unitary Authorities created on 1 April 1998.

  2 Following local government reorganisation on 1 April 1998, Hereford and Worcester county was split into Herefordshire Unity Authority and Worcestershire. Figures are provided from this date onwards.

  3 Authorities comprise parts of wound up Urban Development Corporations from 1 April 1998.

  4 Unitary Authorities created on 1 April 1998.

  5 Authorities include areas within a National Park but figures are for outside the park area only.

  Press Cuttings
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which company provides his Department with daily press cuttings on (i) environment issues, (ii) transport issues and (iii) local and regional Government issues; and if he will make a statement. [76040]

  Mr. Meale
  Press cuttings covering a broad range of the Department's responsibilities are supplied on a daily basis by Energy Data Services Ltd.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to sell a majority share of National Air Traffic Services in a public-private partnership; and if he will make a statement. [76067]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are currently examining the responses received to the consultation paper on the proposal for a public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. A statement on the way forward will be made in due course.
  360

  Road Network (Hereford)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have to visit Hereford in the next six months to examine the road network. [75682]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety proposes to visit Hereford later this month.

  Right of Access
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the framework within which appeals can be lodged against decisions made during any mapping exercise prior to legislation on the right of access to open countryside. [76026]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are giving consideration to the procedures for appeals in relation to mapping. No decisions have yet been taken on these.

  Airport Policy
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for airport studies in support of the development of the Government's airport policy. [76589]

  Dr. Reid
  The White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" (Cm 3950) announced the Government's intention to prepare a UK airports policy looking some 30 years ahead. The White Paper also announced a series of studies of the role of regional airports in the South West, the Midlands, and the North of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. These studies are all now under way.

  To complement these studies, the Government have decided to set in hand a study of airport issues in the South East of England and the East of England. This study will consider future policies for these airports within the framework of the Government's sustainable development principles. It will take full account of the potential for airports in the other parts of the country to attract a greater proportion of the demand from their local area than they do at present, in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper (paragraph 3.196).

  The study will examine a wide range of options, and, in accordance with the new approach to appraisal set out in the White Paper, will appraise their economic, environmental and social implications. The study will consider both terminal and runway capacity. Projects for which planning applications have already been made, or are expected to be made shortly, will not be within the scope of the study. The Secretary of State must reserve his position on such cases, and cannot prejudge their outcome; the study will therefore examine a range of scenarios based on those projects either going ahead or not going ahead.

  In accordance with our integrated transport policy, the study will consider not only airport capacity, but also the implications of possible developments for the planning of airspace capacity and air traffic control and for surface access to the airports concerned. The study will take account of work which the Department has recently

  361
  commissioned from OPRAF to examine the scope for improving long distance rail links to the major South East airports and the rail connections between those airports.

  This work will be carried out in an open way. In particular, the Government recognise the substantial economic, environmental and social implications of runway capacity issues, and their interaction with land-use planning. The Government will therefore discuss with interested parties, including the regional planning conferences and regional development agencies, the process for taking forward the study, including the criteria which should be applied in the assessment of options.

  The Government expect that the studies will take around two years. There will then be public consultation on options arising from this work. The Government envisage that the results of the airport studies will be incorporated in a White Paper on UK airports policy, which will also reflect the Government's decisions in response to the Inspector's report on the Heathrow Terminal 5 Inquiry.

  Greater London Authority Elections
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the voting and counting arrangements for the Greater London Authority elections on 4 May 2000. [76729]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am pleased to announce that today we have sent an advertisement to the Office of the Official Journal for publication in "Tenders Electronic Daily" inviting expressions of interest from companies which could provide electronic voting equipment. This would enable votes in the first Greater London Authority elections to be electronically recorded and counted.

  The new Authority will be modern, streamlined and efficient and we should work towards a voting system to match. This is particularly appropriate as the ballots for electing the Mayor and two types of Assembly Member require a more complex count than for most elections in this country. It is right, therefore to explore whether modern technology could improve the speed and efficiency of the process.

  However, our top priority is to run a successful election on 4 May 2000, so we will be looking at systems which have proved extremely reliable in national or regional elections elsewhere. We will not therefore be committed to the use of electronic voting systems unless we are confident that the equipment offered will be easy for people to use, be value for money and make a real contribution to the success of the elections.

  Local Government Act 1972
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to conduct research into local councils' and authorities' use of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. [76771]
  362
  Ms Armstrong
  Section 137 is used by an increasing number of parish and town councils to provide a wide range of activities. The majority of section 137 spending by local councils is on grants to other bodies and funding for services such as youth activities, schools and playgroups. The findings of a study on local councils use of section 137 was published in November last year.

  Furthermore, my Department has today published a report on local authorities use of section 137. The report found that while section 137 provides essential flexibility, authorities perceived that there are barriers to its use, such as the current financial limit on expenditure.

  We are currently considering the best approach which will allow local authorities to carry out a new duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well being of their communities. Section 137 will be reviewed in the light of this new duty and we will take account of the findings of this report and the views of local authorities in doing so.

TREASURY

  Unemployment
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department made of the average duration of unemployment for a person unemployed and claiming benefit in each of the last four years. [75668]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Graham Brady, dated 11 March 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the average duration of unemployment.

  Monthly estimates of median durations of uncompleted spells of claimant unemployment can be accessed by the House of Commons Library. The data are not readily available in precise annual form, but these monthly figures for each year average out as follows:

  Estimated median duration of uncompleted spells of claimant unemployment, United Kingdom

  Weeks

  1995

  33

  1996

  33

  1997

  27

  1998

  22

  These figures relate to computerized claims only i.e. they exclude a small proportion of claimants whose benefit claims are processed clerically.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the cost of answering(a) a written parliamentary question and (b) an oral parliamentary question. [76588]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at April 1998, the average costs of answering a written parliamentary question and an oral parliamentary question were £115 and £267 respectively.
  363

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ascension Island
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the bulk oil storage arrangements for the Ascension Island. [75638]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The present bulk fuel storage arrangements at Ascension Island are provided by the MV Maersk Ascension. Following a review of strategic fuel holdings on Ascension Island, my Department is considering the optimum arrangements for the future storage of fuel stocks.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations and at what level have been made to(a) the Government of Spain and (b) the European Commission in respect of the obstruction by the Government of Spain of free movement between Spain and Gibraltar. [76065]

  Ms Quin
  We have raised the border delays between Gibraltar and Spain on several occasions. In the last month, the Prime Minister has discussed the problem twice with Sr Aznar. The Foreign Secretary has done so twice with his Spanish counterpart. The Ambassador in Madrid has also raised the issue several times with the Spanish authorities, including with Sr Matutes. The UK Permanent Representative to the European Union has also written both to the President of the European Commission and to his Chef de Cabinet informing them of Spanish actions.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom intends to sponsor a resolution on China's human rights record at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. [76066]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are discussing with our EU partners our policy on China at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Congo-Brazzaville
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions exist on the purchasing or moving of arms directly or indirectly through agents, or other parties in the United Kingdom or its overseas territories by those seeking to overthrow the current regime in Congo-Brazzaville. [76138]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There is no UN or EU arms embargo in place against Congo-Brazzaville. However, irrespective of the intended destination, all applications for an individual licence to export from the UK arms or other military equipment entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, are considered against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, adopted on 8 June. At present, as noted in the
  364
  Government's White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, published in July 1998, HMG can control trafficking and brokering only where this is necessary to implement a binding UN resolution. However, the White Paper proposed the extension of the controls on trafficking and brokering in several areas, including to countries subject to other types of embargo, eg imposed as a result of non-binding UN resolutions or EU or OSCE decisions or nationally.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation to the restoration to power in Congo-Brazzaville of Pascal Lissouba. [76139]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK wishes to see the initiation of an inclusive political process in Congo-Brazzaville. This would allow reconciliation and the return of all parties, including Pascal Lissouba, to participate in national reconstruction. We have urged all parties to the conflict to show restraint, and fully support UN Security Council Resolution 867 (1997) which calls for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Congo-Brazzaville.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings or communications Foreign Office Ministers or officials have had with Pascal Lissouba since he commenced his exile from Congo-Brazzaville. [76141]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No Foreign Office Minister has met Pascal Lissouba since his exile. FCO officials met him on 20 April and 26 June 1998 and on 10 March 1999 to hear his views on the situation on Congo-Brazzaville.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if ex-President Lissouba has been issued with documents or letters of support from Her Majesty's Government supporting or facilitating his return to office; and if he will make a statement. [76142]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 9 November 1998, ex-President Lissouba wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister requesting support. In a reply on 28 November 1998, a No. 10 official reaffirmed HMG's hopes that a process of political reconciliation would be initiated in Congo-Brazzaville, noted that this would allow all parties to return to participate in a project of national reconstruction and also urged all sides to exercise restraint.

  I am placing a copy of this letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Chevening
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he proposes to answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex on 22 February (ref. 72965) relating to the use of Chevening; [76039]

  (2) when he proposes to answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex on 23 February (ref. 73515) relating to Chevening. [76038]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 178–79.
  365

SCOTLAND

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement anent waiting lists in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole. [69797]

  Mr. Galbraith
  On 31 December 1998, the number of patients waiting for inpatient and day case treatment at Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust was 2,083. On that date, the number of patients on the inpatient/day case waiting list in Scotland was 78,526, a reduction of 7.5 per cent. on the position at 30 September 1998.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Student Loans
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many loans to students have been made by the Student Loans Board (Scotland); what is the total value of the loans; how many(a) have been fully repaid, indicating the total sum repaid, (b) are in the process of being repaid, indicating the total sum so far repaid and (c) have made no repayment, indicating the total sum involved. [74405]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: The Student Loans Company Limited administers student loans for all UK students. The Scottish funding of loans and share of loan receipts is based on a notional split of the UK total which is approximately 11 per cent. The information is set out in the tables in respect of that proportion of the UK total which is deemed to be attributable to Scottish students studying throughout the UK.

  Table 1: Loans made to students by the Student Loans Company Limited and their total value

  Number/Value

  Number of loans issued

  442,879

  Value of loans issued

  £423 million

  1a. Number of loans fully repaid and the total sum repaid.
  Number of loans fully repaid: 13,069.

  It is not possible to disaggregate the repayments attributable to these loans from the total repayments shown in tables 1b and 1c.

  Table 1b: Loans in the process of being repaid, and the total sum repaid to date

  Number/Value

  Accounts in repayment

  36,681

  Total sum repaid

  £35 million

  Table 1c: Number of students who have made no repayment and the total sum involved

  Amount/Value

  Number of loans due to repay where no repayment received

  2,937

  Amount outstanding

  £1.54 million

  366

  Universities (Drop-out Rate)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the drop-out rate at Scottish universities in each year between 1995–96 and 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [74560]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: There are no reliable estimates of the drop-out rate at Scottish universities available. However, methods are being developed to measure progression as part of the current work on Performance Indicators. The first information on progression will be published this summer.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Women's Aid
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's support for Women's Aid and its plans for additional support in the future. [74885]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Our concern for the victims of domestic violence is reflected in Scottish Office funding of almost £220,000 this year to Scottish Women's Aid, the umbrella organisation for local women's groups. This consists of over £83,000 for work on developing refuge and permanent rehousing options for abused women who would otherwise be homeless, over £111,000 for the social welfare aspects of their work and £25,000 for training.

  Because our advertising campaign has had an immediate impact on the demand for the services of Scottish Women's Aid, I announced on Monday 22 February the provision of extra one-off funding of £150,000 in the current financial year. Women's Aid intend using this to improve services and to publish leaflets at national level for the use of local groups dealing with inquiries.

  We have committed £226,000 to Scottish Women's Aid for 1999–2000.

  I have also established the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence which is charged with recommending minimum standards of services provision and looking at resources.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  New Deal (Glasgow)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many constituents in Glasgow, Govan have been found places under the New Deal. [74883]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information is not held on a constituency basis.

  Information on New Deal is collated by unit of delivery. Details for Glasgow are set out:

  Glasgow Unit of Delivery (figures to end of December 1998)

  New Deal

  New Deal for Young People (18–24 years old)

  Number who had joined the programme

  4,091

  Number still on Gateway advisory process

  1,532

  367

  Glasgow Unit of Delivery (figures to end of December 1998)

  New Deal

  Number who had secured jobs

  762

  Number who had benefited from work experience opportunities or full-time education and training

  978

  New Deal for Long Term Unemployed (25 years and over)

  Number who had joined the programme

  1,244

  Number still on Advisory interview process

  962

  Number who had secured jobs

  65

  Number who had benefited from education or training

  46

  Nursing Homes (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently on waiting lists for nursing home places in each local authority in Scotland. [74984]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This information is not held centrally.

  Scottish Parliament (Tax-varying Powers)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred to date on making preparations for the possible use of the tax-varying powers of the new Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [74563]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: There is a continuing project under way to put in place the mechanisms to enable the Scottish Parliament to implement its tax-varying powers from 1 April 2000. So far this has involved expenditure estimated at £2.5 million.

  Higher Education (EU Undergraduate Students)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of providing higher education for the non-British EU undergraduate students who studied at Scottish higher education institutions in 1996–97; and out of which departmental budget it was paid. [75003]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Institutions are funded through a number of block grants from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council following allocation of grant from The Scottish Office. Costs of the delivery of education to individual students are not collected centrally. Estimates for the cost of providing higher education for non-British EU undergraduate at Scottish higher education institutions in 1996–97, based on average costs of any student, is £21.9 million.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits and running costs provision for 1998–99 within his responsibility. [76565]

  Mr. Dewar
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary revised Supplementary Estimates, I intend to make changes to 2 voted cash limits and 1 non-voted cash block. These changes are in addition to the amounts I announced in my written answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark), on 11 February 1999,Official Report, columns 372–74.
  368
  The cash limit for Class XIII, Vote 3, Education, industry, arts and libraries, Scotland will be increased by a net total of £5,404,000 from £1,704,433,000 to £1,709,837,000. The net increase takes account of additional provision to be made available for books for schools, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement, 9 March 1999, Official Report, columns 173–90.

  The cash limit for Class XIII, Vote 5, Law, order and protective services, police grant and social work services, Scotland will be increased by £1,015,000. The cash limit has been increased by £1,015,000 from £677,087,000 to £678,102,000. The cash limit increase takes account of £830,000 for costs associated with the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands and £185,000 to meet the costs of training Returning Officers for the Scottish Parliamentary Elections.

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

  Forestry Commission
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list those contracts entered into by the Forestry Commission which allow motor vehicles to use Forestry Commission land for activities not related to timber; and if he will make a statement; [75572]

  (2) what guidelines he has issued to the Forestry Commission on the involvement of the local community in decision-taking on the non-timber activities allowed on Forestry Commission land; and if he will make a statement; [75573]

  (3) what commercial organisations, not involved in the production of timber, operate on Forestry Commission land. [75681]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The subjects of these questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Sir Robert Smith, dated 11 March 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your Question Nos 75572, 75573 and 75681, about activities on Forestry Commission land not related to timber.

  The Forestry Commission encourages the pursuit of many different activities on its land, provided that these activities do not conflict with its other economic, social and environmental objectives. We give consent to a wide range of commercial organisations to operate on Commission land and a detailed list is not held centrally. In nearly all cases vehicular access is involved. The organisations include those involved in sporting, the provision of recreational facilities such as cycle hire, pony trekking, and four wheel drive hire, management training companies, operators of windfarms and transmission mast sites, film production companies involved in filming on FC land, motor rallies and rally driving schools.

  The Commission has a Master Agreement with the Royal Automobile Motor Sports Association for motor rallies on its land. The Commission also has individual agreements with "quad bike" operators who hire out the use of all-terrain vehicles and with rally driving schools for car testing. We also allow our land to be used for special events such as "four by four" safaris by Motor Clubs and members of the public.
  369
  The Secretary of State has encouraged the Commission to involve local communities in the management of Forestry Commission land but has not issued any specific guidelines. The Commission has an Environmental Panel in each of its Forest Districts as a forum to consider our Forest Design Plans and discuss the management of local forests. Local communities are often represented on these panels and have an opportunity to make their views known on issues of local concern.

  I hope I have answered the questions you have raised.

WALES

  Agriculture
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met (i) NFU and (ii) FUW officials to discuss the problems of the agriculture industry. [74179]

  Mr. Michael
  I have had numerous meetings with representatives of the NFU, FUW and CLA to discuss the problems of the farming industry. I met the President of the CLA on 25 February. I met the NFU on Friday 12 February at Ty Mawr Farm, Llanbadoc, Usk to discuss a variety of agricultural issues. I also met my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) and a delegation of North Wales Farmers (including members of the FUW and the NFU) on 5 February at Hottia Farm, Dyserth, North Wales to discuss a variety of agricultural issues.

  Members of all three organisations have attended several of the Question and Answer sessions I have held across Wales in recent weeks. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), met the three farming unions on 15 February and prior to this he met the NFU at the Welsh NFU Forum on 2 February. He also met NFU and FUW representatives in Brussels on 23 February, together with other UK Agriculture Ministers, prior to a meeting of the EU Agriculture Council. I understand that arrangements are in hand for a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) and the NFU.

  School Transport
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the statutory provisions which apply to the provision by local authorities of free school transport; [54016]

  (2) what guidance his Department gives to local authorities on what constitutes an unsafe route for the purpose of providing free school transport. [74952]

  Mr. Hain
  Authorities are obliged under section 509(1) and (2) of the Education Act 1996 to make such arrangements for the provision of free transport as they consider necessary for the purpose of facilitating school attendance.

  Parents have a defence under section 444 of the 1996 Act for not securing the regular attendance at school of children of compulsory school age if they live more than 2 miles from the nearest school (children under 8 years of age) or 3 miles away (older pupils) and the authority has made no suitable arrangements for the provision of free school transport.
  370
  The Courts have therefore ruled that free school transport should always be considered necessary under section 509(a) if children live more than 2 or 3 miles, as appropriate, from the nearest school. In other circumstances the need for free school transport has to be decided by local authorities in the light of local conditions and priorities.

  When considering whether free school transport is necessary, authorities must, among other things, have regard, by virtue of section 509(4) of the 1996 Act, to the nature of the route, or alternative routes, that a child could reasonably be expected to take. Authorities should also have regard under section 509(4) to the age of the child and any parental wish for denominational education.

  Whether or not a route is safe in the context of the provision of free school transport is a matter for authorities to decide. However, Welsh Office Circular 19/95, "Home To School Transport", points out that the Courts have held that a route to school is available if a child, accompanied as necessary, can walk along it with reasonable safety. A copy of the circular is in the Library of the House.

  Local education authorities also have a power under section 509(3) of the 1996 Act to help with school transport costs in circumstances where they do not consider the provision of free school transport under 509(1) necessary.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  National Port Authorities
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those of his appointees currently serving on national park authorities who have military backgrounds. [75570]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: Two Secretary of State appointees to the Welsh National Park Authorities, Dr. John Menon and Mr. Warren Dean Martin, have, in the past, served with the military.

  This information is based upon current Welsh Office records and was provided voluntarily by the members. Applicants are not specifically asked to provide details of their military backgrounds.

  Following the transfer of functions, National Park public appointments that are currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State will be transferred to the National Assembly.

HEALTH

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received urging that the organs of all deceased persons should be available for transplant unless they have clearly stated otherwise; and if he will make a statement. [73326]
  371
  Mr. Hutton
  There have been several Parliamentary Questions and a number of letters from hon. Members and members of the public on this subject. We are looking into a wide range of possible ways of increasing current levels of transplantation. The issues involved in this area are very sensitive, and any measures we introduce must command public confidence. We will therefore be giving the options for action very careful and thorough consideration.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library figures for each quarter in the past two years for(a) each health authority, (b) each NHS region and (c) England as a whole, listing the number of operations cancelled on (i) the day of or (ii) the day before admission to a hospital, stating the number of those patients not readmitted within a month. [75058]

  Grant

  Organisations

  Value £

  AIDS/HIV Support Grant

  Worcestershire County Council

  11,000

  Training support programme for social services staff

  Worcestershire County Council

  279,751

  Services for people with mental illness

  Worcestershire County Council

  452,926

  Children's Services (Quality Protects) Grant

  Worcestershire County Council

  32,500

  Community Care Special Transitional Grant

  Worcestershire County Council

  3,204,497

  General Scheme of grants to voluntary organisations

  The British Institute of Learning Disabilities

  176,000

  The promotion of training in the care of people with learning disabilities

  British Institute of Learning Disabilities

  40,040

  Diploma in Social Work course grant from Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work

  North East Worcestershire College

  7,975

  Diploma in Social Work practice learning placements grants from Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work

  North East Worcestershire College

  27,000

  Daily Placement Fees for social work training placements from Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work

  The Diocese of Worcester Youth Support Services

  1,887

  Daily Placement Fees for social work training placements from Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work

  Totnall Children's Home

  850

  Daily Placement Fees for social work training placements from Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work

  M.S.C.A. Bromsgrove

  850

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in reducing hospital waiting lists by Barnet Health Authority. [75783]

  Mr. Denham
  At the end of January 1999, the waiting list in Barnet stood at 6,698. Barnet Health Authority's planned target for March 1999 is 5,846. Early indications show that significant progress was made during February 1999, with the Authority on course to achieve this target.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from the Government's medical advisers on the probable impact of extending the routine call/recall element of the breast screening programme to women aged 65 to 69 years on(a) breast cancer detection rates and (b) breast cancer mortality rates. [75526]

  Mr. Hutton
  Interim results from one of the three pilot studies to test the feasibility of extending routine call/recall for breast screening to women aged 65 to 69 years showed breast cancer detection rates of 8 per thousand in women aged 65–67 and 17.4 per thousand in women aged 68 to 69. These results were published in the British
  372
  Mr. Hutton
  The figures requested are routinely placed in the Library every quarter. Copies of the latest figures have been placed in the Library today.

  Worcestershire (Grants)
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list (i) the names of the beneficiaries of all the discretionary grants awarded by his Department to organisations within Worcestershire during 1998, (ii) their monetary value, (iii) their total value and (iv) the proportion that that total sum comprises of the total sums awarded by his Department in discretionary grants in 1998. [75252]

  Mr. Hutton
  Discretionary grants totalling £4,235,276 have been awarded to organisations within Worcestershire during 1998–99; details are in the table. This represents 0.78 per cent. of the funds available to the Department for such grants. The figures exclude the Asylum Seekers' Grant because decisions on the claims submitted have not yet been taken.

  Medical Journal on 8 August 1998. Copies of the Journal are available in the library. Previous evidence suggests that screening for breast cancer reduces mortality by 25 per cent. in both age groups.

  West Pennine Health Authority (Mental Health)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what extra resource allocation he has made to the West Pennine Health Authority from the additional spending on mental health for 1999–2000; [75536]

  (2) if he will estimate the amount which would have been allocated to the West Pennine Health Authority from the additional spending on mental health funds for 1999–2000 on a purely per capita method of calculation; [75537]

  (3) what were the criteria used for the allocation of the additional spending on mental health to health authorities. [75519]

  Mr. Hutton
  The West Pennine Health Authority received £30,000 as part of the directly allocated mental health element of the Modernisation Fund, which in 1999–2000 totalled £19.1 million.
  373
  Allocation to health authorities (HA) took account of three factors:

  (a) identified service gaps in each

  (b) the HA's need for mental health services based on a weighted population score;

  (c) for London HAs recognition of the evidence of a higher level of need.

  If the £19.1 million had been issued in line with the weighted capitation formula used to inform unified allocations, West Pennine Health Authority's hypothetical share would have been £185,000. However, this approach would not have been appropriate for distributing funds which we wished to target specifically to where they were most needed.

  West Pennine Health Authority may benefit from centrally held budgets for mental health services yet to be allocated.

  Restraint Techniques
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have occurred in the United Kingdom as(a) direct and (b) indirect result of the use of control and restraint techniques by nurses in the last five years; and if he will give a breakdown by ethnicity of the deceased. [75949]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the control and restraint techniques used on mentally ill patients. [75957]

  Mr. Hutton
  A number of courses are available to train staff in methods of restraint and many units have developed in-house procedures to meet their particular needs. Information about the range of techniques is not available centrally.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 820, on the Norvic Clinic, if he will list the circumstances of each of the occasions between 2 November 1997 and 4 December 1998 when control and restraint techniques were applied by nursing staff at the Norvic Clinic, Norwich; and if he will provide a breakdown by ethnicity of the patients involved. [75959]

  Mr. Hutton
  Between 2 November 1997 and 4 December 1998 there were 45 occasions when control and restraint techniques were applied by nursing staff at the Norvic Clinic, Norwich. Of those 45 occasions, 36 involved a patient categorised as white; 8 involved black Afro-Carribean patients; and 1 involved a patient categorised as "black other".

  Violence against Nurses
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many reported assaults, and other acts of violence there were against nurses in the workplace; and how many successful prosecutions of such assaults there were in each year since 1990; [75956]

  (2) what action is being taken to ensure that nurses who are subject to violence in the workplace are supported in subsequent legal action. [75955]
  374
  Mr. Denham
  We have made it very clear that violence against all staff working in the National Health Service is unacceptable. We expect employers in the National Health Service to establish close working relationships with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service so that staff can be assured that they will have the full force of the law behind them. We also expect local managers to provide whatever support is needed to help staff who are assaulted to recover, and also to advise and support them through any subsequent legal process.

  Information on the number of reported assaults and other acts of violence against nurses in the workplace, and those that were successfully prosecuted is not available centrally.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from(a) the Royal College of Nursing and (b) other bodies, regarding violence against nurses. [75952]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received representations from the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) and other health bodies including the Manufacturing, Sciences and Finance Union, the British Medical Association, UNISON and the National Health Service Confederation regarding violence against nurses.

  That is why we launched the NHS Guidance, "Safer Working in the Community: A guide for NHS managers and staff on reducing the risks of violence and aggression" at the start of the RCN's joint campaign "Stamp out Violence" on the 28 October 1998, which we fully endorse.

  The Government are determined to ensure that NHS staff who spend their lives caring for others are not rewarded with intimidation and violence. Violence to staff is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

  Health Care Teams
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the Government's target of introducing three to five-year agreements between health care teams and hospitals. [76033]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidance issued in October 1998 set out how we expect health authorities, primary care groups and National Health Service trusts to work together and with social services, users and carers and others to develop and implement long-term service agreements.

  All service agreements beginning April 1999 are to be set in the context of the longer-term relationships and objectives being established through health improvement programmes. Fully fledged long-term service agreements are to be developed through a rolling programme. The new primary care groups have been asked to aim to develop at least two such agreements for the period beginning April 1999.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards creating a new Patients Charter. [76032]

  Mr. Denham
  We asked Greg Dyke, Chairman of Pearson Television, to develop proposals for a new National Health Service Charter. His report "The New
  375
  NHS Charter—A Different Approach" was published in December. We intend to undertake consultation on proposals taking account of the report in the near future.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Independent Complaints System
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce an independent ombudsman or other independent complaints system for complaints about(a) QCs, (b) the Bar and (c) solicitors; and if he will make a statement. [75784]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman was established by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 because of concern that complaints about the provision of legal services should be investigated properly and thoroughly. The Ombudsman, who is statutorily independent of Government and the legal profession, has powers, inter alia, to examine allegations and make certain recommendations concerning the handling of complaints against barristers and solicitors (including QCs) by their professional bodies.

  Pro Bono Work
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to monitor the amount of pro bono work done by(a) barristers, (b) QCs and (c) solicitors; and if he will make a statement. [75785]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have no plans at present to monitor formally the amount of pro bono work carried out by the legal profession.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department to what extent, in considering the appointment of new QCs, the Lord Chancellor takes into account(a) the past record of the applicant's undertaking of pro bono work and (b) the willingness of the applicant, if appointed, to undertake pro bono work. [75787]

  Mr. Hoon
  Neither the undertaking of, nor a willingness to undertake, pro bono work is one of the published criteria for appointment. Where applicants highlight the extent of the pro bono work they have undertaken, this is treated as a part of their practice which is not reflected in their fee income.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department to what extent, in considering the appointment of new QCs and taking into account levels of earnings of applicants a discount is given against the levels of earnings to reflect pro bono work; and if he will make a statement. [75786]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend considers applications for Queen's Counsel against published criteria. The application form, which applicants complete,376
  requires them to give gross fee income for the last three years. The criteria require successful applicants to have a high quality practice, and the level of fee income is an indicator of size of practice. Applicants are also asked to state if the level of their fees has been affected by the nature of their, or their firm's practice. Where applicants highlight the extent of the pro bono work they have undertaken that is treated as part of their practice which does not reflect in their fee income.

  Legal Aid System
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to publicise the proposed reforms of the legal aid system in a manner accessible to potential users of the legal services, with particular reference to community legal services. [75512]

  Mr. Hoon
  The proposed reforms of the legal aid system have been publicised in the White Paper "Modernising Justice", published in December 1998, in a summary version which has been widely distributed and in press releases and media briefing in connection with the Access to Justice Bill. The proposals are also available on the internet.

  My Department's press office has taken steps to publicise the proposals through the media in the six Community Legal Service Pioneer areas announced since December 1998 and will seek to arrange regional and national publicity when further Associate Pioneer ares are announced.

  In addition, informing the public at grass roots level about the Community Legal Service is one of the key tasks being considered between my Department and the Pioneer area authorities and one which will also be considered with the Associate Pioneer area authorities.

  Immigration Appeal Authority
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many regional adjudicators of the Immigration Appeal Authority have been suspended in the last 12 months; and for what reason. [76029]

  Mr. Hoon
  One Regional Adjudicator has been suspended in the last 12 months following a complaint from a member of staff.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the observations of Mr. Justice Lightman of 9 June 1998 concerning(a) the nature and effect of the patronage in the QC system, (b) the fees claimed by QCs and their official endorsement through legal aid scale fees and (c) seating arrangements in court. [75789]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has read the lecture, "Civil Litigation in the 21st Century", given by Mr. Justice Lightman to the Chancery Bar Association on 3 June 1998. He has no plans to make a statement.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Snowdon—Took the Oath.

Western European Union
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the proposal that the next Secretary-General of the Western European Union should have a senior position within the European Union, and that the two organisations should be merged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that such proposals are premature. In taking forward our initiative on European security and defence since St. Malo, we have made clear that to begin with institutional issues would be the wrong approach. Her Majesty's Government have instead sought to focus more on practicalities, including the need for Europeans to achieve sufficient political will to act, and on the capabilities necessary to underpin that action, than on institutional restructuring.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I welcome the Government's approach. But is not there cause for some anxiety in that the eager pursuit of the European Union common, foreign and security policy, while revealing considerable political appetite, is accompanied by continuing inadequate and grossly unfairly-borne security provision and may eventually lead to some diminishing of NATO? At the same time, while the Council of Ministers or its parliamentary assembly has not been allowed to be as useful as it might be, will the Government discourage any attempt either to degrade the WEU or to see its engorgement within EU, at least until Europe is possessed of a more appropriate and balanced capability?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the anxieties expressed by my noble friend are misplaced on this occasion. On 24th February the WEU international security directors in Bonn endorsed the British and French proposals to keep the debate to these practical issues. Indeed, the WEU then said that it thought to do otherwise would not be sensible and it wanted to avoid a premature position on institutional issues. I remind my noble friend that these matters will be discussed further at the Washington NATO summit on 23rd and 25th April; and that there is a forthcoming WEU
346
ministerial council in Bremen on 10th and 11th May when I am sure that all these issues will again be drawn together.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the US Secretary of State for Defence, William Cohen? He welcomed the burden-sharing aspects of the European initiative to assume an increase in defence responsibilities, but said that such new responsibilities should make Europeans rethink their current tendency to cut defence spending and forces.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is a substantial amount of agreement on these issues. I, too, heard Mr. Cohen make the point about burden sharing; it has been made directly in ministerial meetings. I am sure that the issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, refers will be discussed at length at the Washington summit at the end of April.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, those of us who welcome this new initiative see the institutional logic eventually as being a merger between WEU and the EU. When it comes to the appointment of a new Secretary-General of the Council who is to be in charge of common, foreign and security policy, will the Minister bear in mind that the underlying logic of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, is that the person who becomes Secretary-General of the WEU should also become Secretary-General of the Council?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that that is the view of some noble Lords in relation to the institutional logic; indeed, I am also aware that it is a view expressed by some of our friends in Germany. I sought to point out in answer to my noble friend Lord Hardy that Her Majesty's Government believe that, first, we must find a way whereby we can agree the political issues and a way of supporting those decisions before we deal with the institutional issues which the noble Lord raised.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, are her Majesty's Government completely happy that the strengthening of a European security and defence entity will not damage NATO; and are the American Government also happy about that? We must remember that it is NATO that keeps the United States locked into the defence of western Europe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord on that point. It was a point my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made at the time of announcing the St. Malo initiative, and on which I have been able to reassure your Lordships several times recently when we discussed European defence.
The point of the St. Malo declaration is to try to end the sterile controversies that we have had in the region of "who takes leads over what". We want to focus on the practical requirements for greater European effectiveness in defence and foreign policy. Therefore, I can assure the noble Lord that the St. Malo initiative

347
has been welcomed across the board not only by our European partners, but also—importantly—by our NATO allies. Her Majesty's Government believe that it represents an historic opportunity to make progress and the United Kingdom will do all we can to continue to lead the way on this issue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not every member state inside the European Union is prepared to contribute anything to the defence of Europe—either expenditure on or the provision of troops? As we well know in the case of Belgium, it even denied one of the other member states— ourselves—the necessary armament to pursue our defence of Europe—which is probably larger than that of any other member state in Europe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am fully aware that not all members of the WEU are full members; some are associate members, some are observer members and some are associate partners. On a previous occasion when we discussed the WEU I suggested putting some sort of diagram into the Library of the House, which has now been done, and which I hope fully expresses the complexity of these difficult issues.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true about European foreign policy that when the Quai d'Orsay, Whitehall and what will soon again be called the Wilhelmstrasse get their act together and show a political will to act for the common foreign policy, those common foreign policy objectives will be carried out? Until the political will exists for Europe to act as a concerted—I use the word in a Castlereaghan sense—Europe, it does not matter what the organisation is. When Europe behaves as though with a combined foreign policy it will have one; and whatever we do until then, it will not have one.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that the noble Earl asked a question. However, I believe that his points are adequately covered by the CFSP provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty. I reiterate to the noble Earl, as I have done to your Lordships on a number of occasions, that the cornerstone of our European defence policy will of course remain NATO. I stress to the noble Earl that I think his points are covered in the Amsterdam Treaty.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, although Her Majesty's Government may wish to concentrate on practical issues, does the Minister understand that others are looking at the institutional arrangements within Europe? Does she agree that there are 28 members of the WEU but only 15 of the EU? One of the great strengths of the WEU in recent years has been to bring countries outside NATO and the EU into considering European strategic defence issues? Surely that great strength of the WEU should be preserved in whatever institutional arrangements we have in the future.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The most recent example of what
348
he suggests as being a sensible way of operating has been the Contact Group on Kosovo. However, I should point out to my noble friend that this issue about the institutional aspects versus the practical aspects was discussed in Bonn on 24th February. While it is true that our German friends are keen to discuss these institutional issues, the rest of the WEU agreed with Her Majesty's Government that it was more sensible to stick to the practical issues and deal with them first.

Local Government Act 1972: Section 137
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the provisions of Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 have been used by local councils to provide new and improved services.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, research published last November found that Section 137 is used by an increasing number of parish and town councils to provide a wide range of activities, including funding for youth activities, schools and playgroups.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. In the light of that, would she consider the request of the National Association of Local Councils that the funding under this provision, which at present stands at £3.50 per head, be raised to at least £5 per head? Further, does not the Minister share the frustration of those parish and town councils caused by the fact that they cannot provide some of the basic facilities, such as playgroups and youth clubs, that they would like to be able to offer to their communities?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is most important to recognise that there has been an increase by local councils in the use of Section 137 funding. Indeed, 29 per cent. were using it in 1989–90 and the percentage has now increased to 56 per cent. The Government are reviewing Section 137 in the light of the new duty to promote well being. We want to consider representations from NALC as part of that process.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, as I am someone who is not steeped in local government, can my noble friend the Minister explain to me the nature of the provisions of Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall do so, although I am conscious of the fact that someone may accuse me of reading.
Section 137 provides a local authority with power to spend a limited amount on activities for which it has no specific power but which will bring direct benefit to the area,
"or any part of it or all or some of the inhabitants".

349
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, there is a current limit of £3.50 per local government elector, and it is between £1.90 and £3.80 per capita for district and county councils.
Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Minister heard the very eloquent speeches of her noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn about the need for community and local action on crime prevention? Is this not a role that would be perfectly suited to parish councils if they were given the necessary resources?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am fully aware of the commitment of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn to combat crime. This is certainly one of those areas in which co-operation can take place. However, I return to my original point; namely, that not all local councils need to resort to this funding. They are able to use funds which are available to them without resorting to Section 137.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the per capita amount that these local authorities are allowed to spend is in fact what used to be the product of the penny rate? Are we talking about something which is still a hangover from the poll tax days? Further, in considering the review of this section of the 1972 Act, will the Government ensure that the ability to pay will be taken into account?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Monkswell will be surprised by my response. Indeed, this is one of the matters which may not be blamed on the poll tax. It actually pre-dated it. The department has stated its intention to promote a duty of well-being, which will broaden and allow a wider range of activities in this area. Obviously we will want to consult with both the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils which are very helpful in this respect.

Gibraltar
3.16 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What Gibraltar Government proposals or options they are considering to strengthen the constitutional status of Gibraltar as a British territory.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Gibraltar is a United Kingdom overseas territory whose constitutional relationship to the UK is defined under the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969. That status is secure and unquestionable. The Government of Gibraltar have expressed interest in exploring changes to the constitution. We have held exploratory, technical discussions with representatives of the Government of Gibraltar but have received no formal proposals. We have made clear that we are willing to listen to ideas that are realistic and compatible with the Treaty of Utrecht, and other international obligations.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, can she say when it is expected that
350
final proposals or options will be received from the Gibraltar Government and ultimately acted upon? Further, does the Minister agree that a strengthening of Gibraltar's constitutional status as a British territory would be realistic and compatible with the Treaty of Utrecht, while affecting Spain's capability of harassment and defamation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord when the Government of Gibraltar may see fit to table formal proposals in this respect. As I said, there have been some informal proposals, and some technical discussions about them have taken place. However, no formal proposals have been put on the table. Of course, we are willing to listen to any ideas put forward by the Government of Gibraltar, but they must be consistent with the Treaty of Utrecht and with our international obligations. I believe that the position of Gibraltar as an overseas territory is a strong one, given what was said in the 1969 preamble. But it is a unique position because of the existence of the Treaty of Utrecht.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given the very strong links that were expressed in the treaty between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom and the interests of the 25, 000 citizens of Gibraltar, will the Minister also consider the interests of the 400, 000 British citizens currently resident in Spain and seek to ask the Prime Ministers when they meet shortly to try to find good answers to the strained relations between Spain and Gibraltar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course we would like to see those strained relations improved. In his discussions, I believe that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been able to improve the situation, especially around the border area. As the noble Baroness indicated, there will be a summit meeting between the two Prime Ministers in April, when we hope that the situation will be improved.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one excellent way of improving the status of Gibraltar would be to give citizens of Gibraltar some form of representation in the United Kingdom Parliament, following the precedent which has worked so well for so long in the United States? Has that proposal been discussed informally or formally with the Gibraltar Government? Have Her Majesty's Government considered that and is it on the table for future consideration?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will discuss sensible suggestions that are brought forward by the Government of Gibraltar to strengthen their position. I hope that when we are able to discuss the White Paper, which will be published next week, which the Government have prepared on the positions of the overseas territories, it will contain some further indications of ways of strengthening links with overseas territories, not specifically with Gibraltar but right across the board. However, I stress that we cannot

351
do just as we wish in relation to Gibraltar. The Treaty of Utrecht exists, and it contains an important provision which I know causes a great deal of difficulty but which nevertheless is enshrined in international law.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to the Governor of Gibraltar, Sir Richard Luce—I spent a day and a night there recently—and the work he is doing to find a solution to the real problems which exist on the Spanish/Gibraltar border at the moment? Is not the fact of the matter that the Spaniards have an infinite capacity to delay traffic, either pedestrian or car traffic, at the La Linea/Gibraltar border? This situation did not exist at the time the Treaty of Utrecht was written and it therefore requires an imaginative solution to bring the sides together. No one suffers more from this inconvenience than the Gibraltarians themselves.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I am happy to pay tribute to the Governor of Gibraltar. His is not an easy job and it certainly has not been easy over the past few weeks. The noble Lord is, of course, right that some of the traffic delays have been quite intolerable. At some stages over the past few weeks there have been delays lasting several hours. I am happy to say that at the moment, as a result of the interventions of both my right honourable friends, the delays are less than they were. They are about an hour now. I believe that that is still unacceptable and is still inconsistent with the light customs check which would be perfectly acceptable. The delays continue to cause great anxiety. Of course we hope that the meeting that is now scheduled to take place between the two Prime Ministers will address this and other important constitutional issues with regard to Gibraltar.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, which are semi-detached from the European Union, can vote in elections for the European Parliament, as can the inhabitants of Guadaloupe and Martinique in the Caribbean, the inhabitants of Reunion in the Indian Ocean and the inhabitants of French Polynesia and New Caledonia in the Pacific, more than 11, 000 miles away from Brussels? Why cannot the people of Gibraltar be given the same rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as luck would have it, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, tabled a similar Question for Written Answer recently. I could certainly give the noble Lord a long list of those dependent territories that are linked with European Union states which are able to exercise votes. There are different constitutional relationships. Some of these overseas territories fall into the category of départements outre-mer of the French and therefore they are treated as part of mainland France for those reasons. There are a number of different relationships among some of the territories which are linked to Spain itself. That is another
352
interesting point. It all depends on the constitutional basis of the overseas territories, their rights and their citizens' rights with regard to European elections.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government's repeated failure to reject the present Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty and their refusal to introduce emergency legislation to extend the European Parliament franchise to Gibraltarians in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights judgment sends a mixed message to the people of Gibraltar about this Government's commitment to their interests, their future and their constitutional status?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that I must remind the noble Lord that when his party was in power it adopted a similar position to that of Her Majesty's Government. For example, as regards the European Court—
Noble Lords: Answer!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord if he will allow me to do so. The Opposition when in government contested that case on exactly the same grounds as Her Majesty's Government have done. When I previously answered questions on this matter in your Lordships' House I said that we were taking up this issue. Since then it has been taken up by Sir Stephen Wall in Brussels and amendments have been tabled to the 1976 Act. What has happened is exactly what I told your Lordships would happen. We are also lobbying the other European partner countries to encourage them to support what they should support, which is the ECHR judgment.
On the other point about the Spanish proposals, the Opposition, when in government, signed up to the Brussels process in 1984. That process accepts that issues of sovereignty can be discussed. That is the basis on which Her Majesty's Government are proceeding. If the noble Lord did his homework—I know he is assiduous on these points—he would discover that his party, when in office, held the same position as the Government on both those points.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

UNSCOM: Washington Post Allegations
3.26 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether American intelligence agencies have used UNSCOM teams in Iraq as cover for national intelligence activities.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this is a matter for the United States. But the United States Government have stated publicly and repeatedly

353
that all activities by US nationals assigned to UNSCOM, and all information exchanges between the US and UNSCOM, have been strictly in pursuit of UNSCOM's mandate to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, I suppose, unavoidable Answer. Is she aware that in the extremely detailed and carefully researched report in the Washington Post of 2nd March it is stated that the British Government asked the American Administration in March 1997 to explain a number of irregular signals activity incidents between UNSCOM and various other outside sources? Does she accept that the report deepens the unhappiness many of us feel about United States exploitation of the UN through UNSCOM and the implications for the acceptability of the UN as an inspecting body? Does she accept that this may have damaged the reputation of the UN and that steps may be needed to restore that reputation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the allegations published in the Washington Post on 2nd March were, of course, later picked up in the British press. They are part of what appears to be a prolonged campaign against UNSCOM and its strongest supporters, including the United States and the United Kingdom. There is little I can add except to say that the allegations have been completely rejected by the United States Government.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, no doubt the Minister has been equally assiduous in her homework. What is her reaction to suggestions that the recent espionage allegations were a contributory factor in Richard Butler's decision to step down from UNSCOM when his two-year term ends in June?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that that is borne out by what Mr. Butler has said. In dealing with questions of this nature we get into a little difficulty. I hope the noble Lord will accept from me that it is the policy of this Government, as it was of his own party when in government—it is a longstanding policy—not to comment on matters which have a bearing on intelligence.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that she is outstandingly good?

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Easter Recess on Wednesday 31st March and return on Monday 12th April. The House will sit at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday 31st March.

Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision enabling verdicts of guilty but insane to be referred to and reviewed by the Court of Appeal. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. — (Lord Ackner.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Health Bill [H.L.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hayman, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 14,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 15 to 47,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 48 to 50,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 51 to 54. —(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Rights Commission Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [General functions]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("and the provisions of any Act passed after this Act is passed which concern disability discrimination").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 15. I wish to record my warm appreciation of the splendid work on the briefings of Agnes Fletcher of RADAR and her colleagues with the various disability organisations which have helped, such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, SCOPE, MIND, the RNTD, Rights Now Campaign, MENCAP, and the British Council of Disabled People.
These amendments are straightforward and sensible. Amendment No. 1 gives the disability rights commission the right to keep under review any future discrimination legislation, whatever form it takes. It gives the commission the power to advise on and assist in proceedings under any new piece of civil rights or anti-discrimination legislation. I believe that it is an absolutely crucial amendment to prepare for the future. There will clearly be more legislation affecting disabled people enacted by this and other governments.
The Government were right to mention the Disability Discrimination Act in the Bill because, at the moment, it is the only disability discrimination legislation, although the Human Rights Act is relevant. But mentioning only the DDA could be interpreted as a signal that the intention is to amend only the DDA in future whereas other and different measures may be introduced. As we learn from experience, our ideas will develop and no doubt the DDA will be amended. But we cannot forecast how a future government will act in relation to disability discrimination. There may be other relevant legislation. The amendment prepares for all possibilities in the future. I would greatly welcome any reassurance that the Government are able to give on this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, which extends the clause to cover any future Act which covers disability discrimination. Perhaps I may also say a few words in support of the existing powers under this clause to keep anti-discrimination legislation under review. This is most important in the context of the DDA which, as the Government freely admit, is a flawed piece of legislation. One particular lacuna is in respect of the role of the police in dealing with the public.
Last month's MacPherson report, published after the inquiry into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence, highlighted the problem of institutionalised racism within the Metropolitan Police Force, and indeed within all sectors of our society. The Home Office acted swiftly, both in its contempt for racism of any description and in bringing forward practical measures to tackle witting and unwitting racism in public life.
One of the fundamental linchpins of this strategy is the pledge to amend the Race Relations Act to allow the Commission for Racial Equality to investigate possible discriminatory practices within Britain's police forces. In order to achieve parity of esteem, I would ask the Minister to give your Lordships an undertaking that the Government will review the position of the police within the Disability Discrimination Act, with a view to enabling the disability rights commission to undertake more comprehensive investigations into discriminatory practices.
The police are currently covered as service providers under Part III of the DDA, but this excludes the operation of their statutory functions such as arresting or surveilling a suspect. Even duties such as dealing with 999 calls and powers to stop and search may be outside the remit of the Act. These are vital areas of the police's work in dealing with the public and should be tightened up.
This is not a matter of political correctness. I am well aware that most police officers do their utmost to assist visibly disabled people in the context of their duties, but my concern is for those with less obvious disabilities, such as learning disabilities or mental health problems, which may be, occasionally, or quite often, less apparent, and whose innocent behaviour might provoke
356
public prejudice. A man with learning disabilities who represents MENCAP on a number of national and international committees found himself thrown off a bus by the police on the grounds that his mere presence made another passenger uncomfortable. Fortunately, he was not arrested in this incident. He has also been stopped and searched a number of times by the police while behaving entirely innocently. Of course, these sorts of examples highlight the difficulties which can arise when people are not terribly articulate in describing past events, but they cannot be used as a mask for discrimination, which should not be tolerated in any aspect of the police's work. May I therefore urge the Minister to clarify whether the disability rights commission will be permitted to investigate this lacuna under its obligation to keep the DDA under review as prescribed in this subsection?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wish briefly to support the amendments. The disability rights commission should also be looking at all legislation to see how it affects people with disabilities. I have been speaking in your Lordships' House on the question of disability for a number of years. Very rarely have the Bills on which I have been speaking specifically dealt with disability. But they have had an effect—or would have had an effect—on people with disabilities, and some of those effects could have been detrimental. Therefore, the disability rights commission should look at all legislation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has raised the question of the police and where they come in on this matter. It is a very interesting point. I would only add to what he said that members of the public who unfortunately suffer from mental illness as well as mental handicap—that is what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to—can be mistaken on public transport and elsewhere because they cannot express themselves very well. They look a bit odd, as if they are drug addicts and have been taking drugs. This is a particularly important area where the police ought to be very well informed and instructed beforehand.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, as my noble friend has said, these amendments seek to provide on the face of the Bill for the disability rights commission to keep under review the working of any legislation passed in future which, in whole or in part, concerns disability discrimination, and to provide for it to assist individuals in proceeding under any such legislation.
I must say at the outset that in our White Paper, Promoting disabled people's rights, we proposed that the DRC should have a duty to advise government on any appropriate subsequent legislation and the power to assist individuals with complaints as appropriate under any subsequent legislation dealing with discrimination against disabled people. I hope that that deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
However, I do not believe it would be right to seek to pre-empt decisions about what "appropriate" means in terms of future legislation and, in doing so, bypass

357
detailed parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements. For that reason alone I cannot support these amendments. Also they are unnecessary, as any future legislation could be used to make appropriate amendments to the Disability Rights Commission Act. With some further explanation of the Government's intentions, I hope I can persuade my noble friend and the other noble Lords who have put their name to these amendments to withdraw them.
The Disability Rights Task Force is considering a wide range of issues that affect disabled people with a view to making recommendations on securing comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. One part of that consideration has been the role and functions of the commission. The Government's commitment in this area is clear for all to see: we have built on the task force's recommendations and are today—not many months after having received those recommendations— taking a Bill through this House to establish a disability rights commission.
The next set of recommendations are due to be provided to government later this year. I can assure noble Lords that, just as we took seriously recommendations about the commission, so we shall take seriously the further recommendations. We will examine carefully the role of the commission in relation to any proposals which may evolve from those recommendations.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the task force is already examining issues concerning the police. I accept that there is a great deal of concern about police actions in certain areas and indeed in relation to the disabled. I accept the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. In advance of setting up the Commission, this matter is already being examined.
As new legislation is proposed concerning disability discrimination, that will be the time to consider changes to the role and functions of the commission. It would be a mistake to do so beforehand. It requires us to make quite sweeping assumptions, which may well not be right in the longer term. I need hardly state that Parliament is the proper place for such scrutiny, and it is Parliament which should make these judgments when we know what any new legislation is intended to achieve.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Swinfen, will agree to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am very surprised at my noble friend's comments. There is absolutely no question of pre-empting parliamentary scrutiny. The object is basically to keep under review any possible future discrimination. That kind of planning and foresight are necessary. I cannot see how my noble friend can interpret this in any way as pre-empting parliamentary scrutiny. No one would dream of doing that and it is not the object of these amendments. I am sorry that she raised that particular point. Her comments are not valid.
358
That said, given the pressure of time, and recognising that my noble friend has undertaken to consider these points seriously, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("; and
( ) to keep under review those parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 which it deems applicable to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
In Committee, in relation to the Human Rights Act, my noble friend the Minister said that this provision had been left to regulations because of the need for "a degree of flexibility" so as to allow response to changing circumstances and needs, and also to review the powers of the commission in the light of experience.
The amendment provides only general powers. We do not seek specific powers in the sense of my noble friend's interpretation. Although general, these powers are important for the commission in relation to human rights. I admit that regulations will still be necessary and will provide whatever flexibility the Government need. I therefore see no reason why the Government are unable to accept these amendments. If everything is left to regulations there is a possibility that a subsequent government could easily remove the powers. That is the last thing we want. I admit that it is an unlikely event; however, it is a possibility.
The reason for referring to the Human Rights Act on the face of the Bill is that it is profoundly important. As the Human Rights Act is enforced, its potential as a significant factor for ending discrimination against disabled people will be crucial. Its importance cannot be ignored; nor indeed can it be sidelined.
I am afraid that I am not impressed by the Government's argument that many of the provisions of the Human Rights Act will not come into force until the year 2000 and therefore should be left to regulations. Surely timing is a poor reason for objecting to these amendments. We are not concerned about when the provisions of the Human Rights Act operate, but about whether or not the workings of the provisions relevant to discrimination should be considered by the commission. That is a clear, straightforward issue.
The amendment to Clause 6 provides for the commission to assist with proceedings that are relevant to the Human Rights Act. If disabled people claim that they are being denied their rights and are being discriminated against, it is important for the commission to support them. This amendment removes any element of doubt that it can do so.
The House will note that the Human Rights Act covers education, which the Disability Discrimination Act does not. That is an important exclusion. Disabled people will be able to protest against discrimination in education only via the Human Rights Act. It is therefore not in the least surprising that disabled people feel strongly about this human rights amendment. The

359
Human Rights Act is a principle of great importance for them in relation to public bodies. I hope that my noble friend will be rather more forthcoming in relation to these amendments than she was on the previous ones.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish only to support this amendment. In doing so, I should point out that subsection (1) of Clause 2 defines the commission's duties. Among those duties the commission is, under subsection (1)(c),
"to keep under review the working of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995".
There is a rule that if one Act of Parliament is mentioned in a statute and others are not mentioned, the others can be ignored. We do not want that to happen. As a precaution, bearing in mind that the Human Rights Act 1998 is now part of our law, the commission should have a specific duty to consider the way in which it can affect the rights of disabled people.
I hope that I am not out of order in mentioning this point in passing. It is interesting to note that subsections (2), (3) and (5) of Clause 2 describe the powers that the Government seek for the commission. That is fair enough. However, subsection (1) should describe the commission's duties fully. That will not be done unless the Human Rights Act is mentioned.
It is arguable that another sub-paragraph should be inserted as well as that in Amendment No. 2 to provide that the commission should consider any other Act of Parliament that may be relevant to the rights of disabled people.
Lord Rix: My Lords, in speaking to these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 17, to which my name is attached, I also support the view that the disability rights commission should have a role in assisting disabled people to bring cases under the Human Rights Act. Broadly, under the DDA, the prohibition against discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, does not apply to education. However, under Article 2 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Convention, one could argue that a disabled pupil has been discriminated against and his or her right to education taken away.
Another example is that, if people with learning disabilities are sterilised, it could be argued that their right to family life has been taken away. It is therefore right and proper for the disability rights commission to support individuals in such cases, especially if that might mean that the rights of disabled people are subsequently strengthened or clarified.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, grouped with Amendment No. 2 is my Amendment No. 16 which I tabled at the request of the Law Society of Scotland. The amendment is designed to clarify the extent of Clause 6 which applies to proceedings under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and proceedings where an
360
individual who has a disability relies on a matter relating to that disability. It makes no reference to the Scotland Act 1998 or the Human Rights Act 1998.
The amendment is designed to probe the extent of the application of Clause 6. Discrimination issues are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998 and could arise in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 in such a way as to reduce the effect of Scottish legislation. Will Clause 6 cover such issues, or is it limited in its effect?
Lord Addington: My Lords, the idea that human rights should not be linked in a direct way with the disability rights commission is basically absurd for the reasons we have heard. The two are bound to connect. If we believe in joined-up government, indeed vaguely logical government, the two must be connected.
Certain parts of our legislation have for various reasons ignored aspects of the lives of disabled people. Education is one and some aspects of medical practice are another.
Amendment No. 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is possibly the one that would have the best chance of succeeding. However, the amendments try to correct the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out, if something is not mentioned in the context, it is ignored. Surely we must bring the most fundamental piece of legislation on to the face of the Bill if we want a provision that covers the area fundamentally and thoroughly. Something like the amendment must be on the face of the Bill to give it a chance of having real coverage.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister is about to make the reply suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, that the Government can safely afford to rely on regulation. If so, the House would find that reply a great deal more persuasive were the Minister to say that he shares the view that this House is, as it affirmed on 20th October 1994, free to vote on subordinate legislation. If he does not reaffirm that, then the reassurance he would give by offering regulations would be limited.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I strongly sympathise with the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Perhaps I may make a suggestion pre-empting what the Minister may say. I suspect that he will not accept the amendments. If so, the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton applies, that if one mentions one Act in a piece of legislation, by definition that subordinates all others. I wonder whether the words "all relevant" legislation would do: in other words, all subsequent Acts of Parliament that impact on people with disabilities in any way, including the Human Rights Act, should be kept under review by the commission. It seems to me that one of its primary acts will be to oversee and review the Disability Discrimination Act. However, there are many other Acts of Parliament which will impact on and have an effect on people with disabilities. I suggest the words

361
"all relevant Acts of Parliament"; that is, subsequent Acts. I wonder whether that would be considered by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to return to the debate on the amendments which seek to place references to the Human Rights Act on the face of the Bill. It gives me a further opportunity to clarify in more detail the Government's intentions. I hope that in so doing I can reassure noble Lords on the important issues that they have raised today.
The first of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Ashley relates to Clause 2 and seeks to make provision on the face of the Bill for the disability rights commission to have a duty to keep under review those parts of the Human Rights Act which it deems applicable to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. The European Convention on Human Rights confers rights on all individuals and the Human Rights Act covers a wide range of issues which go well beyond the scope of the commission's primary duties. It is one of this Government's important policies that British citizens should be able to secure rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights in British courts and to bring those rights home to all citizens. I can assure noble Lords that we will not be backward in our duty of watching carefully and in the round the impact the Human Rights Act has.
While the Government remain to be convinced of the case for a human rights commission, they have not ruled out establishing one in future. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons announced in another place before Christmas that a joint parliamentary committee on human rights would be set up with a range of functions relating to human rights. It is envisaged that these will include conducting an inquiry into whether there is a need for a human rights commission to monitor the workings of the Human Rights Act. It may also consider the conduct of inquiries into general human rights issues in the UK. The parliamentary committee will start work later this year. Given the continuing deliberations on the possibility of a human rights commission, we believe it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of these deliberations and commit the disability rights commission to a specific duty which may turn out to be inappropriate in the longer term and even, as proposed today, might duplicate the role of a joint parliamentary committee.
Moreover, the Government have recognised that there will be a range of legislation in which the commission may wish to have an interest from time to time, or have a continuing interest, on which it may wish to offer the Government advice. As I made clear in Committee, the Bill has been drafted to give the commission wide-ranging powers to advise the Government on any aspect of the law, or proposed changes to the law, for any purpose connected with the elimination of discrimination and the performance of its other functions. This extends to all legislation applying to England, Scotland and Wales.
362
Therefore the commission will be free to make full use of its powers and advise the Government on the Human Rights Act if it considers it relevant to do so. But we also recognise that this will be just one of a number of pieces of legislation about which the commission may choose to give advice. For example, with the inclusion of the non-discrimination provision in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam it would be surprising if the commission did not take an interest in any directives emanating from this provision; or, for that matter, in a number of older pieces of legislation such as health and safety, or the building regulations, which have a significant impact on disabled people's lives. We do not believe it is right, therefore, to make provision on the face of the Bill for the commission to have a specific duty to keep under review the workings of the Human Rights Act. To do so would place an emphasis on that legislation above all others which may be of equal or more concern to the commission and disabled people.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I wonder whether he realises that the quite detailed answer he has given does not deal with the points raised so far in favour of the first amendment in the group. Amendment No. 2. The presence in the Bill of a duty to consider the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 singled out means that the commission will not be obliged to consider other statutes unless required to do so. Therefore, even if the Minister does not accept this amendment he must at Third Reading arrange for an amendment to be tabled and for other relevant legislation. It must be done.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall reflect on the comments of the noble Lord. However, the provision that allows the commission to advise the Government on legislation will also allow it to advise on all issues relating to the equalisation of opportunities. I refer noble Lords to Clause 2(3)(a) which allows the commission,
"to make proposals or give other advice to any Minister of the Crown as to any aspect of the law or a proposed change to the law".
While I understand the point that the noble Lord raises, from the remarks that I have made it would be very strange if the commission when established did not consider both the Human Rights Act and other legislation that was applicable to the work of the commission.
I turn to the other amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Ashley. My noble friend is correct to state, as he did at Committee stage, that the Disability Rights Task Force considered the involvement of the commission in relation to providing assistance in cases involving the Human Rights Act. We recognise that, in the absence of a human rights commission or similar body, the DRC may be well placed to provide this assistance. That is why in the White Paper published for consultation last summer we proposed that the commission should have the power to assist individuals under the Human Rights Act in Article 14 cases where

363
discrimination prevented them from enjoying the other rights provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Bill as drafted would allow the DRC some scope to act in assisting disabled people to secure their rights under the Human Rights Act. That Act creates a new form of action specifically based on vindicating convention rights. Under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act individuals can also rely on convention rights in any legal proceedings, not only those brought under the Human Rights Act. Therefore, if a disabled person brings an action under the Disability Discrimination Act which raises breaches of convention rights the commission can assist by virtue of Clause 6(1)(a). Furthermore, we have included a regulation-making power in the Bill allowing the Secretary of State to extend the range of legal proceedings in which the commission can assist individuals beyond those that can arise in the context of Part II or Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. I reassure noble Lords of our firm commitment to consider the inclusion in these regulations of Section 7 of the Human Rights Act. This commitment is clearly set out in the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill and were published with it. However, we strongly believe that a regulation-making power in the Bill is the right way forward. As I said at committee stage, the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act are not expected to come into force before the year 2000.
Earl Russell: My Lords, since the Minister has given the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, foresaw, can he give the further assurance for which I asked; namely, that the Government accept the decision of 20th October 1994: that this House holds itself free to vote on subordinate legislation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that it is the convention not to do so.
My noble friend Lord Ashley was right to say in Committee that this matter was complex and difficult. There is a good deal about the workings of the Human Rights Act that we do not yet know. Giving the commission wider powers in this area would necessitate it becoming involved in a complex range of issues across the whole spectrum of convention rights against the background of the forging of a new relationship between the courts, the legislature and the Executive made necessary by the constitutional changes under the Human Rights Act. The Government are not deterred by these complexities. On the contrary, we are committed to considering extending the commission's powers in this area and the regulation-making powers that we have included in the Bill will enable us to do so at the appropriate time; that is, after detailed consideration of the meaning and implications of such a course, consultation where appropriate and in the light of any developments that may result from the work of the Joint Parliamentary Committee.
I began my remarks on these amendments by welcoming the opportunity to clarify the Government's intentions as to the role of the commission in reviewing
364
the Human Rights Act and assisting disabled people to enforce their rights under that Act. I hope that I have made clear our determination that the commission should have the necessary powers to tackle discrimination against disabled people effectively. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ashley will trust in the good faith of the Government and withdraw his amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 16 which appears to seek clarification of the extent of Clause 6 and to explore the relationship between the DDA, the Human Rights Act and the Scotland Act. It may be helpful if I begin by clarifying the extent of the application of Clause 6. Its purpose is to enable the commission to support individuals in litigation in which disability discrimination is an issue. Clause 6(1)(a) gives the commission power on the face of the Bill to provide assistance to individuals in relation to proceedings brought under Sections 8 and 25 of the Disability Discrimination Act. Subsection (1)(b) gives the Secretary of State power to extend by regulations the range of proceedings in relation to which the DRC can provide assistance under this section. We have made clear that we wish to consider including proceedings brought in relation to Section 7 of the Human Rights Act. As I have already explained in the context of other amendments relating to the Human Rights Act, it is not possible to be more precise at this stage about how the provisions of Clause 6 may be used in relation to that Act.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out, discrimination issues are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. There are two exceptions which allow the Scottish Parliament to encourage equal opportunities generally, other than by prohibition or regulation, and to impose duties on public bodies with functions relating to devolved matters to ensure that their functions are carried out with due regard to the requirements of equal opportunities law. Those exceptions are not such as to require reference to the Scotland Act in this Bill and in that respect the amendment again appears to be unnecessary.
However, it may be helpful if I clarify one or two issues that lie behind the noble Lord's amendment. The purpose of Clause 6 is to enable the commission to support individuals involved in litigation in which disability discrimination is an issue. It is difficult to set out the limits of such a wide area but it is conceivable that it can be used to support a disabled person litigating in the Scottish courts to challenge the effect of legislation of the Scottish Parliament if that legislation has the effect of limiting the application of his rights under the Disability Discrimination Act. If the noble Lord has in mind the possibility of using the Section 7 form of action under the Human Rights Act to challenge Scottish legislation on the grounds that it is incompatible with the convention, we cannot at present give him any assurance about the precise scope of the Clause 6 power in that situation because we have not yet seen how Section 7 of the 1998 Act is to be implemented. I hope that this explanation clarifies the working and extent of

365
Clause 6 in sufficient detail for the noble Lord's purposes and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rix: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may make the following observation. I may be naive but I fail to see why the Minister cannot accept the advice of someone who has been in Parliament for 50 years. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton; and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who served in a senior capacity in the previous government. Their proposal to insert "and other relevant Acts" or similar wording is simple. It sweeps up (not under the carpet) all the problems that I, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and others have listed. That wording gives absolute coverage. I do not understand why the Minister cannot at least state that the Government will review this matter before Third Reading.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if it would help, I agree to reflect on the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I was interested in what the Minister said. I must reflect upon it with my advisers. It seems that the commission will need to employ two sets of lawyers, English and Scottish. I am concerned that there will not be enough money. The Minister may be able to tell me whether there will be sufficient funds. I have a feeling that the commission will be extremely short of them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I suspect that we shall debate resources later today. It is firmly our belief that those made available to the commission will be sufficient for its purpose.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for the support the amendment has received from both sides of the House. In particular, I appreciate the constructive suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—I nearly called him my noble friend—and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hope that they will be taken on board at a proper time by the Minister.
I hope we are not seeing from the Minister a pattern which is set for the day of rejecting all these carefully considered, reasonable amendments. They are put forward in good faith to try to help disabled people. They are not obstructive and they do not demand the earth. I believe that the Government could accept them, but we are hearing negative, negative, negative replies, as we did in Committee.
My noble friend says that the Government will watch carefully. That is fine; we expect that. It should not need saying. However, we also want the commission to be able to watch carefully. My noble friend says that the scope of human rights is very wide: so it is. For that reason, any human rights commission will be unable to make disability a priority. One cannot expect disability to be a priority in such circumstances; it will be a sideline and a tiny proportion of its work. Therefore, the Minister's argument cuts no ice.
366
We are to have a skilled commission of men and women, more than half of whom have a disability and tremendous experience. Why cannot they look at the issue instead of a broad human rights commission? That is the case for the amendment. My noble friend mentions duplication. Duplication comes only through incompetence. We are assuming that the disability rights commission will be made up of intelligent people. They will be selected by the Government, so we assume they will be intelligent. Why cannot they avoid duplication and instead co-operate with the other bodies?
There was a tiny shaft of light in my noble friend's reply. He has a difficult job and the issue is complex. I hope that we shall receive more than an answer which is bureaucratic and official. What is needed is a political human understanding of our proposals. Nevertheless, in view of the time pressure and other difficulties, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
page 1, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I said that I was unhappy with the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and would wish to return on Report to make my case that "may" should be substituted by "shall" and to couple that proposal with Amendment No. 4. I cannot over-emphasise that the important work of the commission will be to operate alongside employers, helping them in practical ways to comply with their obligation under the Disability Discrimination Act.
Most noble Lords will agree that resort to litigation should be avoided wherever possible. It should be the last resort. The success of the Commission will be assessed on the degree of work it undertakes without needing to resort to the courts. For that reason, I support what I believe will be its key activity; namely, to give appropriate emphasis by obliging it on the face of the Bill, as a measure of duty, to encourage good practice. Therefore, I believe that "may" should be substituted by "shall".
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said:
"The intention of the drafting of Clause 2(2) is to allow the commission flexibility in how it promotes good practice where it thinks it appropriate. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that the commission should be free to decide—and indead would be best placed to know—what that is at all times. I fear that placing a duty on the commission to do so may well have the effect of constraining it, rather than giving it flexibility". —[Official Report, 4/2/99; col. 1631.]
I take issue with almost everything in that paragraph. Of course the commission will act where it believes that to be appropriate. It will be its duty to do so. When it thinks appropriate it will move in to advise and help companies which need it. Of course the commission is best placed to know when to act and I back that with my amendment. However, I cannot see the argument that placing a duty to encourage on the commission

367
might constrain it. Why should that be the case? If the commission believes it appropriate to,
"encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity",
it has a duty to do so. My amendment does not constrain the commission. It simply provides that:
"The Commission shall encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity".
I believe that the Minister would do well to reject the official advice, which is always that "may" should never be substituted by "shall". I can prove testament to arguing like a tiger with officials who delivered that absolutely standard, almost deadpan response to any such suggestion. There are occasions when such a substitution is going over the top and being too pedantic. However, as regards the work of the commission, the activity of encouraging,
"good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity",
which is aimed at keeping cases out of the courts, is so important and such a key feature of its work that I believe that pressing the Minister to accept "shall" rather than "may" is appropriate.
As regards Amendment No. 4, in Committee I said:
"What I was trying to say is that it should be required and have a duty pressed upon it to advise government agencies as well as government. Why, for example, have a subsection (3)(a) and a subsection (3)(b) if we are not prepared to consider including government agencies? They provide a very large part of public service these days". —[Official Report, 4/2/99; col. 1632.]
In response, the noble Lord argued that the proposed measure was subsumed within the Bill. In summing up on that amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, repeated a request I made to the Minister: please point us to the particular reference in the Bill which subsumes the point made in Amendment No. 4. I have looked carefully since we last met. I have found no reference. There has been such a proliferation of government agencies —they continue to proliferate —that it is most important that the duty laid on the commission to advise government when appropriate should apply to agencies. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. It seems to me that as the Bill stands, with the word "may", subsection (2) might as well not be in the Bill at all. What is the point of having a commission if it is not there to encourage good practice? We should all take for granted that the commission will do that in any event.
I have been involved in this argument about "may" and "shall" over the past 40 years in both Houses, although I know that that is not as long as my noble friend Lord Renton. But I know that this argument is raised every now and then. But in my opinion there is no point in having subsection (2) at all with the word "may" because it looks as though the commission would never encourage good practice at all unless it were given the ability to do so. Therefore, what my noble friend said should be considered seriously.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I liked these amendments in Committee and I like them now. As the noble Lord,
368
Lord Campbell, said, if the commission is not going to take on an active, even an aggressive, role in encouraging good practice, we might as well not be wasting our time now. There is no point unless the commission has a clear duty in taking on those roles in the most active way possible.
As regards Amendment No. 4, government agencies are part of government. As the noble Baroness said, the Government must point us in the right direction. If the Bill is to fulfil the function which we all assumed it would have, those matters must be on the face of it. It is a waste of time to have a situation in which there is no direct commitment because there are always 101 reasons for not doing something. We are trying to make sure that things are done through an agreed procedure to which we can look to ensure that they are happening.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who said that he had been engaged in discussions and debates on the use of the words "may" or "shall" for more than 40 years. That reminds me of a Bill in 1970 which was put forward by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the late Lord Ross of Marnock, then Willie Ross. It was lost because of the general election and reappeared immediately after the election with precisely the same wording except that the names on the face of the Bill were different.
Willie Ross said to me, "We need to take up some time in the House of Commons because there are other important Bills coming forward and we must allow time for them to be prepared". He said to me, "Come to my office and we will prepare amendments to this Bill". In my naivety at the time I said to him, "How can you possibly amend a Bill which you drafted and laid before the House?" He said, "Just take your pen and sit beside me, laddie, and do as you are told". Those noble Lords who remember the late Lord Ross will recall that that is exactly how he would behave. He said, "We shall go through the Bill and every time we see the word 'may', we shall table an amendment, 'delete "may" and insert "shall" and then when we have done that, we go back to the beginning and go through the Bill and every time the word 'shall' appears, we table an amendment, 'delete "shall" and insert "may"'". That was a nice time filler.
I do not suggest for one second that the noble Baroness is engaging in such an exercise. But looking at the Bill, it seems to me that the words "may" and "shall" are interchangeable and except in relation to one part, with which I shall deal in a moment, it would not matter one whit whether the words "may" or "shall" are used entirely throughout the Bill provided that the disability rights commission approaches its work with the aim of being against discrimination.
I would say that the only place where those words are not interchangeable is in Clause 2(5) which states:
"The Commission may make charges for facilities or services made available by it for any purpose".
If we inserted the word "shall" it would mean that every time the commission did something—gave advice or made available facilities—it would have to charge for it. None of us would want that.

369
I do not know how the Minister will reply to the amendment but I believe that it does not matter whether "may" or "shall" is used. Therefore, he could accept the amendment since it makes no difference.
I have a little more difficulty with Amendment No. 4. The Bill makes it clear that:
"The Commission may … make proposals or give other advice to any Minister of the Crown as to any aspect of the law or a proposed change to the law",
and further on it goes on to say when other advice may be given or sought.
There is some merit in Amendment No. 4 because we live in a period where a great deal of government work is not carried out directly by the Government, for example, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. There is a great deal of indirect influence. There are different commissions dealing with the environment and different arrangements in relation to health. I do not wish to transgress on English matters, but I know that in Scotland in the main the health service is delivered not directly by the Secretary of State, except through payments, but by the health boards. As the Health Bill goes through this House, there will be changes to the administration of the health service. The principle will be the same; namely, that those agencies carry out the work on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I imagine it is the same for England.
Therefore, we should provide that the DCR may be able to make proposals or give other advice to any government agency as to the practical applications of the law. There are some who say that the problem with legislation is that it is too verbose and goes on for pages and pages repeating itself in order to try to cover every possible eventuality. We know that that is not possible. It may well be that my noble friend will say that Amendment No. 4 is encompassed by the words of the Bill in Clause 2(3)(b). But I always err on the safe side. In government parlance that does not mean keeping things out of the Bill. It is always better to put them in and be safer in that way.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? I was fascinated by his recollections of the late Lord Ross of Marnock, for whom he will know I had great admiration. I worked with him a great deal in the other place as well as here, particularly behind the scenes. But his story of going through one of his own Bills when he had gone into opposition and making the changes from "may" to "shall" might have been completed by the noble Lord pointing out that I was the successor, the Secretary of State who came in and had to cope with what was then done. Four years later Lord Ross then succeeded me and I could have had some revenge, but I did not.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I am sure that in his own subtle way the noble Lord did try to get his revenge. It is clear in my mind that neither the late Lord Ross of Marnock when he was Secretary of State ever accepted an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, nor, indeed, vice versa. There is
370
always a tendency for Ministers to be locked into refusing opposition amendments, I am sure for very good reasons. I am sure that is not done in a spirit of, "Well, we are the Government and we are not going to make any changes anyway". This Government have a good record for at least listening to discussions and debates. They do not always give way. Oppositions are not always right any more than governments are always right. Oppositions are not always wrong any more than governments. There is some particular merit in Amendment No. 4. If my noble friend is unable to accept the exact wording I hope that he will reflect on the point.
One of the important factors is the way in which the DRC is seen by the public. If the perception and impression is that it is coming forward with restrictions that sets it off to a bad start. One factor which is common to both sides of the House is that everyone wants the Bill to succeed.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, tried to convince your Lordships that the words "shall" and "may" mean the same thing. I assure him that it depends on the context. There have been statutes, mainly referring to the obligation of individuals, about which the courts have held that those two words are vague, and they would administer justice according to their interpretation of the particular statute.
But here we clearly have a statute which uses the word "shall" as indicating that the commission shall have a duty. It clearly uses the "may" as indicating that it has a power. We must bear in mind that difference in the context of the Bill.
I support those who have argued very convincingly in favour of Amendment No. 3. Perhaps I may add just one word to Amendment No. 4 and to the arguments that have already been used. Clause 2(3)(a) states that the commission may,
"make proposals or give other advice to any Minister of the Crown".
It is suggested that he should have the power to do roughly the same thing for any government agency. I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed that proposal with open arms for this reason. If the commission saves a Minister or a government from the trouble of getting in touch with a government agency for which they are answerable in Parliament, it might save time and public money within the Civil Service. There is a great deal to be said in favour of Amendment No. 4.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to his late noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. The noble Lord will recall that he had a reputation for calling a Division whenever he felt the need for a cigarette. Therefore, it is possible that he may have tabled amendments to give him that opportunity. However, we also know that he was greatly loved on all sides of the House.

371
The very first line of Clause 2 states that,
"The Commission shall have the following duties".
It is an instruction to the commission. It should encourage good practice, which is its most important duty. Therefore, I am very strongly in favour of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch to change "may" to "shall". I also believe that her Amendment No. 4 is extremely worthy and should also be included in the Bill.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as the Government are probably minded to reject both these amendments, I would like to remind the House and the Minister of an intervention that I made at Committee stage when I said,
"I should have thought that it was perfectly easy to remove subsection (2) and to make it part of Clause 2(1) as a new paragraph (d). Clause 2 would then read:
"The Commission shall have the following duties—
(d) to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity'". —[Official Report, 4/2/99; col. 1630.]
Semantics go completely out of the window. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was fully prepared to accept that as an alternative. It was never responded to directly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. If the Government are minded to reject these amendments and there is no Division, I ask them to consider my suggestion seriously before we come to Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I feel in need of a cigarette may I express my enjoyment of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, and his description of the exchanges between Lord Ross of Marnock and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. It simply serves to confirm the Namierite picture that whatever the political colours of the government of the day, the Court and Treasury Party is always in office and the Country Party is always in opposition. But to say that the Court and Treasury Party is always powerful is not to say that it is always right.
I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as regards the length of time that I have been involved with this, but looking at these proposals I am where I came in on the Education Act 1988. I have seen more Bills setting up commissions since then than I would like to imagine. In that period I have also seen a steady change in the style of official draftsmanship in order to make commissions, Secretaries of State and other government agencies less subject to control.
I understand that. It is the problem of poachers and gamekeepers. The poachers always want to weaken the powers of the gamekeepers and so they naturally should. But this is a contest in which there ought always to be two sides. This steady growth in the permissive drafting of legislation so that it is harder to challenge the use of power quite severely diminishes accountability.
Clause 2(2) states,
"The Commission may encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons".
372
That means that if the commission never once in all its existence does anything which improves the treatment of disabled persons, it is not accountable; it has not failed in any duty.
I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but it means that it is their intention that the commission should not be accountable should it fail in that duty. I perfectly understand that from the official point of view. The Civil Service is a profession in which one may receive blame but not praise. I entirely understand that that is a difficult situation to cope with and I have sympathy for it. But this degree of unaccountability is unwise. It encourages unaccountable, and therefore potentially arbitrary, power. It should therefore be viewed with misgiving.
Amendment No. 4 is very close to one of the very first amendments to which I had the privilege to speak in Committee. It said that the Universities Funding Council, as it then was, could only offer advice to the Secretary of State when he asked for it. Incidentally, I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about the arguments with her officials. I was most grateful for that. Of course, I was unable to know that at the time, but I am very glad indeed to hear it now.
When the Secretary of State wants advice it is almost always going to be when he least needs it. That has been a topos of political theory for centuries. The king who most needs advice is the king who does not know that he needs it.
We have managed to move on just a little from that situation. It seems to me that the proposal in Amendment No. 4 is a very practical one. Let us suppose, for example, that the commission believes that the Higher Education Funding Council for England is in need of advice on something which has relevance to disabled persons, as may well be the case at any time. As things stand now, that would go right up to the Minister's desk. The Minister would have to send it down again and there would be an immense circulation of paper in a great variety of directions.
I do not believe that Ministers of the Crown are particularly short of work. Would it not be a good idea if the disability rights commission and the Higher Education Funding Council for England were able to have a quiet word together—I shall not say at leisure, because even they are busy people—with slightly less haste than is the case at the centre of government? They could then jointly report to the Secretary of State that they had reached an agreement and ask whether he would consider joining in their agreement. That would save government a great deal of work. Any proposal that allows Ministers to have more sleep at night tends towards good government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I am relatively new to the arguments concerning "shall" and "may". I recognise that the two words cause a great deal of interest in your Lordships' House. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who pointed out that "shall" and "may" can mean different things at different times and in different places.

373
Before I turn to what may be described as the technical arguments, I emphasise that there can be no question but that the commission will want to encourage good practice. I do not think that it is discretionary in the sense that noble Lords have implied. Nor is there an issue of abandoning the encouragement of good practice to focus on a legalistic approach.
Noble Lords may find it helpful if I explain that Clause 2(1) sets out the commission's overarching duties. Two of these are to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and to promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. In pursuing those duties we fully expect, and believe it will be necessary for, the commission to encourage good practice. Indeed, this is how much of what we all want the commission to do might be achieved. Encouraging good practice must be an integral part of the application of these duties. For example, the commission could pass on, perhaps through a representative body, to all large retail companies of a certain type elements of good practice developed and tested in a particular retail company and found to offer disabled people the same quality of service as others. That clearly seems to fall within the ambit of equalising opportunities. But there are perhaps very few examples of what we commonly call good practice which, to a pedantic eye, might not appear to fall within the scope of the main duties under Clause 2(1); one might take the view that certain aspects of disability etiquette training do not. Clause 2(2) therefore seeks to make clear beyond any doubt that the commission is free to encourage good practice.
However, there are dangers in making that a duty rather than a power. It would not be wise, for example, to place a duty on the commission to encourage good practice in a situation where no accepted good practice exists at all. To do so could open it up to challenge. Challenge might also come where the commission offers novel advice to overcome particular difficulties or where a judgment has to be made about which practices—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Lord elaborate on the point he makes that if the commission wished to encourage good practice where none existed, it would somehow be in breach of its duties under the Act, as it will then be? That is very strange indeed. If there were a place of employment where no good practice existed, surely the commission would have a duty to encourage good practice there.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the commission is a new body. Inevitably, when it starts work it may call on a limited body of good practice. It will be treading new ground. It will not always be able to draw on good practice in giving advice in specific situations. By making the encouragement of good practice a duty rather than a power, one may invite challenge and potential judicial review. What is good practice now may not be good practice in a few years' time.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister admits that it is an argument about accountability. On his response to
374
the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does he agree that where good practice does not exist the commission should be responsible for inventing it?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, where it is difficult to identify good practice, the commission will clearly have a role, when asked for advice in a new area, to draw on whatever experience there is to help.
The issue of accountability was raised by both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. Clearly, the commission will be accountable for the good practice that it encourages. It will need to make clear to the Department for Education and Employment, year on year, how it uses its resources in terms of promotional work and other functions. It will also be accountable in its annual report to the public, to this House and to another place, year on year. In that report it will need to make clear how it has used its resources and how it has sought to promote good practice.
I believe that promoting good practice will be an important part of the duties of the commission. However, placing a separate duty on the commission would not, I believe, achieve anything positive for the reasons I have given. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 4, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seeks to make specific provision on the face of the Bill for the commission to make proposals or provide advice to a government agency. I indicated in Committee that the commission would have the power to do that under wider provisions in Clause 2. I refer specifically to subsection (3)(b) dealing with the commission's ability to provide advice and information. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary.
However, I am happy to place on record that the commission may provide advice to government agencies—for example, the Health and Safety Executive—on the practical application of the law when doing so meets its more general duties of working towards the elimination of discrimination and equalising opportunities. Alternatively, government agencies would be free to seek advice and information from the commission which the commission would be able to grant.
However, I see little merit in making special provision for government agencies on the face of the Bill above others who may benefit or indeed may need the commission's advice. Should we also make a similar provision for local authorities and the host of other organisations who make a judgment about what the law requires and apply it?
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested in Committee that what she wanted to achieve was a duty rather than a power. I do not believe that it is right that we impose a duty on the commission in this respect. In placing a duty on the commission, it would be deciding the areas of interest and priority for it. While government agencies may not be perfect, I believe there are many other organisations which may be in as much,

375
if not more, need of the commission's advice. I am confident that the commission will use its powers wisely when making decisions about whom to advise.
There is a further point. There are a number of organisations in existence which already offer advice to government agencies about disability matters; for example, the Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training (ACDET) which provides a great deal of advice to the Employment Service. Placing a duty on the commission in the way that the noble Baroness describes may result in duplication of effort. Of course, the commission should work with such organisations, but placing a duty on the commission in this respect will not help flexible, co-operative arrangements.
I believe that the Bill already addresses the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I therefore hope that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am bemused by the reply given to both amendments. In response to my intervention about offering employers encouragement in good practice, the noble Lord said that the body may be too new and that in its early stages it will have only a limited body of good practice on which to call. We are not legislating for the first two or three months of the commission but for its life—that is, until another Parliament at some time in the future considers a review of the statute. I find that answer wholly unacceptable.
The noble Lord went on to say that the commission will be accountable for the good practice that it encourages. I say toucheé to that. It should certainly be accountable for the good practice that it encourages, but we are concerned about the times when it does not encourage good practice where we believe that the encouragement of good practice is necessary.
If I may say so, I do not think that the Minister picked up the point being made when he referred to the commission not having a role where a company was not practising as it ought or meeting its obligations under the law. The Minister suggested that if the commission went into a company which did not have good practice, it would have no responsibility to encourage good practice. I find that strange.
The Minister accused me of trying to impose upon the commission a separate duty. I am trying to impose upon the commission a coherent duty and to say that it has a duty to encourage good practice. Where good practice exists, the commission should have a duty to improve such good practice and, where good practice does not exist, it should have a duty to encourage such good practice.
The Minister also said that this is not a discretionary power. If it is not discretionary, let us make it mandatory—and we can do that by accepting the amendment which seeks to substitute "shall" for "may".
Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, that I have just realised how much time
376
I spent in government answering those who were seeking to do just as I am now. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, comes to mind because I do not think that from those Benches I took a single Bill through the House when the noble Lord did not make a fair feast about substituting "shall" for "may"! Perhaps I may make a serious point on that. I referred in passing in Committee to the way in which in those days I would return to my department and fight the corner. I did not always do that because I often thought that the argument about substituting "shall" for "may" was pedantic and irrelevant. However, there are occasions when providing for a duty as opposed to a permissive power is appropriate. I think that the case has been well made in this instance. This is an appropriate occasion for the use of the word "shall" rather than "may".
I turn now to Amendment No. 4. My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the possibility of saving time and money if the provisions work well. A third positive reason for accepting the amendment is that when the body has a statutory duty to meet, it must meet it under the law. Very often, if resources are tight and a government agency needs advice and a body such as the commission cannot meet the permissive power, it is very easy for it to say, "We simply don't have the money; nor do we have a statutory duty". Where the commission is conscious that good practice does not exist and where it believes that it would be positively helpful to prevent a case going to court—that would be a jolly sight more expensive for the public purse—I believe that the commission should have a duty to advise.
The noble Lord said that he was happy to put on the record that the right would be subsumed and that the commission would be able to advise agencies as well as government. If the noble Lord is happy to place that on the record, he should be even happier to put it on the face of the Bill. I say that because I do not believe that it is good enough simply to put it on the record. When we last spoke about this, the noble Lord said that this provision is on the face of the Bill. He said that it was subsumed. I asked for the reference, as did the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the Minister was unable to give it to us. He has not given it to us today. The other agencies are an arm of government. The clause states that they may advise the Government. I do not believe that my amendment precludes local authorities and other agencies. As I understand it, they are already subsumed in that there is a permissive power for them to advise any organisation that they believe it appropriate to advise. I am talking about agencies that deliver government business—that is, about government agencies. Unless I can be told exactly and precisely where that provision comes in the Bill, I believe that we should test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thought that I had referred specifically to subsection (3)(b)—I apologise if I did not—which refers to the commission's ability to provide information and advice.

377
It is under that provision that the commission has the ability, which it will undoubtedly use, to advise a government agency.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot see the connection between that subsection and government agencies. Can the noble Lord explain to me what I am missing in that provision?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness put her finger on it earlier when she referred to the ability of the commission to give advice to local authorities under that general power. My point is that, just as under that subsection the commission can give advice to local authorities, so it can give advice to government agencies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that does not meet my point. Subsection (3)(b) states:
"undertake, or arrange for or support (whether financially or otherwise) the carrying out of research or the provision of advice or information".
I am referring to the commission advising the Government and making it clear beyond peradventure, on the face of the Bill, that the phrase "the Government" includes government agencies—that is, those bodies, of which there are many, which provide government services. That should be made explicit on the face of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that I can say anything more. The ability of the commission to offer advice to government agencies and the other institutions which the noble Baroness mentioned is contained in that subsection.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise to make my last point. It is a key point. We are not talking about a permissive power. We know that the commission will offer and proffer advice to many bodies. If it has a duty in law to advise the Government, we want to make it statutory that that duty should be extended to advising government agencies also.
In the light of what the Minister said about substituting "shall" for "may"—that is the point of my first amendment—I shall seek to withdraw Amendment No. 3 in the hope that—not on the grounds that, but in the hope that—the Minister will give serious thought not only to what I have said but also to what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said because, as he did in Committee, the noble Lord has offered us today a very workable alternative, which I believe needs consideration between now and the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) make proposals or give other advice to any Government agency as to the practical application of any law;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Long, V.

Alderdice, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McNair, L.

Avebury, L.

McNally, L.

Bath, M.

Manton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brentford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Methuen, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Burnnam, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Byford, B.

Moyne, L.

Cadman, L.

Newby, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Carlisle, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Park of Monmouth, B

Clement-Jones, L.

Pender, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Perth, E.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rawlings, B.

Davidson, V.

Razzall, L.

Denham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rees, L.

Downshire, M.

Rennell, L.

Elton, L.

Ronton, L.

Ezra, L.

Rix, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Russell, E.

Glanusk, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Glentoran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Grey, E.

Strafford, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harrowby, E.

Tebbit, L.

Higgins, L.

Teviot, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howe, E.

Thurlow, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thurso, V.

Jacobs, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Knollys, V.

Wigoder, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lawrence, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Layton, L.

Wise, L.

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Lester of Heme HilL L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Alli, L.

Berkeley, L.

Amos, B.

Blackstone, B.

379

Borrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Brookman, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Burlison, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Christopher, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Longford, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monkswel, L.

Desai, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murry of Epping Forest, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goudie, B.

Prys-Davies L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grenfell. L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hacking, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

HaymanB.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill. B.

Hollis of Hetgham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Symons of vernham Dean, B.

Hoyle, L

Thornton, B.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Uddin, B

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walker of Doncaster. L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall have the power to initiate proceedings in its own name or to apply to intervene in proceedings if it believes that an unlawful act has occurred or is about to occur under the 1995 Act. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 21 and 22.
The concern of disabled people and disability organisations, and I am sure the Government, is that the long-awaited disability rights commission should be a really effective body. Disability has trailed behind gender and race in getting anti-discrimination legislation and a commission. One advantage is that the new commission can benefit from the lessons the other two have learnt along the road.
These four amendments are crucial to the Bill and I may take a little longer than usual in explaining them. Experience has shown that the right to initiate proceedings is a power that can overcome present inadequacies and greatly enhance effectiveness. That is the objective of this amendment. I am sure that your Lordships will have noted that to exercise the power for the commission to initiate proceedings, permission from a court or tribunal is required. That is an extremely important safeguard. The commission would have to
380
satisfy the court or tribunal that it is in the interests of justice for the commission to take the proceedings and that the consent of the victim has been given. That is another important caveat.
My noble friend the Minister said in Committee, understandably, that these amendments could not work legally because the commission itself was not a disabled person, could not be discriminated against as such, and hence could not initiate proceedings. She was right to make that objection and, thanks to the superb Public Bill Office, we have changed the wording so that the amendment now legitimately will say that the commission may bring a complaint on behalf of the complainant. In light of that change to accommodate my noble friend, I hope she will now be able to agree to this important amendment. It refers to three situations where it may be appropriate for the commission rather than the individual to act.
The first is the nature of the claim. Where a class of disabled people is affected by a discriminatory act it would be efficient and cost effective for one action to be taken. In addition, in cases such as harassment, it could well be preferable for the commission and not the victim to lead in court. Secondly, some people with learning difficulties or mental health problems may benefit from having a third party taking the lead so as to ensure that there is full and proper communication. Thirdly, some disabled people could find the legal process excessively daunting and stressful. Most of us would find court procedures stressful, but for some severely disabled people the stress could be excessive and exacerbate their condition. In other countries discrimination proceedings have special provisions such as private hearings, more informal hearings and specially trained staff and adjudication. It is widely recognised that special provision of some kind can be required in some cases.
The second part of the amendment gives the commission the power to bring an injunction to prevent an unlawful act. "Prevention" is the operative word. The DDA imposes some, albeit rather limited, obligations on service providers and these will be in force by 2004. In Committee, the Minister stressed the many advantages of the judicial review procedure and pointed out that the commission could make use of it. The problem now is that judicial review is possible only for public bodies, not private ones. It also has its limitations which cast doubt on how effectively it could meet disability discrimination concerns. This part of the amendment gives the commission the necessary power to act quickly and simply if the obligations of the 1995 Act on service providers were being ignored. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will carefully consider the amendment. She will know how strongly noble Lords and disability organisations feel on these issues. The particular needs of disabled people in their search for access to justice should be recognised. That is the objective of the amendment.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to give the commission the express power to take part in proceedings between two parties. I appreciate that my noble friend said that the commission will have the power to intervene. We accept that from the Minister but we need the assurance in the

381
legislation both for the removal of any doubt and also to facilitate the practice. At present it is almost unknown in English courts. That is of paramount consideration.
I am grateful to Michael Rubinstein, co-editor of the Equal Opportunities Review and editor of Industrial Relations Law Report, for advice on what I say next. Employment appeals tribunals are heavily dependent on the arguments and points put to them by the advocates appearing in court. This is even more so with the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The history of discrimination law is littered with appellate cases in which the applicants were unrepresented or badly represented.
The commission may decide that a particular appeal raises an important or possibly vital point of law but that the complaint is of little merit on its facts and therefore does not support the applicant. The commission under those circumstances should be able to put forward its view on how the statute should be construed.
The commission may be unable to fund the case because of budgetary constraints. In the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, the losing party is liable for the successful party's costs. The costs of intervening in a case to make a submission are minimal by comparison. An applicant may be pursuing a very important case without reference to the commission, say, because they are self-represented or have financial support. This means that the commission can only watch from the sidelines, even where the issues to be considered are of immense potential importance.
There is nothing in the law to stop statutory commissions asking the court to be a party to the proceedings or to be permitted to submit an amicus brief. I am sure that my noble friend will point that out. The reality is that this has hardly ever happened, so there is absolutely no point in that theoretical justification. What is needed now is an express statutory power for the relevant commission to make submissions to a tribunal or court where it considers that it is in accordance with its statutory objects and is in the public interest to do so. I believe that this should be an important part of the commission's strategic legal role.
My final point is that commissions are the legal guardians of their legislation. They have unique expertise to which deference should be accorded by the courts. They should be given the power to protect the interpretation of the law. Amending the Disability Rights Commission Bill to give the commission this power would be exactly the right way to begin. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am not sure whether three other amendments in the grouping are being taken with this one, but I support what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has said in general. I shall be interested to hear what objections the Minister may have to carrying out the purpose of the amendment that has been proposed. It seems to me that there are likely to be cases where time, trouble and expense could be reduced or avoided for all concerned if it were possible for the
382
commission to have the power to act in this way. I realise that there may be problems and difficulties and I shall be interested to hear the Government's response.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned it but I understand that the amendment would enable the commission to outlaw advertisements which discriminated against disabled people. If so, that is another point which makes the amendment very acceptable.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, in rising to support these amendments, I want first briefly to endorse the warm tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Ashley to Agnes Fletcher and others in the voluntary sector who have done so much to help noble Lords in all parts of the House in seeking to improve this important Bill.
In relation specifically to Amendment No. 21, the ability to step in and take on a case on behalf of a disabled person seems to me to be a useful additional power for the commission to have. It differs slightly from the powers provided in Clause 6 which I understand apply only to cases raising questions of principle. In its response to the consultation on the functions of the disability rights commission, the Association of Disabled Professionals firmly asserted:
"We are of the opinion that the Commission should have the power to assist any individual. We would therefore be particularly unhappy if the word 'special' was used and given too limited a meaning in the legislation".
Unfortunately, the existing Clause 6 does just that.
The proposed new clause would sensibly allow the commission to apply to the court or tribunal for leave to initiate proceedings whenever it considered it would be in the interests of justice to help individual disabled people, regardless of whether a case raised a question of principle. A person with a mental health problem, for example, might well be adversely affected if she or he were to pursue a particular case. This amendment would allow the commission to get permission to pursue the case in the interests both of the individual and of others in similar circumstances. This seems to me to be an unexceptionable but very useful increase in the powers of the commission.
The second part of the proposed new clause calls for powers which both the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission have asked for in their review in the light of their long experience. I was grateful to my noble friend the Minister of State for correcting her reply to me on this point in Committee and for confirming my statement that both the Commission on Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission had indeed asked for such powers.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister of State explained at length and with great care how the wording of the original amendment was defective. I hope that the current wording avoids the difficulties that she cited. The use of such a power to initiate proceedings in its own name could be especially valuable in the early days of the Disability Discrimination Act when knowledge of its scope, the reasons for it and how discrimination can

383
be avoided is comparatively rare among the public at large. In my opinion some swift, inexpensive mechanism to prevent wrongdoing—before costs are incurred and before anyone has been hurt—would greatly enhance the ability of the commission to fulfil its responsibilities.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this series of amendments addresses something which has been seen as a very serious flaw in the process now before us—namely, that the commission would be able to take on legal proceedings on behalf of a person. When we talk about the disabled, it is easy to forget that we are considering a wide group of people. The right to bring an action is all very well if you happen to be a graduate sitting in a wheelchair. Of course, it will still be incredibly stressful and difficult but there is no reason why you should not be successful if your case is good and your lawyers are competent.
However, if you happen to have, for example, a learning disability coupled with something like stress-related asthma, going through the detailed proceedings of a court case as regards a situation where you were directly discriminated against would probably be one of the most stressful experiences imaginable. Indeed, that, plus the extra stress placed upon someone who has basically an intellectual impairment, is asking the almost impossible of such a person.
The proposals now before us would actually address a flaw in the current system. It would mean you would be able to give the commission certain powers, and that would address a flaw in the legislation. You would be able to ensure that a whole range of disabilities would be covered. The Government should accept this proposal, or something very like it. If they do so, they will have achieved that wide-ranging cover.
In the previous debate we had a great, so to speak, personal CV of reminiscence. Mine is not quite as long as that of some of the other speakers, but I have still been an active Member of this House for slightly over 10 years. This is one of the few Bills where there has genuinely been a will to improve the legislation across the House. When the Government respond, they should bear that fact in mind. These amendments have not been brought forward as a wrecking mechanism or in order to score petty political points. If the Government had made it possible for me not to move or support any of the amendments to the Bill, I should have been very happy. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the Government will accept these amendments.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, as I have attached my name to these amendments, perhaps I may speak briefly to them. I believe them to be tremendously important. When he introduced the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoke about increasing the effectiveness of the commission. Much of this is about effectiveness. If it is effective we shall have less legislation, and we shall achieve that by banishing ignorance, promoting understanding and, to a certain extent, increasing the confidence in the people who are likely to be brought to court.
384
When speaking to Amendment No. 13, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned Michael Rubinstein who said that the history of discrimination law is littered with cases where the applicant was unrepresented or badly represented. I think that Amendment No. 13 would go a long way towards improving this legislation. Indeed, such provision is very important with a relatively new law. Moreover, if it takes the view on the correct interpretation of the issue of law, the commission might wish to intervene on the side of the employer or the service provider accused of discrimination if it felt that the latter had a point. I believe that that would give great reassurance to those who are service providers.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoke a great deal about Amendment No. 21, so I have nothing to add. However, Amendment No. 22, which deals with the power to seek an injunction, is extremely important. It would give the commission the power, which the other commissions have, to deal with unintentional and institutional discrimination. That is particularly important in the field of disability where there is not yet very much understanding. Indeed, there is much ignorance about dealing with disabled people. I support these amendments most strongly. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may say so, a strong case has been made for Amendment No. 7 and it has been well supported. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, I should like to say a few words about the amendments which are grouped with it. Amendment No. 13 gives the right to intervene in proceedings started by someone else. I believe that the commission should have power to do so. The issue could well relate to the very problems with which the commission is involved and with which it is charged to deal by statute.
Amendment No. 21 is important from the following point of view. Some disabled people, especially those who are mentally disabled, simply could not bring proceedings to protect their own rights; indeed, they might not even have the consciousness to do so. Nevertheless, those proceedings should be brought so that they can be protected. Amendment No. 21 would give the commission power to bring proceedings on behalf of a "complainant or claimant". We must be careful of the words here because a severely handicapped person might not even have the power to claim, but there must be an opportunity for proceedings to be brought on that person's behalf.
I do not believe that Amendment No. 22 is so necessary. I shall explain why. If power is already given in the Bill to bring proceedings, that includes power to seek an injunction. Therefore, in my view—I may be wrong; indeed, the Government might even disagree with me—I do not think that we shall need Amendment No. 22 if the other amendments are accepted.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Renton, for specifically mentioning people with a learning

385
disability. Obviously these amendments are of vital importance to such people. I add my support to the amendments, particularly in regard to people with a learning disability.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, why is it that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality are funded at a higher level than is proposed for the body we are discussing? Secondly, why is it that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality appear on the face of it to have greater powers than is proposed for the body we are discussing?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I, too, support this group of amendments. The answers to the questions just posed by my noble friend are extremely important. I do not understand why the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have the powers that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is now seeking for the disability rights commission and why the Government have not put that into the Bill of their own accord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I hope I may correct a slip of the tongue. I said that I supported Amendment No. 7; I should have said Amendment No. 5. For the sake of the record I wish to put that right.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for putting that right. I was aware that he meant to refer to Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and Amendments Nos. 13, 21 and 22 tabled also by my noble friend and the noble Baroness concern the power of the commission to initiate or intervene in proceedings. In considering the substance of this group of amendments, I would like to make clear at the outset that I do not wish to dismiss what I believe noble Lords want to achieve through these amendments. I can assure noble Lords that I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. However, I believe much could be achieved by the procedures which already exist and which this Bill would allow. I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will not accuse me of not responding positively. I want to respond positively wherever I can, but there are of course important legal issues involved here, as I am sure many of those who have already spoken will understand. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I take a little while in dealing with this group of amendments and in covering some of the legal issues.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 21, which will in part deal with Amendment No. 5. This concerns the matter of the commission initiating proceedings in its own name on behalf of individuals. I wish to deal straight away with the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Morris, the noble Lord, Lord Renton—I think the noble Lord, Lord Rix, also picked up on this—and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, concerning people who
386
have a mental disability, particularly of a severe kind. As I understand it, if an individual is suffering sufficiently from a mental disability, he may in law have someone else look after his legal interest and protect his legal interest. I hope that covers that particular point. Before I deal head on—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. My noble friend Lord Renton made the point that the person concerned may not be sufficiently conscious or aware that he or she needs legal redress on a particular matter, and may not even be able to advise a friend to seek this on his or her behalf. The commission may be aware of the problem, but not a friend. How can a person in such circumstances be not just expected, but relied upon, to enlist his or her own help through a third party?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not think that anything I said suggested that the person himself had to elicit the help of a third party. That could be done by a relative, a friend, or by someone who is responsible for the care of the person. I hope I may continue. This is Report stage and perhaps some of these issues will become a little clearer.
Before I deal head on with the substance of the amendment it may be helpful if I make clear just how much could be done by the commission to assist disabled people through the powers which the Bill already provides. The existence of the commission would itself offer disabled people much more than they have at present. I am sure everyone who has taken part in these debates will accept that. The commission would have the ability to advise individuals about their rights, or even to approach an employer or service provider on behalf of an individual. It might even make such an approach, where it felt it was appropriate or necessary to do so, by a means which did not disclose the identity of the individual.
The commission will have an important role in reducing the cost of litigation for some disabled people—I believe that point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—in financial terms, in removing some of the anxiety associated with litigation, and in addressing the needs of those less able, or perhaps unable, to take cases themselves. Where it chooses to assist an individual, the commission would—by virtue of Clause 6(2)—consider cases which raise issues of principle. The result of any such case might well affect a number of disabled people, and could remove any need for them to face the onerous task of personally seeking redress through the courts or tribunals. The commission would also have to apply criteria for assisting individuals, where it is unreasonable to expect them to take the case unaided.
Where assisting an individual raises issues of principle or where the individual could not be expected to take the case unaided, the commission could provide representation. Indeed there is nothing to prevent the commission providing a high degree of support in litigation, so long as there remains a specific individual who has been discriminated against. I believe the

387
commission's ability to act in these ways goes a good way to meet the concerns raised as regards litigation in courts or tribunals.
But the commission's powers would not of course stop there. Noble Lords will be aware of the commission's ability to conduct a formal investigation of an employer or service provider where it believes that unlawful discrimination has taken place. The commission would not require an individual disabled person in these circumstances either to start a formal investigation or to conclude one. A conclusion could mean requiring an employer or service provider to take action to remedy unlawful acts. I believe that this would cause most sensible employers and service providers to think again. These procedures need not be slower than going through the courts—indeed they may well be quicker—and they give the commission the idea of a policing role that seems to lie behind some of these amendments. There is a major distinction, however, between the commission itself acting under these powers and the commission trying to act in place of individuals in litigation.
I am bound to add that neither the CRE nor the EOC, in their respective reviews, have sought a power similar to that which Amendment No. 21 is intended to provide for the disability rights commission. One might conclude from this that these other commissions have not found such a provision either necessary or desirable.
I have already said the commission could work to keep the exposure of an individual in any legal processes to a minimum. I reiterate that where humanely possible this should be the case. However, Amendment No. 21 seeks to go further in the name of justice. We need to examine this matter carefully. The ability to deal with a case competently may be compromised from the point of view of everyone concerned if an individual's identity was withheld. I understand that anonymity in civil proceedings in this respect is quite unprecedented and courts and tribunals would have to consider any such application fully before it could be permitted. Justice has to be done and be seen to be done. There is something instinctively unjust about an individual facing an unknown accuser, even if that person is disabled. The person may have a mental or physical disability but he has no legal disability. Indeed, he may have a very powerful case with which to attack the defendant. Justice involves being fair to both sides, and not simply being sympathetic to a disabled person—which of course we all are. That is why I am afraid to say that I cannot accept this amendment without wider consultation over whether it would be appropriate for anonymity to be granted in principle.
Even then, there is a very real difficulty with the process. The "interests of justice" is, as noble Lords will appreciate, a matter for the courts or tribunals rather than for the commission. It would not therefore be a judgment for the commission whether it could take a case on behalf of an individual. There would have to be a preliminary hearing to establish whether this was indeed a case in which it would be in the interests of justice to grant anonymity. As the amendment is drafted, it does not make provision for that earlier hearing, or
388
even for the status of the parties to that hearing. I do not wish to labour procedural points, but I do have to stress that the proposal requires rather more consideration before it could be made to work, even if the principle behind it were acceptable.
There is a further point. By virtue of Section 62 of the Disability Discrimination Act, employment tribunals may apply reporting restrictions. That would allow for the identity of the individual to be kept private within the context of tribunal proceedings. Comparable provisions apply in the areas of sex and race. While I accept that this does not completely address all the concerns of my noble friend Lord Ashley, I believe this would address a great many of the circumstances that he has in mind.
I do not aim to cover all of the possible difficulties now, although they are potentially rather significant. I am afraid that I see—I want to be fair and honest to my noble friend—rather little prospect of being able to accept what is being proposed. However, having had very little time to consider the substance of the amendment—it was tabled rather late—I am prepared to examine it further. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will agree to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 5 again raises the issue of representative actions. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is, as I said in Committee, considering the matter of representative actions as part of the next tranche of civil justice reforms. I am advised that the ability of the disability rights commission, or any other public body, to undertake cases will form part of that consideration.
Perhaps I may draw a parallel here with the existing equality commissions. In Committee my noble friend made reference to the Equal Opportunities Commission and the CRE pursuing similar powers to those which this amendment is intended to allow to the disability rights commission. My noble friend Lord Morris made particular reference to it. It may help if I clarify exactly what the existing commissions have recommended in their reviews and why.
The EOC has said in its review that it believes that it should have wide powers to bring proceedings in its own name. Practices which discriminate usually affect groups of people rather than individuals. The right of the EOC to bring proceedings would allow discrimination against an entire group or class of people to be addressed. While not explicitly recommending an extension of its powers to initiate proceedings, the CRE has raised the issue of class or group actions in its review. The CRE's proposal would allow it to consider a complaint where discrimination affects a number of people without the need for each individual to bring separate proceedings. So both bodies want to be in a position to assist classes or groups of individuals in what have become known as representative actions. I readily acknowledge that.
This is a complex and wide-ranging issue and the scope and form of such proceedings will have to be fully worked through. Areas that will have to be considered include what type of bodies or organisations should be able to bring representative actions; the scope of relief

389
that should be available in this type of action—for example, injunctions and damages. Consideration will also need to be given to whether it should be possible to represent an unidentified group such as all consumers or, perhaps, certain groups of disabled people. Other issues such as the right of individuals to pursue their own proceedings, the impact that any proposals might have on the courts and businesses, and the relationship with multi-party actions will also need to be taken into account.
It would, I believe, be unwise for us today to seek to make a unilateral decision about this for the disability rights commission. Moreover, it would not work, because court procedures need to be changed in order for them to be able to deal with these sorts of actions and offer proper remedy. But let me assure noble Lords that we will seek to ensure that organisations which are offered new rights to take representative actions include the disability rights commission.
As I promised in Committee, in response to a request from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I have brought the relevant parts of that debate concerning this matter to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. In his reply to me, my noble and learned friend assured me that he is prepared to consult, through the Representative Actions Working Group, with those who have an interest in this matter. In due course, my noble and learned friend will be issuing a consultation paper. This consultation will inevitably come to an end after the Bill has received Royal Assent, as I made clear at the Committee stage. However, any new provisions about representative actions can be applied to the commission later.
Through Amendment No. 22, my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, seek to allow the commission to seek an injunction to prevent unlawful acts under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. By virtue of its general duty, set out in Clause 2(1), to work towards the elimination of discrimination, the Bill already allows the commission to involve itself in such a way as to prevent discrimination. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said in that respect.
The commission could begin by approaching a service provider, perhaps through a letter or even a phone call, and offer a view about how any discrimination might be avoided. This might be all that is required for the organisation to put matters right. One should not underestimate the effect of such an approach by the commission. I am bound to say that the commission's ability to pursue matters through a formal investigation and, if necessary, to issue a non-discrimination notice, would, I believe, act as a very significant deterrent to service providers who were in danger of discriminating.
I accept that one needs to face the possibility, however remote, that an employer or service provider might still pursue actions which the commission believes could eventually lead to unlawful discrimination even after the commission has fired a shot across their bows. Amendment No. 22 is intended to allow in that circumstance for the commission to
390
apply for an injunction. On what basis could the court grant an injunction? To establish whether an unlawful discriminatory act under Parts II or III of the Disability Discrimination Act has occurred, a court would require evidence that a disabled person has suffered or would suffer discrimination. That has to mean that the court would have no basis for granting the commission itself an injunction because the commission could not itself suffer unlawful discrimination. It would, however, be possible for the commission to support a disabled person who himself had sought an injunction. For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend and the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
I turn now to Amendment No. 13 and the second part of Amendment No. 5, which deal with the question of the commission intervening in litigation. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted to prevent the commission from making an application to any court whose procedures allow such applications to be entertained. That certainly includes appellate courts such as the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of this House. It is usually only indeed at the appellate stage, when issues of fact have been described, that it is possible to see that a question of principle has arisen so as to make representation to the court by bodies such as the commission appropriate. Given that the commission will be fully entitled under the powers it is given in the Bill as drafted to make application to be heard in such circumstances, there appears, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, discerned, to be no need for an amendment on this point.
The question relating to tribunals is somewhat different. The nature of tribunals does not allow intervention in the same way as court procedure—that applies in the same way to any organisation as it would to the disability rights commission. However, the commission could approach a disabled person and ask to assist with his or her case if it felt that there were wider issues at stake. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that is the right basis on which to proceed—with that party to proceedings in agreement. It is simply not necessary to place on the face of the Bill something that the commission can already do. I understand why my noble friend feels that this might be a useful precaution, but it would not make the power any more real. Commissions can already intervene, as I believe the noble Lord acknowledged. If they do not intervene in practice there is no reason why they would do so if they had an express power in the Bill.
I hope that I have provided some reassurance as to the considerable scope that the commission will have to assist individuals and to take part in proceedings. I can assure noble Lords that we shall not lose sight of the effect of any new arrangements on representative actions on the commission. I hope that noble Lords will therefore agree that we should not, through this Bill, seek to make fundamental changes to the legal system in this country which properly belong to a wider discussion.
As I indicated in Committee, the disability rights commission would—as the EOC and the CRE already can—be able to apply to the High Court for judicial review proceedings. Again, that point was made by the

391
noble Lord, Lord Renton—although I accept that judicial review applies to public bodies and not to private ones.
I now turn to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I reject the notion that the disability rights commission will have less power than other commissions. Where there are equivalent provisions in sex and race legislation, its powers will be similar to those of the sex and race commissions. Indeed, in some areas we have made clear our intentions to develop the processes so that they are clearer and more robust. The commission will, for example, have a statutory power to enter into written agreements. I indicated in Committee our commitment to strengthening the non-discrimination notice stage of the formal investigation process. That is a matter to which we shall return later on Report.
However, my noble friend is correct in that both the EOC and CRE can initiate proceedings in particular circumstances which the disability rights commission would not be able to do. The areas concerned are discriminatory practices; advertisements; pressure and instructions to discriminate; and persistent discrimination. They relate to specific provisions in sex and race relations legislation which do not appear in the DDA, and that is the reason for the difference. As such, they could not be replicated in this Bill, the scope of which does not allow us to make amendment to the DDA more widely.
I return to the fact that the Disability Rights Task Force is examining how best to achieve comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. We should not pre-empt its recommendations. I assure noble Lords that the Government will consider very carefully the recommendations put to us by the task force and whether changes need to be made to the DDA, and any consequential changes to the role and functions of the disability rights commission.
In the light of that explanation—and I apologise for its length—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has given a very full reply, which I am sure the House greatly appreciated. She mentioned advertising. I wonder whether she is able to answer the point I raised about objectionable advertisements. Without a provision along the lines of Amendment No. 5, is it possible under the Bill for the commission to take action against advertisements which plainly discriminate against disabled people, either under Clause 3 dealing with formal investigations or any other part of the Bill? Or do we have to wait before something is done about such advertisements?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I understand it, that matter is being examined by the task force and we shall have to wait. If I am wrong about that, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.
392
In view of my remarks, I very much hope that my noble friend and others who have put their names to these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I greatly appreciate the trouble that my noble friend has taken in dealing with this batch of important amendments. I also appreciate the tone of her response. It was very helpful indeed.
I must confess that I am disappointed. In essence she explained what is good about the Bill. But that is not in dispute. We all know what is good about the Bill. It is a marvellous Bill, and my noble friend has been congratulated on it; warm congratulations have also gone to David Blunkett and his colleagues. However, we are seeking to improve the Bill—to get more money and to extend the Bill's powers. My noble friend did not really answer the queries that we put to her simply by explaining how good the Bill is, although we readily accept her explanation.
I understood my noble friend to say that more can be achieved by the commission under the existing procedures. She was over-egging the pudding. You cannot have more being achieved under existing procedures if, in the amendments, we seek more powers for the commission. It does not add up. I think that my noble friend became rather over-excited in reading her brief and was not quite up to the mark. However, I am prepared to overlook that.
My noble friend said that individuals will be helped in some cases and that there may be representation for complainants—I believe she implied that the amendment might mean that that was against their will. I shall check my remarks in Hansard but I believe that I specifically said that the consent of a complainant would be required. It is not possible to act against the interests of disabled people if their consent is required. So my noble friend was not quite on the ball in relation to that point.
In Committee, my noble friend raised the objection that the law would not allow this provision. Therefore, with the help of the Public Bill Office, I tabled another amendment in order to get round the legal problems and to meet her objections. And now she has come up with more objections of a different kind!
My noble friend should understand that we have a difficult problem trying to support her, as we do, as honest, innocent Labour Peers. We also have to voice these criticisms. It is not good enough for the Government to give these responses when we seek to improve the Bill.
We are glad that the task force is considering how the situation can be improved. However, if we wait for the task force to make recommendations we are abdicating parliamentary scrutiny. We are waiting for a task force which may not report for some considerable time. We should press on with these opportunities in the House of Lords and try to make changes to the Bill.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he decides what to do with the amendment, I, too, may have

393
become over-excited at the Minister's brief, but I thought she undertook to examine one aspect. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I wish to save the noble Baroness going once more to the Dispatch Box. Despite the disappointment she gave us, she said that further consultation would take place. There was a categoric undertaking that it will take place. She spoke in good faith and wishes to help us. But she is still impressed by the lawyers in the department. Although they are good lawyers, I hope she will overcome their objections when it comes to Third Reading. I thank her again for the great consideration she gave to all our objections. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall have the power to set up regional offices as it deems necessary in pursuance of its duties under this Act. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after consultation with my noble friend Lord Ashley, I rise to move this amendment. Some form of local and regional support on disability discrimination issues will be invaluable not only to disabled people themselves, but also to employers, service providers and indeed everyone with an interest in the commission's activities. A regional or local point of contact, staffed by people who know the characteristics of the local environment, may be of particular value to small businesses. For disabled people, improved access will be made possible, with the opportunity of home visits to people with severe disabilities or face-to-face contact at a commission office.
The disability rights commission has substantial duties. They are likely to include advice to disabled people on their legal rights; educating and informing the general public, employers and service providers about discrimination; and promoting good practice. These services will need to be fully accessible in every sense if the commission is properly to fulfil its duties and it will itself be subject to the duties set out in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. A single office based in one city will by no means be accessible to people living elsewhere in the country. Travel can be more expensive and is usually more difficult for disabled people; yet often face-to-face contact with them will be the only effective way of eliciting necessary information.
After the sharp rise in petrol prices announced on Tuesday in the Budget Statement, the expense of travel for disabled people is much higher now than it was when we discussed the case for local points of contact for them in Committee on 4th February.
As I have been told in several letters from disabled people since Tuesday, there is little point in discussing new rights for disabled people if their mobility is constricted by unaffordable travel costs. Thus I hope
394
very much, first, that the relevance of Tuesday's decision to this legislation will be recognised as freely in Whitehall as it is among disabled people; and secondly, that the effect of the rise in costs may very soon be taken into account in an increase in the mobility allowance.
Nor is there much point in discussing new rights for disabled people who are being told by their local authorities that, if institutional care is cheaper than the cost of maintaining them in the community, they will be referred to institutions. That is social exclusion at its most cruel. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayman for the helpful parliamentary Answer she gave me on 1st March about the proposal of one local social services committee to adopt that policy.
In another recent case raised with me, a disabled man who now works part-time for £85 a week faces a cut of £75 a week in the local authority's support for maintaining him in the community. He has been told by the authority to accept the cut or return to institutional care. I quote from the letter about his case:
"He is distraught about the prospect of going back into institutional care"
Here again, we have strong testimony to the need for local points of contact to inform disabled people of their legal rights and the help available to them.
We have been assured by Ministers that the disability rights commission has the power to set up regional offices, but there has been no assurance that extra funding can be expected if the commission decides to set up such offices. That could be of crucial importance to it in deciding whether or not to set up regional offices.
At the Committee stage, my noble friend the Minister of State said that racial equality councils,
"are not part of the CRE but seek to replicate the type of network which exists in the context of disability through many voluntary organisations and other arrangements". —[Official Report, 4/2/99; col. 1622.]
She continued that therefore the funding comparison should be with the £11 million remainder for the Commission for Racial Equality, not the £15 million total funding.
However, if local voluntary organisations find themselves being used to fulfil statutory duties in relation to technical advice to business or legal advice to disabled people, then statutory funding should be available. This is extremely important to the organisations and we need to know today whether it will be available. If it is to be available, we also need to know whether it will have to come from the existing allocation of £11 million to the commission. I know that my noble friend will want to respond as helpfully as she can. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, it is essential that there are offices in various parts of the country. I do not need to follow what he said because he gave a full explanation. The only objection I can see that the Government might have to the amendment is that it is in the wrong place. I wondered whether it should come in Schedule 1 instead of this part of the Bill. So far as

395
I can see, the only place where any form of property is mentioned is in Clause 1(2). I wonder whether the Bill gives the power for the commission to own property in any event or to rent it. If not, we ought to put it in at the next stage of the Bill. But it is absolutely essential that there should be various offices in various parts of the country.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I wish to say at the outset that the intention is to establish offices in each of England, Scotland and Wales and that this Bill, as drafted, allows the commission to set up further offices or to make what other arrangements it feels would be appropriate to carry out its work at a regional or local level. Once again, there is no reason why the commission should not set up regional offices if it thinks it appropriate.
The matter of regional offices was considered by the task force. What we propose very much reflects its recommendations. I feel it would be right, given the comments made today and at Committee stage, to say a little more about the task force's thinking and the conclusions it reached. I believe it is right that we keep faith with its recommendations on the matter since those recommendations benefited from a detailed analysis of the issues involved and from a range of individuals, members of the task force, who will be key stakeholders.
First, there is the important question of accessibility. I endorse very much what has been said about it. It is clear from the comments made in Committee and today that noble Lords feel that accessibility for disabled people is of paramount importance. I could not agree more. Let us examine what the task force recommended. It concluded that regional offices were not necessarily the answer. Three or four regional offices, in addition to the main central ones in each country, would not make the commission considerably more accessible to many disabled people. For some, other factors would be relevant such as their mobility and the accessibility of public transport. The task force recognised that accessibility could be achieved in other ways. Those ways included links with local organisations. Organisations representing disabled people are prevalent locally and also extremely effective. I understand for example that there are 12 independent living centres, over 400 local societies of MENCAP and some 110 local offices of the disability information and advice line. We need to think about not just local disability networks. Local business and service organisations and networks also meet local needs. There are 60 business links, 74 TECs, nearly 1, 000 employment service offices and approaching 700 disability employment advisers. This is by no means an exhaustive list.
There is certainly evidence that disabled people who seek advice and support will usually contact one source rather than a wide variety of different agencies. Most of those sources are local, such as jobcentres and medical services. Therefore, while the commission should be able to communicate directly with disabled people, it is only common sense that it works with existing
396
networks. It would be madness not to do so. To seek to replace them may reduce accessibility rather than enhance it.
We must also consider the ability of the commission to go to the client. I cannot overstate the vital role that visiting commission officers and outreach workers can play. One may have the impression that an officer based at the main site responds to a call 200 miles away when he is able. But who is to say that these officers must be based permanently in a central office? Many people work from home these days and have the facilities to keep in close contact with a central office through e-mail, telephone, fax and so on. The commission could decide to employ officers who themselves were located around the country, had a feel for the locality and would be able to respond more quickly to local needs than a regional office. With modern day technology there is no reason why a central telephone number cannot be used to direct a caller to a local adviser where that will be helpful. Noble Lords will recognise the importance of modern technological methods of communication, particularly for disabled people. Accessing the outside world from home, not just by telephone but through the Internet and other methods, is a feature of how many people, disabled and non-disabled, operate in this day and age.
I turn to the question of funding. Some noble Lords have suggested that the Government have not considered the costs of establishing regional offices when determining the commission's initial budget. I say to my noble friend that I believe the Government have provided the commission with a realistic budget. We have no reason to suppose that that budget will not be adequate to meet the many and various functions of the commission, including providing access for people on a local basis in whatever form appears to be the most sensible. I hope that my noble friend will accept that intention. We shall want to monitor the funding of the commission. If a good case is made for additional funding the Government will be sympathetic to that.
In considering how to allocate the budget with which the commission will be provided I am sure that it will take as its highest priority what best meets the needs of disabled people and the needs of other stakeholders. The commission must be allowed discretion in this matter that is built on actual experience. The commission will need to consider a variety of mechanisms, including whether and how to use regional offices, to make sure that it truly is accessible. I stress that the Government are sympathetic to that objective. But I believe that the commission is best placed to decide what kinds of mechanisms are likely to be most effective. Accessibility is achieved by communication in all its forms, not necessarily by the buildings that people may occupy. I do not believe that we shall best serve the needs of disabled people if we pre-judge today that one way is necessarily better than another. In view of all these considerations I very much hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, with other noble Lords I shall reflect on what my noble friend has said in reply. My experience as a Minister persuaded me that it is far easier to improve legislation during the parliamentary proceedings than it is when it has become law. This is why we should look again, before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, at the very important issue of providing access for disabled people as near as possible to where they live. The voluntary sector ought not to be asked to carry heavy costs in filling gaps in statutory provision. The generality of disabled people expect the disability rights commission to fund the duties it should properly discharge. To allow further time to consider the possibility of another amendment, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Formal investigations]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 14. leave out ("decide to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I became quite excited about this amendment. I thought that I had almost convinced the noble Baroness that this was a good point. I am grateful to her for having written to me with an explanation as to why my amendment cannot be accepted. However, I again take issue with the officials who advise the noble Baroness. Two situations are referred to in the letter. In the first case the commission itself decides to conduct an investigation; in the second case the commission is directed to do so by the Secretary of State. That is absolutely clear from the words of Clause 3.
We return to "may" and "shall" which here have very real relevance. If my amendment were accepted the clause would provide:
"(1) The Commission may conduct a formal investigation for any purpose connected with the performance of its duties".
Subsection (2) provides:
"The Commission shall"—
in other words, it has no choice in the matter—
"conduct a formal investigation if directed to do so by the Secretary of State for any such purpose".
I believe that that is eminently clear. If the commission conducts a formal investigation it does so because it has decided to do so, not for any other reason. Therefore, I still believe that these words are otiose. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisclale: My Lords, I hope that the Government will accept this amendment for the reason given by the noble Baroness. The important point is to empower the commission to conduct an investigation. It cannot do that unless it decides to do so. Therefore, it is unnecessary to say that it may decide to conduct a formal investigation.
Moreover, the drafting gives scope for an admittedly far-fetched argument that the statute carefully limits its power to deciding to conduct a formal investigation. I said that that is far-fetched, but it is the type of argument which throughout the
398
legislation we have had this Session parliamentary counsel take pains to guard against, almost always by putting in extra provisions. The amendment has the great advantage of removing unnecessary words.
If the commission may decide to conduct a formal investigation, why should not subsection (2) state:
"The Commission shall conduct a formal investigation if the Secretary of State decides to direct it to do so for any such purpose"?
But that is not done; there is no reason to do it. What matters is the direction that is given and not the decision to give the direction because the direction cannot be given unless there is an anterior decision by the Secretary of State. That applies just as much to subsection (1).
It may be that the draftsman has been led astray by the terms of subsection (3), that:
"The Commission may at any time decide to stop or to suspend the conduct … but any such decision requires the approval of the Secretary of State"
That can perfectly easily and economically be re-drafted to fit in with subsection (1) as amended, as desired by the noble Baroness.
The drafting amendment may seem unimportant compared with the important rights which are vouched safe by the Bill to those who command the compassion and activity of the legislature. That is not so. Every unnecessary word we put into a statute inflates it. In 1975, the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation—and I am pleased to see the noble Lord in his place—drew attention to the prolixity and over elaboration in the statute book and protested against it. The statute book then consisted of three volumes of public and general Acts. Ten years later, in spite of everything the Renton Committee said, it consisted of five volumes of public and general Acts. There were fewer statutes contained in those volumes.
The format was then enlarged to bring the number back to three, with quite a prolixity, but within a few years there were again five volumes now in the larger format. All that is very costly at every stage of a Bill and it is costly to those who have to buy the statute books. I should be most surprised if we do not have at least six volumes of public and general Acts after this Session, so anything we can do to eliminate even two words is worth while. It is still more worth while as a step towards at last paring down the statute book and freeing it from unnecessary prolixity. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to return to the debate on this amendment and I agree with the intention of noble Lords to remove unnecessary words from the face of any Bill going through your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Blackstone undertook to consider the amendment to see whether it might be accommodated. We have now had the opportunity to do that and the advice we have received has satisfied us that the words "decide to" are necessary.

399
The issue revolves around the distinction which is drawn between the two situations described in Clause 3(1) and (2). The first is where the commission decides to mount an investigation and the second is where it is directed to do so by the Secretary of State. I am advised that the inclusion of the words "decide to" in Clause 3(1) relates to the first of those circumstances and is necessary in order to draw the distinction between the two situations.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, can the Minister say why it is necessary to draw the distinction?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are at the Report stage. I merely invite the noble Baroness to agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I really believe that this is absurd. Clause 3(1) empowers the commission to conduct an investigation if it so decides. Subsection (2) places on the commission a duty to conduct an investigation if it is directed to do so by the Secretary of State. The distinction, if there has to be one, is drawn by the use of the words "may" and "shall". According to the first line of subsection (1), the commission is free to conduct an investigation and the words "decide to" are entirely otiose in that sense. Subsection (2) provides that:
"The Commission shall conduct a formal investigation if directed to do so by the Secretary of State".
I believe that this is an occasion on which the Minister should be brave and face down the advice that has been proffered. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has given advice based on that given some years ago by my noble friend Lord Renton when his committee advised Parliament on the preparation of legislation. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Cross, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Biffen, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Blatch, B.

Feldman, L.

Brentford, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Byford, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Caithness, E.

Glentoran, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harrowby. E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Colwyn, L.

Leigh, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Lyell, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

400

Manton, L.

Rix, L.

Marlesford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sudeley, L.

Morris, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Norton, L.

Weatherill, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wharton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Renton, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Addington, L.

Ahmed, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kennet, L.

Bach, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Berkeley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Bragg, L.

Brookman, L.

McNally, L.

Burlison, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Chilthome Domer. B.

Christopher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Crawley, B.

Newby, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dholakia L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Razzall, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Goudie, B.

Russell, E.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hacking, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hardie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thornton, B.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Uddin, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.36 p.m.
Clause 4 [Non-discrimination notices]:
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 inclusive.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("provisions") in line 2 on page 3 and insert ("The notice may include").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 are grouped together. These are very important amendments. The amendments standing in my name are Amendments Nos. 8 and 12.
Your Lordships may be relieved to know that I shall not go over the ground of the arguments used in Committee. The arguments were put by many noble Lords and those used by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, in particular were extremely persuasive.
We are seeking to put much more detail concerning non-discrimination notices on the face of the Bill. A great deal is known about the kind of content and provision that one would want in secondary legislation. The view is held by many noble Lords that it is so important that it is not just desirable but extremely helpful to have that detail on the face of the Bill.
My amendments retain a right for the Secretary of State to resort to secondary legislation. To ensure clarification and certainty and to provide practical assistance for those who must carry out that very difficult area of work—producing non-discrimination notices—there is a powerful argument for putting more on the face of the Bill rather than using secondary legislation as a vehicle for that. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to return to the debate on defining the scope of non-discrimination notices on the face of the Bill.
As noble Lords will know, the idea of extending the scope of non-discrimination notices and making provision for them to deal with necessary changes to practices and procedures originates from the reviews of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality and from them establishing legislation.
The Disability Rights Task Force considered the issue and was keen to ensure that the non-discrimination notice stage of a formal investigation process should be made as effective as possible. But it recognised the potential concerns in relation to the EOC and CRE proposals. Those concerns were that the proposals may allow the commission to impose a particular way of addressing an issue which will lead to discrimination when there may be other ways in which to address such issues other than those prescribed. There was concern too that a very high level of understanding as to the way businesses operate will be required to define exactly what may be practical in a particular situation.
Given the timing of the EOC and the CRE reviews, we made provision on the face of the Bill for regulation-making power allowing the Secretary of State to define the scope of non-discrimination notices and related mechanisms. In Clause 4(4) there are broad examples of how it might be used. These examples were not intended to be a coherent set of procedures. In allowing for regulation-making power we recognised that the devil is, as always, in the detail. In order to ensure that the commission's powers were clearly
402
understood we would need to use the power to define more closely both the scope and the mechanisms for non-discrimination notices when bringing the regulations into effect. We believe a regulation-making power to be the right way forward as it would allow a degree of flexibility. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke wishes to speak to the amendments.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am most grateful. My noble friend was quick to respond to the provocative remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I appreciate the opportunity of mentioning Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 which the Deputy Speaker said were to be considered in this grouping.
As my noble friend said in Committee, we are all agreed on the necessity to extend the scope of non-discrimination notices. I believe that the only difference between us is whether the provision should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations. The House will be aware that both the EOC and the CRE support the need for these proposals being on the face of the Bill. The views of those two bodies should be taken seriously because they are experienced people who have to face the problems of discrimination in their own fields. Operating in those fields, they have tremendous experience behind them. They know the hazards and obstacles that limit their own effectiveness. I believe that this proposal will help to avoid litigation; they, too, believe that. The avoidance of litigation could be a main aim. It is what we all want.
My interpretation of the amendment does not square with that of my noble friend, as enunciated in Committee, nor of the disability task force. They seem to suggest that it is over-prescriptive. But the amendment is not stating that in these circumstances employers must do this or that. It merely gives the commission the right to prescribe steps which will enable the employer to avoid again falling foul of the commission. It gives the commission powers enabling it to make sure that appropriate action is taken. I cannot see anything wrong with that.
The amendment puts a clear, heavy but welcome responsibility on the commission. The commission is the appropriate place because it is daily considering discrimination issues. It will be constantly seeking to ensure positive and helpful interaction between the companies and disabled people. Its objective will be to secure non-discrimination in a reasonable way as required by the Act.
I believe that the commission's reputation will depend on how it carries out the tasks placed on it by this amendment, assuming that it is accepted. It is right that this task should be the responsibility of the commission and not of the Secretary of State because the commission will have the necessary day-to-day experience.
The timing is also important because delaying tactics are unacceptable. I hope that my noble friend will agree with that. It needs to be made very clear from both the Back and Front Benches that we simply do not want delaying tactics on this issue.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 in this group. The first was debated at length in Committee and in response to the strong views then expressed, my noble friend the Minister of State kindly affirmed that she would be happy to consider the issue again at Report stage. With other noble Lords, I had put it to her that power to include in non-discrimination notices the basic information listed in the amendment and in Clause 4(4) was essential. Having myself given further thought to the issue I am now more convinced than ever that this power should be on the face of the Bill and that we should not have to wait for it in regulations.
It is clearly reasonable and it will be helpful to all parties—disabled people who may be discriminated against and those who may be discriminating against them—if this can be agreed. I suspect that even those who drafted the Bill agree that the information should be in non-discrimination notices. I think that the words "in particular" gives this away.
I appreciate the Government's desire to remain flexible by allowing the administrative arrangements to be specified and modified in the light of experience. My noble friend the Minister of State explained this in Committee, but I suggest that the desired flexibility is achieved by Clause 4(3). I accept that we are moving into uncharted waters with this Bill, but the information and advice set down in Clause 4(4), which this amendment seeks to allow without waiting for any regulation, ought not to be viewed as unknown floating hazards. They are in fact fixed islands of sensible guidance through which, by means of a non-discrimination notice, a discriminator can be guided safely into harbour. It would be unreasonable in my opinion to have to wait for regulations which may be issued at some indeterminate date in the future, in order to provide a discriminator with some very helpful guidance and advice on what he needs to do and to give the commission vital information to verify that what is required to be done to prevent discrimination is in fact being done.
I turn to Amendment No. 10. This is another amendment which my noble friend the Minister of State offered to consider again in the light of the strong views expressed in Committee. The more I think about it the more difficulty I have in understanding why this crucially important power to specify when the requirements set down in a non-discrimination notice should be complied with is not firmly stated on the face of the Bill. During Committee I argued that it is absolutely essential to establish time limits by which someone served with a non-discrimination notice is required to act. Without any such time limits procrastinators will have the time of their lives emasculating the powers of the commission and devaluing the purpose of non-discrimination notices. Such procrastination could easily add unnecessarily to the costs of the commission.
I am still of that opinion. Indeed, having had time to consider the matter again since then, I am even more perplexed to understand why no time limit is included.
404
A non-discrimination notice without a time limit is like a car without an engine: it may look good parked on the street, but it is not going to get very far. Setting down a time limit could save time, money and trouble. In everyday life who would dream of ordering a new car or a cooker without agreeing when one could expect it to be delivered? Who would dream of contracting to have their house repainted without specifying even the year when he wanted the work to be completed? I suggest that elementary common sense requires that a time limit should be set.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I shall not delay the House much because both noble Lords who have spoken have argued such a good case, but as my name is to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, I wish to say that I support them immensely strongly. Again, they are about minimising litigation by promoting clear understanding of expected behaviour. I support the amendments very strongly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I find myself in a strange position. I have a great deal of sympathy with the two amendments in this group moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I also have sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. We cannot accept all the amendments in the group because that would make a nonsense of the clause. Perhaps I can try to be constructive. I suggest that between now and Third Reading the Government should amend the clause by combining the best elements of the amendments.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like briefly to give my support to the gist of these amendments. Having an action plan and enforcement details as early as possible must help. My noble friend Earl Russell assured me that he will not speak in this debate, as his views on regulation are so well known to this House that they may tire your Lordships.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to my noble friends for jumping the gun when I spoke earlier. Initially, we believed that a regulation-making power ought to have been the right way forward so as to allow for a degree of flexibility both to ensure that a consistent approach is adopted by each equality commission where that was appropriate, and to allow for the detailed administrative arrangements to be specified and modified in the light of experience.
However, I have a great deal of sympathy with many points that have been raised in the debate and in Committee. In the light of that, the Government are currently consulting across departments on the issue of non-discrimination notices. We expect to return to this matter at later stages in another place. While noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot go into more detail at this stage, I hope that noble Lords will take this as a commitment to strengthening the non-discrimination notice stage of a formal investigation process, where the experience of the existing commissions has shown it to

405
be falling short. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton who, characteristically, came up with a practical suggestion. I am not over-zealous about my own amendment. The gist of all the amendments is much the same and if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is more acceptable to the House, then so be it. On the other hand, an amendment could be culled from those in the group to arrive at a compromise.
I agree that we are all grateful for the offer to go away and think about it and I accept that that must be without prejudice. However, I do not believe that having the secondary legislative power for the Secretary of State and putting something on the face of the Bill will cause inconsistency. A great deal could be put on the face of the Bill that would make sense and make matters clearer for those who will have to execute powers under the Bill.
I have also said that the Secretary of State would require a long-stop power to make secondary legislation, but I believe that there is enough substantive information, referring to the scope of the non-discrimination notices, for us to have the best of both worlds, and that there should be more on the face of the Bill with a long-stop power for the Secretary of State to amend in the future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Agreements in lieu of enforcement action]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 34, at beginning insert ("to suspend or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I feel strongly about the matter, I wish to press the Minister for greater clarification of what he said in Committee. The need for the commission to be as effective as it can be and as far as possible to keep cases out of the courts unites all noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill. I introduced the notion of suspension, that where proceedings have begun, and where there is some understanding and some realisation that compliance can be achieved without pressing further, the procedure should continue only if compliance is not achieved, rather than simply stopping or suspending the case and, if necessary, in the future dropping it. I believe that adds one more stage to the process which adds flexibility and does little more to keep cases out of the courts.
In replying to the amendment, the Minister said, first, that he would write to my noble friend Lord Renton about the potential compromise character of the agreements to which my noble friend referred. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has done that. Normally such letters are passed around other Members. If he has written, I would be grateful to see a copy. Secondly, the Minister said that the provision, as drafted, allows a range of possible steps to be agreed, including simple suspension.
I have re-read the Bill, including this clause, but I am not entirely clear how the words on the page achieve that. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could tell me where what I want to achieve by the amendment is fully subsumed in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I want to support the amendment. If the commission is completely satisfied that the person or firm that has been offending is determined not to re-offend, it can withdraw completely. If it is not satisfied, as the Bill is drafted, it can take such people to court. If there is an individual who says that he will do what is suggested, but the commission is doubtful, because the individual is not very reliable, the commission will be in a position to suspend action which means that the commission can hold the matter over the person's head and make certain that he will undertake that which he has promised. That is an extremely useful tool.
I do not know whether the noble Lord—he looks as though he is going to answer but he is shaking his head—has children, but it is useful to be able to hold a threat of punishment over children to ensure that they behave. This is exactly the same thing. There must be a power that can be held in the balance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I also wish to support the amendment. It will be a strange situation if we do not have the words "to suspend or". The commission will not take any further steps in the investigation, but theoretically the investigation could be left open and in order to remove uncertainty we need the words "to suspend or". When legislating, an important point is to create certainty and not uncertainty. Therefore, I warmly support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt did indeed reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I shall ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, receives a copy of the letter. From the noble Lord's support of the amendment, it seems that he may not entirely accept its contents.
In returning to debate this amendment, I wish to make clear from the start that the drafting of the clause allows a range of possible steps to be specified in a written agreement, including simple suspension—that is, allowing the revival of the formal investigation, but also allowing, say, the investigation to be brought irrevocably to an end. In seeking to specify one of the alternatives, this amendment neither adds to, nor subtracts from, the range of options available to the DRC. Therefore, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that suspension is allowed under this clause. Clause 3(3) expressly gives the commission the power to suspend the conduct of a formal investigation at any time. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who also asked about that point.
Clause 5(5) allows the agreements to be varied or revoked even if suspension is not included in the terms of the agreement. It may help to illustrate this if I explain once more the background to the provision and how it is intended to operate. If the disability rights

407
commission has reason to believe that a person may be committing unlawful acts and decides to conduct an investigation, Clause 5 gives it the power to stop the investigation and enter into a written agreement with the person under investigation. In doing so, the commission undertakes not to take further steps in the investigation of the unlawful acts in question and not to proceed to the issue of a non-discrimination notice. The person being investigated would agree to abide by the conditions of the agreement.
If the statutory parts of the written agreement are breached—that is, those requirements that could be included in a non-discrimination notice—it is then open to the commission to take enforcement action as if a non-discrimination notice had been issued.
But enforcement action is not the only course of action available. It is open to the parties, in drawing up the terms of the agreement, to specify that a breach could also lead to the resumption of the investigation or agree this after the written agreement has been reached; or, indeed, for the DRC to decide to do this in order to find out if an agreement has been complied with.
Perhaps I may take up the point which the noble Baroness made forcefully in Committee, that court action should be seen as a last resort. We take it as axiomatic that the DRC will proceed on the basis of co-operation rather than confrontation. I very much agree that we want to avoid court action wherever we can. Enforcement should be a last resort to be used against those really blatant discriminators who do not follow the commission's lead in seeking an agreed solution.
Both the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have made use of written agreements informally and have found them a useful and flexible tool in the formal investigation process. I stress that the drafting of Clause 5 allows the disability rights commission to make arrangements to resume a formal investigation if it considers it appropriate to do so in the sort of instance to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I sort of follow the logic of that answer, but if I accept the explanation which the noble Baroness has given, I have to ask the question: why do we have sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (2)(a)? What is the point of those provisions? If the Minister is telling me that the commission can conduct a formal investigation, suspend it or stop it and that all of those powers are covered by Clause 3, what is the point of specifying in subsection (2) that,
"An agreement under this section is one by which—
(a) the Commission undertakes"—
the provisions do not state "suspend"—

"(i) not to take any further steps …and

(ii) if the Commission has made a finding that any of the unlawful acts in question were committed, not to take any steps or further steps with a view to the issue of a non-discrimination notice"?

408
I am not sure that the Government can have it both ways. I should be grateful for a response on that point.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I see what the noble Baroness is saying, but I think the commission has the flexibility to pursue either route—that is, either to suspend and then return to an action when there is no satisfactory resolution of it, as provided for in Clause 3(3), but also not to take any further steps in the investigation where that is appropriate. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Baroness to clarify the point further.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness does that because "not to take any further steps" means stopping the investigation. I am in some confusion now about the relationship between Clause 3(3), which simply states that the commission may at any time decide to stop or to suspend the conduct of a formal investigation, and what seems to be the convoluted discussion about the provisions of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of Clause 5(2)(a). I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can write to me between now and the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Assistance in relation to proceedings]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 44, at end insert ("and assistance").
The noble Lord said My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to my Amendment No. 19. As the House knows, Amendment No. 20, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is grouped with my amendments.
I have tabled my two amendments on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. At this stage, they are probing amendments, but I may need to return to them at Third Reading. Amendment No. 18 would have the effect of ensuring that the disability rights commission is able to arrange for the same type of legal advice and assistance that a litigant in receipt of legal aid would obtain. It would ensure consistency of application and approach between the DRC measure and legal aid under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. That is because both those Acts provide that eligible applicants are entitled to legal advice and assistance, and it is appropriate that those obtaining assistance from the DRC have the same level of advice and assistance as those who may be legally aided in the same or a related issue.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to clarify before which bodies the DRC will be able to arrange for representation. The terms of Clause 6(3)(b) allow the commission to arrange for legal or other representation. The amendment would limit such representation to that before a court or tribunal. The DRC's resources will be limited. Accordingly, they should be directed where they have the greatest effect. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if it is the Government's intention that more than legal advice shall be given,

409
surely these two amendments should be made. I hope that it is the Government's policy that they will go so far as to enable such people not only to receive advice, but to have help in representation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak now to Amendment No. 20, which gives effect to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in Committee. I accepted the amendment but it was subsequently inadvertently withdrawn. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 20 and then to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 which relate to the same clause and also concern the extent of the assistance the DRC can offer to disabled applicants in relation to proceedings.
Clause 6 of the Bill gives the commission the power to provide assistance to individuals in relation to legal proceedings. Subsection (3) sets out the range of assistance the commission may provide and includes a general provision for it to provide any other assistance which it thinks appropriate.
The purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in tabling the amendment in Committee, and the purpose of this amendment now, is to make clear on the face of the Bill that the DRC will be able to arrange for somebody else to provide assistance which it deems appropriate but which it is not in a position to or may not wish to provide itself. I ask noble Lords to accept the amendment.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, Clause 6(3) sets out the range of assistance the DRC may provide to individuals in relation to proceedings. It expressly covers legal advice, legal or other representation and dispute settlement. It then goes on to provide for any other assistance which the DRC considers appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, tabled two amendments. The first seeks to add the words "and assistance" after the provision in Clause 6(3)(a) which specifies that the DRC may provide or arrange for the provision of legal advice.
Noble Lords may find it helpful if I explain that, taken with the amendment we have tabled in relation to Clause 6(3)(d), I believe that we have now a fully inclusive clause in terms of the types of assistance that the DRC could offer. I do not believe that this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, does extend in any way the commission's powers and it is therefore unnecessary. I hope the noble Lord will be content that the government amendment has picked up on any shortfalls he saw in the wording of the clause and therefore he will withdraw that amendment.
I turn now to the other amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which seeks to specify on the face of the Bill that Clause 6(3)(b) gives the DRC the power to arrange for legal representation before any court or tribunal but not before other bodies or hearings.
I can confirm that the clause as drafted allows the commission to arrange for legal or other representation in any court or tribunal. However, representation may go wider than a court or tribunal. For example, there is express mention in the clause of seeking to procure a settlement of the dispute, which may involve arbitration
410
or some other form of alternative dispute resolution. Indeed, the new reforms to court procedure that come into force in late April will require litigants to consider other forms of settlement. We would want to be sure that the commission could still support the disabled person in these sorts of proceedings. They would still be proceedings for the purposes of subsection (1) of the clause but would not be before a court or tribunal.
While I appreciate that the noble Lord has concerns about spreading the DRC's funding too thinly, I think it would be wrong to limit the DRC's powers to arrange representation in such circumstances. I suspect that he agrees with and accepts that. The DRC should be free to set its own priorities and make decisions about the appropriateness of providing assistance in such cases, taking into account the circumstances of the case. I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will withdraw that amendment too.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, that sounded most encouraging, but the noble Baroness will appreciate that I should like to read what she has said and study it at my leisure and also with the Law Society of Scotland. I have the feeling that I may not be coming back at Third Reading, but one never knows. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 18.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 4. after ("provide") insert ("or arrange for the provision of).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Clause 8 [Codes of Practice]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment that I am moving on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. The amendment will ensure that any provision of a code of practice must be taken into account by a court or tribunal when determining a case under Part II or Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The reason for this is that the terms of Clause 8(8) provide that any provision of the code of practice for which it appears to be relevant in proceedings under Part II or Part III of the 1995 Act may be taken into account by a court or tribunal in determining the question. However, the Scottish Law Society believes that relevant codes of practice must be taken into account in these circumstances and that discretion in such matters is inappropriate. I should have thought that if there was a code of practice it was extremely unwise at any time to ignore it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my Amendment No. 24 is grouped with this amendment. I should like to support my noble friend in moving Amendment No. 23. The

411
revocation of a code of practice would be a very serious issue indeed. It may be a wholly acceptable reason but it would certainly be somewhat disruptive and there would have to be good reason for doing it. I accept one of the points that the Minister made when responding to this amendment at Committee stage, that it would be a very rare occasion. However, I think that that is all the more reason and strengthens the case for accepting Amendment No. 24, and that is that it should be a matter considered by both Houses of Parliament.
I also accept that the scrutiny committee has seen this Bill and it is not one of its recommendations. But that does not constrain us from making other recommendations. I rise merely to appeal once more to the Minister to re-think the response to this suggestion and to say that on the very rare occasions when subsection (6)(c) is invoked—in other words, where the Secretary of State revokes by an order a code of practice—he will think again that it is a matter that should by right come before both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who returns us to the issue of "may" versus "shall". Clause 8 allows the disability rights commission to prepare and issue statutory codes of practice giving practical guidance on how to comply with the provisions of Part II and Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. It may include in such codes if it thinks appropriate advice on matters of good practice.
New subsection 53A(8) gives courts and tribunals the discretion to take into account any provision in the code of practice which appears to them to be relevant in any legal proceedings. Although it seems unlikely that courts and tribunals would not give due consideration to any relevant provision of a code of practice, I agree that the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, would make clearer the expectation for courts and tribunals to do so. I am therefore happy to accept the amendment.
Turning now to Amendment No. 24 from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, subsection (6)(c) allows the Secretary of State to revoke a code of practice by order at the request of the commission. Such orders would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The purpose of the noble Baroness's amendment is to make these orders subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as she said. As the noble Baroness said when we discussed it at Committee, it seems that it would be unusual for a code of practice to be revoked rather than simply being revised and reissued. An example of where it might be revoked is where a code is so substantially changed that in fact it would be a new code. In this case the power to revoke the old code would be no more than a tidying up exercise. One might, however, have a situation (perhaps again quite unlikely) where a European directive might make such a major difference to the law that an existing code needs to be withdrawn without being replaced or before a new one is begun or completed. In such cases Parliament may well have views and clearly it is right to have a procedure for
412
Parliament to consider that. But we believe that the negative resolution procedure provides ample scope for Members of another place and Members of this House to request a debate if they feel it appropriate in the circumstances.
As I mentioned in Committee, all the regulation-making powers in the Bill have been considered in detail by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—indeed, the noble Baroness referred to that—and its response suggests that it too considers the negative resolution procedure to be right and appropriate in the circumstances.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, it is a pleasure to have an amendment accepted by the Government when I am on this side of the House. It is the first time that this has happened to me on this side of the House although it occasionally happened when I was on the other side of the House. More often than not I had to fight hard and force it through in the Division Lobby with the support of noble Lords opposite, for which I was always grateful. I apologise to my noble friend for not mentioning that her amendment was grouped with mine.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 3, at end insert—
("(10) An order under subsection (6)(c) shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such statutory instrument shall be made until it has been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. "").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have been worn down by my noble friend on a number of occasions so I know the feeling when one concedes an argument. I congratulate my noble friend and warmly accept what the Government have done in response to his amendment.
I am sorry that the noble Lord does not feel able to continue that largesse to include Amendment No. 24.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. If she wishes to speak to this amendment, which she is perfectly entitled to do, she must move it first.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment because it was grouped with Amendment No. 23.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, it has not yet been moved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in that case I beg to move Amendment No. 24. I am suitably chastened and deeply apologetic for falling foul of the procedures.
The Minister actually strengthened the case for affirmative resolution. First, he said that it would be a rare occasion when it happened; he also cited some dramatic reason as an example of how it could happen. The noble Lord also talked about representing a new

413
code of practice. I believe that in both the revocation and the reinstatement of the code of practice, this House should automatically use the affirmative resolution procedure and not the negative resolution procedure which relies rather on chance.
I have to say with some feeling that I now receive little notice of regulations coming from the Department for Education; I cease to receive regular information from the department and find that I have to be almost a walking detective on a daily basis to find out what is happening. That is what happens with the negative procedure. I would say to the noble Lord that the affirmative procedure guarantees that it comes before both Houses; that both Houses have an opportunity to understand what the Secretary of State is doing and the reason why he is doing it in such dramatic circumstances as having to withdraw a code of practice and possibly at some later stage to reinstate it or reinstate a new one.
I will return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, If Amendment No. 25 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 26.
Clause 10 [Procedure for amending s. 7(1) of the 1995 Act]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—
("

(a) such organisations representing employers as he considers appropriate;

(b) such organisations representing disabled persons as he considers appropriate: and

(c) once it has been established, the Disability Rights Commission.

(4) A consultation under subsection (3) shall be commenced on or before 1st January 2000.
(5) In the event that the Secretary of State decides to make an order under subsection (2) the order shall be made within six months of the completion of the consultation process under subsection (3). "").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 25 is to enable the Government to move as quickly as they can to include practically all employers in the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The Government recently lowered the small employer exemption as regards the DDA from 20 to 15 employees. That sounds as though it was an advance. In fact there was a lamentable failure to take advantage of an opportunity to include all employers bar those with two or less workers, as demanded by the Act. I can see no valid reason why any firm should be exempt from an Act which merely requires employers to do what is reasonable to avoid discrimination against disabled people. There was never a more honest or reasonable proposition put before Parliament.
What is "reasonable" will vary according to the size and the resource of the employer. So there is no possibility at all, according to the Act, of any "unreasonable" burdens being imposed on small employers. Any claims to the contrary would be
414
standing the law on its head and the equivalent of saying black is white; tall is short; fat is thin; or "reasonable" is "unreasonable". It does not make sense. No matter how one twists, distorts or interprets the dictionary, "reasonable" is "reasonable" and no employer can have "unreasonable" demands forced on him.
At Committee stage there was an unholy alliance between my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. My noble friend used the alleged fears of small employers about costs to justify the exemption and was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Perhaps my noble friend could give us evidence of those fears about excessive costs on the poor, small employers, bearing in mind the categorical statement about "reasonable provision".
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke about the survival of small firms being at risk. Despite our political differences, we are used to expecting eloquence and reasonable arguments from the noble Baroness, but on that day she must have got out of bed on the wrong side or just had a bad day to make claims like that. How could she say that all those small firms would be at risk from "reasonable" accommodation. I hope that the noble Baroness will take part in this debate and justify that nonsensical proposition. I do not see how she can do it.
Many employers are already covered by the service provision duties of the DDA, and bringing them all into the DDA poses no problems at all. In fact—I hope the noble Baroness will agree with this—it will help to avoid confusion. With some in, some out and some not knowing whether they are in or out, nobody knows whether they are coming or going; they will all be confused about the provisions of the Act, what their duties are, how they avoid falling foul of the law, how they discriminate and what it means. But if they are all included in the Act, they will know exactly what they have to do: "Do not discriminate against disabled people".
I hope that this reasonable proposition to ask employers to stop discriminating against disabled people will have no opposition in the House today. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is an amendment and an aim which I wholeheartedly supported throughout the history of the legislation of the DDA. Basically, if somebody is going to be discriminated against, they can be discriminated against as efficiently in a firm of 23 as in one of 13. When it comes down to the basic right that one should not be discriminated against, that should be an absolute.
The defence of reasonableness has been put forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said. We are not asking for severe dyslexics to become proof-readers for publishing houses; for somebody who is profoundly blind to work in a hardware store choosing colour patterns or paint. We are saying that when one is discriminated against purely on the grounds that one has a disability—not that one is incompetent to do the job because of that disability—then that should not be grounds for denying one employment. It is incredibly simple. It is a matter of principle.

415
I make clear from the start that I will not be moving the amendment that stands in my name, Amendment No. 26. However, I expect the Government to try to give us some further encouragement at this point. They have arbitrary line can be moved down, so why not move it down the whole way?
The amendment provides for a definite date. Employers are worried about that. Indeed, if they know when it will happen, that will remove much of the worry and allow them to prepare for it. That, too, should be borne in mind. Stating when something will happen is a great way of allowing people to prepare for it. Surely that must count when considering the peace of mind of small employers. I say again: this is most important. Indeed, it is a fundamental issue in the Bill. It is an issue that we should embrace now rather than later.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, how can I resist the temptation to respond to the invitation extended to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, to come back on this issue? I have immense sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, and am especially supportive of the test of "reasonableness". I believe that the latter would be very important in such a situation.
However, the point I sought to make at the last stage of the Bill related to the very real difficulty of quantifying the problem. I am not sure that there has been a sufficient survey of very small employers—indeed, we are now talking about employers with 13 or fewer employees—regarding the degree to which this issue is a problem. Moreover, there is the test of getting the commission up and running, working closely with small employers, and thus helping them meet their obligations under the Act.
However, the particular point that I made—and this is something about which we should be most cautious—related to a situation where the requirements on an employer to meet its obligations under the Act necessitated the kind of expenditure which put the company's very survival into question. I have in mind the kind of expenditure that could not be afforded by the employer. Therefore, it would be a question of the company going to the wall and the employees, one or more of whom may be disabled, losing their jobs. I am not sure whether the test of reasonableness would come into play in those circumstances. Indeed, there may be some replication of the effects of another piece of legislation which was passed by Parliament some years ago—the Environmental Pollution Act. It introduced the notion of BATNEEC (best available technology not exceeding excessive costs). The idea was that people should put in place measures to produce cleaner processes in manufacturing companies. However, if the cost of compliance proved to be so great that jobs were put at risk, those companies were given time and sometimes their obligations under the Act were waived so as to allow them to survive. Those are the sort of issues that I expect the Government to address.
Finally, I turn to the question of whether the number should be 14 or whether, as the amendment suggests, it should go down to 2. I see no logic whatever in bringing
416
the arbitrary line for compliance with the obligations under the Act down to a company employing only one other person; that is to say, a single employer employing only one member of staff. If an employer who employs two people is caught by the legislation and can be found guilty of not complying with its provisions, it seems to me to be perfectly logical that it should apply to an employer employing only one person. Of course, if the person is self-employed, it goes without saying that it must be for that person to produce the kind of conditions under which he wishes to work. Therefore, I see no logic in stopping at two. If one is to go below 14, it seems to me that the logical place to stop would be with the self-employed, thus leaving the latter free to determine their own conditions of work.
I have enormous sympathy with the proposals, but I am not sure how far the test of reasonableness would work in practice. I believe that it would be a good idea to speak more with employers, employers' organisations and trade unions in order to gain some quantification of the problem. It would be helpful to give this as an early task to the commission to see how in a practical way it could help small employers to comply with their obligations under the legislation.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support these amendments most warmly. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, with a few reservations. We all want the same thing: to remove the arbitrary line. Of course, I acknowledge that the number went down from 20 to 15 in December. We disagree on when this should be removed. In Committee on 4th February (at col. 1672 of Hansard) the Minister said that she felt the Government needed to find out more about how the courts and tribunals were interpreting the concept of reasonableness so as to help them to inform and reassure the small employers. Indeed, that was very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had in mind.
However, there is another side to the argument. Indeed, it was compellingly argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the second day in Committee on the Disability Discrimination Bill on 15th June 1995. She said—and I shall paraphrase her remarks to begin with in the interests of time—that all organisations were protected from having to make adaptions which were unreasonably costly. She went on to say that if the small firms were excluded at that stage, then what counted as unreasonably costly would actually be determined by the larger firms to which the Act would initially apply. So the concept of reasonableness would be determined by the larger firms. Therefore, smaller companies might have lost their voice and might actually lose out.
The noble Baroness then said:
"We do not believe that small firms should be excluded from the Bill. We do not believe that they need the double protection both of reasonable cost and of size. However, we do believe that they may continue to exhibit discriminatory practices unless they are required to comply with the law. We also believe that small companies which want to employ disabled people may fear that they will be undercut competitively without such inclusion". —[Official Report, 15/6/95; col. 1898.]

417
I believe that the noble Baroness made a powerful case. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will respond more positively this time. If she does not, perhaps she will agree to consider the matter before Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addington has fully dealt with the human rights aspect of the amendment. I should like to address rather tentatively the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, drew our attention; namely, the agreement between the two noble Baronesses on the other two Front Benches. He is not the first person to composite them. Indeed, I think it was the Guardian at the beginning of this Parliament which composited them under the title of, "Baroness Tessa Blatch". The common point that they have brought forward is the belief in flexibility and in keeping down business costs. This is the area about which I want to think tentatively and in an exploratory way.
We all agree that business must be able to make a profit; if it does not, there is no future for any of us. We all agree that costs which are impossible to bear are likely to have serious effects. The real question is how far one goes in that direction. If one studies views about labour market flexibility over the past century or so, it will be seen that those views have always been cyclical. We have periods of unregulated competition; then the tide swings back the other way; and, finally, it goes round the circle again.
I do not know how many noble Lords present in the Chamber today watched the television programme "Newsnight" on the day when the Fairness at Work White Paper was published. The programmed claimed—and its research is, I think, quite often good—that among people working in business schools there is now a tendency to suggest that firms that have a rather less unregulated approach to their employees and which are rather more generous about pay, tenure and holiday conditions, and so on, in fact do rather better in profit terms. I do not know what is behind that suggestion. I hope that the Minister does. However, if she does not, she may possibly find out and ascertain how seriously the Government want to take it.
It seems to me that we may be at the beginning of another turn in the cycle of views on the question. It will not be the first; indeed, I am sure that it will not be the last. There obviously must be a limit as to how far labour flexibility can go. In the first place, there is clearly a potential truth in the fact that a satisfied workforce may be capable of putting more effort and more loyalty into the business than a dissatisfied one. The other point of real substance is that if labour market flexibility goes too far and wages go right down and conditions get harder, in the end the employees of these firms will find difficulty in buying others' products.
Last summer there was the prospect of a world recession. It seems to have stopped just short of that, but it was a fright which caused many people to do a certain amount of thinking. We might wonder whether flexibility may perhaps go too far. Of course, the key point is that we are dealing with measures which are designed to enable people to enter the labour market who might otherwise be unable to do so. The general
418
thrust of government policy is, wherever possible, to give more people the chance of entering the labour market, to remove barriers in the way, and to make it easier for them. I do not think that the social security Bill is quite as crippling as some people suggest. But where it can be reduced by allowing people to do the things which they positively want to do, then it seems to me to be well worth doing.
If we do the costings of all this properly and we consider the overall effect on the national economy and on the world economy, the balance may not be quite as much in favour of flexibility as we think at present that it is. I say this with great tentativeness, but I shall be interested to note whether other people who know much more about this than I do also start thinking about it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am not a lawyer and I have absolutely no legal training, but I have always understood that it was a principle of law that all should be equal under the law. As the situation stands at the moment disabled people employed by smaller firms are not in an equal position to those employed by larger firms, and that is wrong. It is morally wrong. The fact that allowances have to be made for those people and alterations made to premises is protected by the concept of reasonableness. The reasonableness will depend on the firm concerned. Some small firms will struggle to exist and therefore it would be unreasonable for them to pay the cost of installing a ramp. Other small firms will make huge profits with no trouble at all and therefore in their case it would be unreasonable for a ramp not to be installed. Each case must be considered on its own merits. That can be done quite easily by considering the firm concerned and the disability of the person concerned. The same also applies to the large firms. It is, in my view, quite wrong that this discrimination—for that is what it is—should be allowed to continue. To misquote George Orwell, I am reminded of the situation that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will forgive me if at this time on a Thursday evening I do not pick up some of the rather broad points that have been made in this debate. While I endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about the need for joined-up policy thinking, the importance of considering matters such as the Fairness at Work White Paper and the social security Bill, and seeing how they all fit together, I do not think an amendment at the Report stage of the disability rights Bill is perhaps the right vehicle to address such issues.
As with the similar amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ashley in Committee, the purpose of Amendment No. 25 is to try to have another consultation about the small firms threshold before 1st January 2000. My noble friend wants to ensure that the Government reduce the small employers' threshold without necessarily waiting for the commission to be established. I know how strongly he feels about that.

419
The purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in tabling Amendment No. 26—although I am not sure whether he was speaking to that amendment or to my noble friend's amendment—
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear at the start of my speech that I would not move Amendment No. 26.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. However, the commission would have to be consulted, as we intend, because that requirement in the Bill would not be amended. The noble Lord's purpose is therefore to ensure that a consultation takes place as early as possible while trying to meet our concern that the commission should be involved. I have considered again the comments that a number of noble Lords made in Committee, but I am afraid to say that I have not been entirely persuaded by them as to the virtue of beginning a consultation before January. That does not mean to say that I and the Government are not extremely sympathetic to lowering the small firms threshold again. However, the question concerns when that should be done.
We have made clear our commitment to achieving comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Where we differ from noble Lords who have spoken on this is on the timing of implementing further change to the exclusion threshold. We believe that effective rights for disabled people require the support and understanding of business. Seeking the involvement of the commission in the future is entirely right given that we are establishing it in part to advise us on reviewing the working of the DDA and in improving awareness of disability issues among employers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, quoted what my noble friend Lady Hollis said when the Disability Discrimination Act was going through this House. I follow that by saying that in December we made a reduction in the threshold from 20 employees to 15. That is a significant step forward. We did that fairly soon after coming into government. I reiterate that it has widened the coverage of the employment provisions of the DDA to bring in 45, 000 more employers with around 800, 000 employees—that is an awful lot of additional people—any of whom may need protection in the future and 70, 000 of whom are currently disabled. Every disabled applicant for a job in these firms is also covered. Over 75 per cent. of disabled employees are now covered by these provisions. Of course I agree with my noble friend that eventually we shall want to reach those who are not covered.
The concept of reasonableness which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will certainly help to ensure that small employers are not unfairly burdened. However, at the moment we do not know how the courts will interpret the meaning of reasonableness. Preliminary findings from research that will be published soon shows that there is concern about what might count as reasonable, even among those employers covered by the DDA since December 1996. There was an expectation that case law would probably make the
420
position clearer over time but also a belief that more guidance was needed despite a detailed code of practice. Guidance is one of the things which the commission will be able to provide and by then the courts are likely to have clarified more key areas of the DDA. Therefore we see the setting up of the commission as entirely constructive and helpful in taking this measure forward.
No one will benefit from the very smallest employers having to learn by trial and error how this law applies to them. Such employers rarely have specialist personnel who can devote time and expertise to dealing with some of the issues that are involved here. There is a fear—which I think we should recognise—among very small firms that relatively small mistakes will prove costly at a tribunal. It is not so much that the costs of employing disabled people need necessarily be high, although I have to say that I do not think we should completely dismiss those costs either. There are sometimes costs. That is, I believe, recognised by everyone who has spoken.
Although many small firms already employ disabled people, a number do not. Even some of those that do know less—I think perhaps understandably—about disability than larger firms, and they do not always know how to respond effectively, as they should, to the needs of individual disabled people. All the information and advice that the commission will provide ought greatly to help in this process.
Some small firms may know about a particular disabled employee but if another develops a disability or someone with an uncommon condition applies for a job, the circumstances may not always be quite so clear. That is the reality we need to accept.
That said, disability issues are often fairly straightforward. Everyone, whether disabled or not, has their own requirements. Most can be met relatively simply and cheaply. Employers are generally quite skilled at getting the best from their employees in any event. However, the legislation is new; it is in places quite complex. We believe that difficulties in understanding and applying the law may be rather greater for those businesses that are currently below the threshold. We do not want extended protection of employees under the Disability Discrimination Act to create unjustified fears for smaller businesses which we are, through various measures at present, trying to encourage. Our economy very much depends on them. It would be unfair and, I think, would cause some employers either to avoid their duties or make very poor attempts to ensure compliance, perhaps leading to bad employment relations.
One of our key objectives is to ensure that evidence is available on the effects of the provisions on very small employers. Some of that will remove uncertainties and provide both the Government and the commission with a really informed basis for considering further change. Once again I want to reassure those noble Lords who feel strongly about the matter that we are very supportive of that. Our comprehensive programme evaluating the Disability Discrimination Act will produce findings which should help us further reassure and help business and underpin future decisions

421
concerning small employers. For instance, one research project seeks evidence of how employers, including smaller employers, are responding to the Disability Discrimination Act. All this will help to show employers that the Act's provisions can help them recruit and retain the best workers and increase their competitiveness.
It is also important that those businesses are aware of the assistance available, whether it is in a case requiring expert help or simply seeking more routine information. We have already begun the process by improving the Disability Discrimination Act helpline. That provides an increasing range of information on the Act and can help businesses and others by giving advice and helping them to make contact with specialist organisations. It is very gratifying and significant that so many voluntary organisations have joined with us to try to make this system work.
The Employment Service will continue to provide specialist help to employers who want to take on and keep disabled employees. The DRC will also help to ensure that there is appropriate awareness raising and provision of information and advice. As noble Lords will recall, we are also developing a communications strategy in co-operation with the National Disability Council and disability and employer bodies to help ensure that small businesses and others are more informed and aware. That is a very important step on the route to the wider coverage that we all seek through this legislation.
I recognise the great passion of my noble friend for making change in this area. We want to bring down the small firms' threshold further, but I hope that I have made clear why the Government believe that they should take the matter gradually and not in too much of a rush. We feel that we must await the establishment and full involvement of the DRC before we consider further change. Our proposals will ensure that the threshold is monitored and lowered in an effective and appropriate way. I make that pledge to my noble friend. I hope therefore that those noble Lords who have put their names to, and supported, these amendments—my noble friend in particular—will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am very grateful for the comprehensive way in which my noble friend has dealt with these amendments. I appreciate the trouble she has taken. She has certainly devoted a great deal of time and trouble to the matter. I wish to make just a few points. The words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, have been quoted in the course of the debate, both from the Back-Benches and the Front-Bench. I am very glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is with us today. I know that noble Lords will wish to congratulate her on her elevation to the Privy Council today.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, notwithstanding the words that have been quoted, I wish to say a few words to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. First, I appreciate her support for the amendment. I do not
422
know about her reservations. She has called for a survey. I think a survey is irrelevant because small employers should be under no illusions about the requirements of the Act as it would be amended if this amendment were accepted.
My noble friend talked about research. Again, research is helpful, but I do not really think that research is basically relevant to what is a quite simple proposition. My noble friend wondered whether small firms would face the problems of working by trial and error. I do not know where the trial and error comes into it. With the legislation as proposed by the amendment, if we ask small firms simply not to discriminate and only to do reasonable things, I cannot see any great problem. It is a matter of common sense. To build up this into a great problem is something I find very difficult. All the employers I have been in touch with know exactly what is required of their firms and how to deal with the workforce.
My noble friend said that small firms have fears of small mistakes being very costly. That is simply irrelevant. No very costly imposition can be made on small firms because the Act says, "only reasonable accommodation. "So by definition very great costs will not be imposed on them.
Nevertheless, my noble friend is clearly willing and anxious to help. I warmly appreciate that. I shall therefore seek to withdraw my amendment. I look forward to further discussions on the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Constitution et.]:
Lord Ashley of Stokehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
Page 10, leave out lines 16 and 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 27 is a manuscript amendment. The reason for that is that I made a mistake when I originally tabled the amendments. The amendments provided that the first appointment of the chairman of the commission should be a disabled person. The manuscript amendment says that the chairman of the commission shall be a disabled person.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I think Amendment No. 28A is the manuscript amendment. We are now dealing with Amendment No. 27.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not have a copy of any manuscript amendment at all.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I moved the amendment in error. I should have moved manuscript Amendment No. 28A.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
8 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved manuscript Amendment No. 28A:
Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) The Chairman of the Commission shall be a disabled person. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was attempting to explain that I made an error in tabling the original amendment, Amendment No. 28, which stated:
"The person first appointed as Chairman of the Commission shall be a disabled person".
For the information of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords the manuscript amendment states simply:
"The Chairman of the Commission shall be a disabled person".
The object is to avoid the word "first" in relation to the chairman of the commission and indicate that every chairman shall be disabled. That is the requirement of the manuscript amendment.
Undoubtedly, chairman of the commission is a key post. That person will be the commission's leader and figurehead. He or she will have a major influence on how the commission does its work in combating discrimination and implementing equal opportunities for disabled people.
By appointing a disabled person, the Government will send a clear signal to the public; whereas appointing a non-disabled chair will send the message that no suitably qualified disabled candidate can be found in the whole of England, Scotland and Wales, which is a preposterous notion. It is a sad comment on society that this amendment is required, but it is essential. We need time before it can safely be presumed that no nonsensical appointments will be made to the commission or elsewhere.
The unique experience of a disabled person cannot be replicated by a non-disabled person. It confers a striking advantage for this post. The trouble with Amendment No. 30 in the name of my noble friend the Minister is that it makes clear the Government's feeling that a non-disabled person would be acceptable. Otherwise, she would support my manuscript amendment. If we are to be deterred from making special provision because it would give the wrong impression, the Government should logically be opposed to the majority of members of the commission being disabled. Yet the Government accept that.
This amendment is of crucial importance. I cannot conceive of the chairman of the commission not being disabled. It is a unique post dealing with unique problems. I hope that the Government will find themselves able to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no bone to pick on this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. However, I hope that a precedent is not being set for us to receive, literally in our seats, a manuscript amendment. On this occasion it is a simple proposal and it has almost the same meaning as the original amendment; so there is very little change. However, in
424
the spirit of wanting to be helpful and accept the proposal at this stage, I hope that this incident will not be repeated.
I have tabled three amendments to this schedule, Amendments Nos. 29, 31 and 32. My Amendment No. 29 seeks that any appointed commissioner shall not hold office for more than a continuous period of 10 years. That does not mean that he or she may not be re-appointed at another time, but it limits any continuous period of office to 10 years.
Amendment No. 31 provides that chairmen and deputy chairmen should serve for a period of five years only. Amendment No. 32 seeks to remove the powers of the Secretary of State to make the first appointment of the chief executive.
I suspect that this body will be like many others: it will be set up in shadow form; the chairman will be appointed fairly soon; and deputy chairmen and commissioners will start to be appointed. It seems appropriate that the chairman and the staff who will be gathered around him or her should be empowered to appoint the chief executive. They will ultimately be given that job; therefore there seems to be no reason whatsoever for the Secretary of State to appoint in the first instance. My amendments are to be taken in conjunction with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke.
Lord Addington: My Lords, one point has occurred to me about the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. It refers to,
"a person who has had a disability".
The definition I had hitherto used for disability was that it was a condition that one did not get over. It was there for ever. Then I suddenly realised that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, now has a lesser degree of disability. Are we to congratulate him on his appointment?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I intended to raise the same point—though not in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, because I am sure the Minister will not tell us who is likely to be appointed. But every now and again people have a skiing accident or an accident playing football. They can be in a wheelchair for one, two or possibly three weeks. They have then had a disability. It can apply to almost anyone. It is said that at least one in six of us spends at least some time in a wheelchair.
I strongly support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that the chairman of the commission should be a person who has a disability. I also strongly support the idea that the chairman should not hold that post for more than 10 years, as that could lead to staleness. But as a fallback position I would accept the Minister's Amendment No. 30, provided that at Third Reading she is prepared to remove the phrase,
"or a person who has had a disability".
I do not believe that such a provision would work.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am in a state of confusion. It seems to me that Amendment No. 30, to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in some ways

425
contravenes the manuscript amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley; yet they are grouped together. It makes it very difficult for some of us to speak to one or the other.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I wish to speak to the manuscript amendment. I very much hope that the first chairman of the commission will be a lawyer. There are some very good disabled lawyers. But disability is so complicated and varied. As one is dealing with so many different issues, particularly in relation to employment, I believe it would be advisable to appoint a lawyer.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by commending my Amendment No. 30, which provides for either the chairman or deputy chairman to be a disabled person or a person who has had a disability. I shall address that amendment first and speak subsequently to the manuscript amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ashley and the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's position.
We had a useful debate in Committee on the appointment of commissioners. We recognised the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and others. The amendments that have been tabled to provide for the appointment of disabled persons to the post of chairman and deputy chairman and the obvious strength of feeling with which they have been advocated have given us cause for serious reflection.
I sought to assure noble Lords in Committee that the Government's concern was that all appointments should be made in accordance with the guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and that the appointments process should be seen to be open and transparent. I also said that it seems inconceivable that disabled persons would not present themselves as the best people for the job of chairman or deputy chairman, or possibly both. That is still the Government's position. I wish to reiterate that.
That said, we understand the desire to secure beyond doubt that someone who has practical experience of disability should occupy a position of influence in the commission as either chairman or deputy chairman. Noble Lords will be aware that we have already provided for the majority of commissioners to be disabled people or people who have had experience of disability. The same phrase is used in that context. We have sought to do so in order to ensure that the commission, as a body, has sufficient breadth of experience and expertise to represent the interests of all disabled people, while at the same time maintaining a balance with the interests of the commission's other key stakeholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was concerned about the definition of someone who had had a disability. It is someone who has been disabled within the definitions of the 1995 Act. They would need to have been disabled for at least 12 months and then recovered. So the example of a skiing accident with someone in a wheelchair for a week would not apply. After much consideration, we concluded that the best way forward
426
was to provide for that balance to be reflected in the senior posts for all time, but we also wanted to provide a degree of flexibility.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that up. The idea that someone has experienced a disability for a year does not concur with my idea of the definition of a disability. That could be a severe illness and there is a distinct difference between the two conditions. Will the Government try to give more guidance as to where the boundary is? There will need to be new terms of reference for millions who have been living with a disability because it was assumed, at least initially, to be a permanent condition.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps the Minister will allow me to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The Minister spoke of someone who had been disabled for a year. It is possible that most of the year would have been spent in hospital as a result of the cause of the disability. Therefore, that individual does not have experience of being disabled outside hospital in the working world.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As I pointed out, the definition is in the 1995 Act, so it is clear.
On the issue of whether someone who had been in hospital for a whole year with a disability was eligible, presumably if they were in hospital for a whole year the disability would be serious. I cannot believe that they would simply jump out of their hospital bed and go into the community without continuing to experience some of the difficulties to which a disability can lead. Perhaps we are worrying unduly about the definition.
I return to what I was saying when the noble Lord, Lord Addington, intervened. We have decided that the best way forward is to provide for a balanced view reflected in the senior posts for all time but with a degree of flexibility. Amendment No. 30 is very similar to that tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Rix, in Committee. I accept that it is not identical, but it is similar. My amendment differs from that of my noble friend Lord Ashley and certainly from the one that he originally put down in that it provides for either the chairman or the deputy chairman always to be a disabled person or a person who has had a disability.
Since then, my noble friend has decided not to move the first amendment and instead he put down a manuscript amendment. While I understand his wish that the chairman should be a disabled person, I believe that the amendment tabled in my name presents the best way forward. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government have listened and responded to the issue and that noble Lords will support the Government's amendment.
Amendment No. 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seeks to ensure that no commissioner, as a result of being re-appointed, serves longer than 10 years

427
continuously. Amendment No. 31 seeks to ensure that the persons appointed as chairman and deputy chairman hold office for a fixed term of five years.
I referred earlier to the OCPA guidance. This guidance has been taken into account in drafting Schedule 1. It makes clear that commissioners should expect overall to be in post for no longer than six to 10 years if they have been re-appointed. Clearly, those who are not re-appointed will serve a shorter term. So no one under the schedule as drafted would be expected to serve for longer than 10 years. The vast majority of commissioners would serve for less than that time. I hope that noble Lords will accept my assurance that our intention is to comply fully with the OCPA guidance and that it is not envisaged that any commissioner will ever serve longer than 10 years continuously. There need to be new ideas and new blood on the commission. I hope that the explanation will mean that the noble Baroness will not want to press the two amendments.
In following the guidance of the OCPA, we are providing flexibility for appointments to be made for between two and five years, rather than being constrained to a strict five years as the amendment would require.
The Bill already allows for all the DRC's commissioners, including those who are appointed as chairman and deputy chairman, to be appointed for up to five years. In addition, they may be re-appointed. That is consistent with our determination to create a commission which is not only independent but is also able to operate flexibly. To appoint a chairman and deputy chairman rigidly for a strict five-year period would be inflexible and would not be in the best interests of either the commission or its key stakeholders.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath explained in Committee why, for practical reasons, the Government wish to avoid a situation where the chairman and deputy chairman are forced to stand down at around the same time during the same year for no other reason than that the Secretary of State had to appoint them for a fixed term, as required by the amendment. I am also conscious that the circumstances of some candidates for commissioner posts might preclude them from accepting an appointment or re-appointment were it to run, as this amendment would require, for a strict five-year period. The commission and its stakeholders would suffer, therefore, by losing the services of people who would otherwise be able to make a valuable contribution. While the Government's intention will be to make the appointments for more than two years in the first instance, we wish to be able to exercise a degree of flexibility where circumstances require it. I hope that noble Lords will agree that to appoint the chairman and deputy chairman for a strict five-year period would not be in everyone's best interests.
The noble Baroness also tabled an amendment which seeks to remove the provision to allow the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive of the commission. I stress that the provision is for the appointment of the first chief executive. It would be for
428
the commission to appoint the subsequent chief executives. Such practice is the convention in non-departmental public bodies.
It is important that the first chief executive has a role in shaping the commission before it opens for business. He or she must also be appointed early enough to take part in that process. The commission will hardly be in a position to undertake that function at that early stage, but to delay such an appointment until many or perhaps all of the commissioners are in place and sufficiently settled in to run an appointments exercise means that the chief executive cannot make a contribution, certainly not a full one, to the establishment of the commission. It is likely that the absence of a chief executive will also delay its establishment, which no one who has taken part in this debates wants. To allow the Secretary of State to make this appointment will overcome these practical difficulties. I reassure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will consult fully the newly-appointed chairman on the appointment of the chief executive. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble friend teased me about not pursuing my first amendment, but she has not listened to my original speech. I said then that I had made a mistake. I was horrified to note the word "first" in the amendment. Clearly, I do not want an able-bodied chairman and that is the purpose of this manuscript amendment. It was after I realised that that I tabled the manuscript amendment.
I appreciate the very real advance that my noble friend has outlined. There is no doubt that she is trying to accommodate the views of the House in that way. The problem is that under my noble friend's formula it is possible for the deputy chairman to be disabled and the chairman to be able-bodied. That is the complete opposite of what we want. I do not want the chairman to be able-bodied, as set out in the manuscript amendment; I want the chairman to be disabled for all the reasons that I have explained.
We have arrived at an impasse. All I can say is that at a later stage in another place this matter will be pursued very vigorously. While I appreciate the advance that has been made by my noble friend, the phrase that comes to mind in this context is "it ain't enough". I hope that my noble friend will feel able at some stage to accept the principle of the amendment that every chairman of the commission should be disabled. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 10, line 35, at end insertx2014;
("(2) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers of appointment under this paragraph with a view to securing that at least one of the persons holding office as chairman or deputy chairman is a disabled person or a person who has had a disability. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert—
(". Where appropriate, Commissioners, staff and advisers of the Commission may appoint personnel for the purposes of personal advocacy or communication support. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is rather late in the evening. I also have a reasonable idea as to the response that I shall receive from the Dispatch Box. Nevertheless, I should like to say a few words in moving this amendment if only perhaps to soften the Minister's heart and make her response even more generous.
In principle, I hope that noble Lords share my view that people with learning disabilities, sensory impairments or mental health problems should be able to play an active part in the commission and put themselves forward as commissioners. In practice the job may be impossible for a commissioner with a learning disability unless appropriate support is provided in assisting that commissioner in the fulfilment of his or her duties. Working with the commission will involve dealing with some highly complex legal material and meeting those who are, unfortunately, resistant to advancing the civil rights of disabled people.
The principle of this amendment is not about providing commissioners with benefits in kind, such as travel expenses, but rather about ensuring that no one is prohibited from playing his or her part in the role of the commission on the grounds that the commission cannot afford to support that individual's involvement. In practice, this amendment may not achieve that aim, but I am sure that with support of the principle the Minister can find the political will to charge her officials to draft a suitable amendment, and a suitable consequential amendment, to cover the appointment of additional commissioners under Schedule 2.
The Minister has been kind enough to enter into correspondence on this issue and indicated her readiness to confirm that the commission will be able to provide the kind of support to which I refer. For that I am most grateful. It seems that we are nearly there. However, the last mile is always the hardest and this will be no exception. But perhaps the Minister will go one step further and confirm that the commission will guarantee the principle that no one will be prohibited from taking on a role with the commission on the basis that his or her support requirements are too costly. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I warmly support this amendment. I should like to refer to three groups who very much require support if they are to become commissioners. It is important that they get this opportunity because they are very much cinderellas for very diverse reasons. First, my noble friend mentioned those with communication difficulties, for example deaf people. Users of British sign language, of whom I believe there are 64,500, are very much excluded from lots of activities and their needs are ignored. It is very important to have a commissioner who uses sign language. Secondly, there are people with mental disability. Thirdly, my noble friend mentioned people with mental illness. This is a very common problem. One in four people may have a mental illness. Some people hold down
430
jobs as directors of social services, company directors and so on, but others find that to explain a gap in their CVs as time spent in prison rather than in a psychiatric hospital can increase their chances of being offered a job, which I find terrifying. I made reference to this matter at Committee stage. I repeat it because I should like to clear up one matter that arises in Hansard on 4th February at col. 1679. I apparently made reference to people with a mental disability who had this difficulty and explained gaps in their CVs as time spent in prison. I meant to refer to people with mental illness. I do not know whether that arose because of fuzzy diction or thinking, but I should like to clear up that misunderstanding. I warmly support my noble friend's amendment and hope that the Minister will give an encouraging reply.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the idea of allowing someone with a disability to have support staff to take part in this commission must be looked upon with at least a degree of sympathy. Basically, we are considering here giving these individuals sufficient support to allow them to do the job properly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, seeks to ensure that commissioners, staff and advisers of the commission are able to appoint advocacy and communication support workers where appropriate. I recognise and support the intentions behind the amendment. I have no argument with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on this matter.
In carrying out its new role and functions the disability rights commission will strive to operate as a model of good practice. One of the most obvious ways in which it will have the opportunity to demonstrate this will be the way in which it provides support for its disabled commissioners and staff. I can assure noble Lords, therefore, that this amendment is unnecessary. Clause 2 gives the commission wide-ranging powers, and Schedule 1, paragraph 10(1)(b), establishes a wide power for the commission to appoint its own staff, only subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in terms of their numbers, and conditions of employment. The width of these powers extends to providing advocacy and communication support for its disabled commissioners and staff, and indeed goes beyond that. For example, the Bill as drafted currently allows the commission to provide support to additional commissioners and to provide types of support that may be necessary beyond advocacy and communication.
To specify on the face of the Bill that support should be provided to particular people for particular purposes might serve to limit the commission's powers. My speaking note advises me to quote the Latin phrase used in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Alas, I am not up to the task, but the translation is that if one expresses one thing one excludes another or others. I believe that it applies here equally. In view of that clarification, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.

431
Perhaps I may answer a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It would be for the commission to decide how to spend its budget. In that sense, it is not a matter for the Government, but I cannot see any way in which it would be reasonable for the commission to refuse to meet the necessary support costs of a commissioner with, say, learning disabilities.
Lord Rix: My Lords, there is a slight response to the Minister's last statement. At MENCAP we had as a member of the national council a young woman with learning disabilities. She was an active and good member of the national council but was unable to attend any sub-committee meetings because of the costs involved and because her employers were unable to release her to attend during the working week. She could attend national council meetings on Saturdays, but not sub-committee meetings during the working week. Considerable additional costs would have been required to pay the employers to allow her to come to London and take part in committee activities. Will the commission be capable of meeting such expenses because the situation must apply to more than one of its members?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, ultimately, that is a matter for the commission. However, within its budget of £11 million, it would be reasonable to expect it to meet the costs of providing for the needs of disabled commissioners and their staff.
Lord Rix: My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Formal investigations and non-discrimination notices]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) Where the Commission refuses to receive oral representations under sub-paragraph (4), it shall give reasons for that refusal in writing to the parties concerned. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to the issue of oral representations in order to try to press the Minister once again to consider that reasons should be given when a refusal is made. If, as I suspect, the Minister rejects my plea, perhaps I may make another suggestion to which he might respond.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said:
"I reassure the Committee that the Government fully expect that almost invariably it will be right for the commission to give its reasons and that in 99.9 per cent. of cases it will do so". —[Official Report, 4/2/99; col. 1686.]
If that is the case, will the Minister accept at least the suggestion that the presumption should be in favour of giving reasons when a refusal is made but that exceptions exist for such a refusal? I believe that it should appear on the face of the Bill that the
432
presumption should be in favour of giving reasons why a person cannot make an oral representation. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Schedule 3 sets out the detailed procedure to be followed by the Commission in conducting formal investigations and issuing non-discrimination notices. Paragraph 8 prevents the commission issuing non-discrimination notices unless it has first notified the person concerned of its reasons for doing so and given him or his representative an opportunity to make written and oral representations.
Paragraph 8(4) allows the commission to refuse to receive oral representations made on behalf of the person concerned by someone whom it has reasonable grounds to consider unsuitable. I have noted the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to have on the face of the Bill a provision requiring the commission to give its reasons in writing if it refuses to receive oral representations, but I continue to believe that such a provision is unnecessary.
As was said in Committee by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, both the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act give the other equality commissions similar powers to refuse to receive oral representations without requiring them to give their reasons for a refusal in writing. So far as I am aware, there has been no suggestion that the system has failed to operate satisfactorily. I believe that it would be wrong to impose a requirement on the commission to give reasons in writing for refusing to receive oral representations.
It is best to trust the commission to exercise its judgment in a fair and balanced manner. There is nothing to prevent the parties concerned specifically requesting in writing the commission's reasons for refusing to receive oral representations and, as my noble friend suggested in Committee, it is most unlikely that the commission would refuse to do so in such circumstances. I noted the noble Baroness's suggestion that there should be a presumption in favour of releasing that information. I should like to give that further consideration and return to it at a later stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 17, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall arrange for the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the register when the action required by the notice has been complied with. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if the disability rights commission is to keep a register of non-discrimination notices issued to companies, as set out in the Bill, it ought also to be required to record and/or note when the action required in the notice has been taken.
It appears inequitable if a company's name can appear on a register as having failed or breached its obligation under the law when it may have acted unwittingly and

433
readily found a remedy to meet its obligations. There should be an opportunity for its name to be removed from the register.
I remember similar tension arising in respect of the land pollution legislation under which people were recorded as being the owners of polluted land. After they had taken all the necessary action to remove the pollution there was tension about being removed from the register. Once on the register, companies will be there for all time unless there is a requirement for the commission to remove their names. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this is a reasonable suggestion; otherwise, a company's name could appear on the register 20 years later when its management and policies had changed and for the past 19½ years it had behaved perfectly properly. It is unreasonable that a company's name should remain permanently on the register; it may, however, be reasonable for a period of, say, two or three years. Even if we are unwise enough to earn penalty points on our driving licences, after a time they are expunged and we can go forward with a clean licence. We all should have the opportunity of redemption.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is sensible.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has a point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. Schedule 3(13) requires the DRC to maintain a register of non-discrimination notices which have become final and to make the register publicly available. The purpose of the amendment is to require the commission to arrange for the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the register when the action required by the notice has been complied with.
As the comments of noble Lords would suggest, on the face of it the principle behind the amendment would seem to be reasonable. However, some fundamental issues must be dealt with. For example, first, would it be appropriate to set a particular period of time after which the non-discrimination notice should be removed from the register? The Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act allow the existing equality commissions to monitor compliance with a non-discrimination notice for up to five years after it had been issued, and it is intended that we should seek to make a similar provision for the DRC through regulations. Would five years be an appropriate time? If there is still action required by the non-discrimination notice with which the company has not complied after five years, would it be reasonable to expect the commission to undertake a further investigation and issue a further notice?
Secondly, when should the calculating period start? For example, should it start from the point at which a non-discrimination notice becomes final or should it
434
start from the point at which the action required by the non-discrimination notice has been complied with and then cover a period during which the company would be expected to demonstrate a clean record? When would it be said to have complied if there is indeed a five-year monitoring period? Would it be from the end of that period or at some other point during that period?
I am sympathetic to the idea behind the amendment, but it requires further consideration. I should be interested in the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the points which I have raised, which I should be happy to consider before later stages of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are not many later stages of the Bill. We have only one more opportunity to discuss the matter. The Minister asked some very reasonable questions about what the amendment would mean in practice. Perhaps he will accept the principle that where a company has complied immediately with the notice and has lived through the monitoring, then it should have its name removed. After all, criminals have their names removed from the register. They can claim not to have a criminal record after a period of time. If someone who receives a caution does not offend within a certain period of time, that disappears also. It seems fair that that should happen also to a company which has been entirely compliant.
I accept that there are practical questions in relation to whether it should be a fixed period and, if so, what it should be and when it should start. Those matters could be dealt with in secondary legislation if the principle were accepted on the face of the Bill and if a power were made to allow the commission to remove a name from the register as long as it met the criteria laid down in secondary legislation.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will think about this issue between now and the next stage. I should be grateful if he will indicate his intentions before then so that I am in a position, if necessary, to table an amendment to deal with the matter. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Code of Practice on School Admissions
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That this House declines to approve the draft Code of Practice on School Admissions laid before the House under Sections 84 and 85 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 on 5th February 1999.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to pray against the code of practice which is before the House and which is due to come into force fairly soon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has reminded the House on many occasions that one of the principles behind the Government's legislation is that there should be greater clarification, transparency, simplification and, in particular, a lessening of the burden on schools.
I have looked at this code of practice. Staff of schools are in despair both about its interpretation and the work which will have to be undertaken in order to comply with the code. The code of practice has to be read in conjunction with a very large number of pieces of legislation. For example, in paragraph 1.2 account has to be taken of the Code on Admission Appeals. I ask the noble Baroness when we are likely to see that. In paragraph A. 10, account must be taken of the education (relevant areas) regulations 1998. In paragraph A.11, teachers have to understand, read and take into account the Education (Determination of Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999 and, in paragraph A. 19, they have to take into account, understand and read the Education (Objections to Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999. In paragraph A. 42, they have equally to take into account and understand the Education (Infant Class Sizes) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1998. In paragraph A. 58, they have to refer to the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998 and in paragraph A. 70 the Education (Aptitude for Prescribed Subjects) Regulations 1998. In paragraph A. 76 reference is made to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and in paragraph A. 77 there is reference to the Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 1998.
The people who will have to interpret this code of practice are very busy head teachers. They will have to do an enormous amount of work and they almost need the qualifications of a lawyer to do all that cross-referencing, and the Government have not thought fit to produce a code which makes all that self-explanatory.
At page 4 of the code there is the heading:
"Applications: common forms and timetables".
That paragraph begins with the sentence:
"The local admissions process should be as simple as possible for parents".
I have said already how complex and difficult this matter is, but of course it is important that it should be simple for parents. I doubt whether parents will be able to get their minds around the list of regulations which I have read out. But it is important that it should be as simple as possible and easy to execute for schools and their staff. Therefore, my first objection is the complexity and the burden on schools which will have to make sense of the code and convey it to parents.
At paragraph 5.9, under the heading "Primary schools" it states:
"Academic selection should not be used to decide entry into primary education".
There is at least one school in the country, the Oratory School, which takes children into its prep department at the age of seven. On the basis of the criteria used to determine whether a school is a primary school, a secondary school, a GM mixed or infant school, those children are considered to be children attending a secondary school. It is true also that those children are interviewed for entry into the prep department, and it is true also that the pupils need a particular level of ability to cope with not only the normal school curriculum
436
but also the additional specialist school curriculum. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will say what status paragraph 5.9 has in relation to a school such as the Oratory with a prep department as part of the school.
Paragraph 5.25, which is concerned with interviews, states:
"Schools or admission authorities should not interview parents as any part of the application or admission process".
When recruiting children for a specialist school, it is important that there is some form of interview and assessment of a child's aptitude for a particular specialist subject. It is almost impossible to make the distinction between aptitude and ability when one is talking about science and technology or the more technical subjects. It would be helpful to have some clarification as to how that will work in practice.
Paragraph A. 41 is concerned with standard numbers and flexibility. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us first about the sixth forms. Many schools not only keep their own young people in a sixth form but they also take in pupils from other schools. There is at least one school—I cannot remember its name—in the Hammersmith and Fulham authority area—which has no legal basis at all. I do not know whether that has ever been resolved. It certainly had not been resolved at the point at which I left the DfE. The lawyers were still crawling over the matter. It has no legal basis. It accepts children after the age of 16 and it accepts them from beyond the local authority area. It would be helpful to know from the noble Baroness how one deals with standard numbers in that case.
As regards sixth formers, it is quite common for schools to interview students for sixth forms. They have to do that. If young people wish to take particular subjects, it is almost common practice, even within a school where a young person moves from the year below into the sixth form in the same school, for a judgment to be made by interview with the young student and often with the family, on whether the young person has the ability and the aptitude for taking particular subjects in the sixth form. I wonder what the Government say about that. The code is not very clear on that subject.
My final point is the enormous confusion, particularly in the London area and the more urban areas such as Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool, where schools take from a very wide area. One has only to think of our own Prime Minister who sends his children to school across LEA boundaries, along with many other people. If the relevant area is the whole of London how much time is going to be taken up by an individual headmaster or headmistress and the staff in consulting, as they must do under the law, with the relevant area if it is as wide as Greater London? It would be helpful to have the noble Baroness's comments on each of those points. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House declines to approve the draft Code of Practice on School Admissions laid before the House under Sections 84 and 85 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 on 5th February 1999. —(Baroness Blatch.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I was reading the papers for this Motion I was reminded of a correspondence in the Times Educational Supplement in 1984 between Sir Alfred Sherman and Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was. They were discussing the failure to introduce a voucher system for school admission. Sir Alfred, in his usual pugnacious style, regarded that as a result of pernicious left-wing influence among the civil servants. Sir Keith, one of the most honourable men I have known, said that, first, they had convinced him by sheer rational argument that a complete market with a voucher system was incompatible with a universal service and, secondly, even if they had been wrong about that, he was responsible. He had taken the decision and Sir Alfred should have attacked him and not the civil servants. It was one of the more admirable letters that I have read.
But this potential clash between a market and a universal service is something which underlies a great deal of the debate tonight. We have on the one hand a sort of global market in schools set up by the Greenwich judgment. I have not forgotten the visit to Orpington during the last general election and listening to the problems caused by the number of Bromley children who could not attend any school to which they could travel because all the places had been taken up by people from outside the borough. How far one can have a global market without having any losers is a paradox which I do not believe market theory altogether solves.
We have a comprehensive system plus selection. That is another paradox. We have partial selection, which is a rather mulish form of paradox. It has a distinctly hybrid quality about it. For example, we have one school in the London Borough of Sutton which is partially selective. It is taking people from as far away as Brighton. That is setting up a sort of market in schools which is causing quite considerable difficulties for school admissions in Sutton. We wonder why it is insisted that interviews are still to be permissible for church schools, especially since the Church of England Board of Education, which my honourable friend has consulted, said that the Church saw no particular need for it and would be quite happy to let it go.
Again, there is a paradox as regards admissions in keeping up a combination of a universal school service plus the autonomy of each individual local school. I remember discussing these paradoxes during a number of education Bills introduced into this House by the noble Baroness. I am sure that she remembers them. We suggested then, as we do now, that moving away from a local authority responsibility for admissions was going to create a great many problems about where responsibility lay.
We could not have exactly what we wanted—one very rarely can in this world. On our Benches, we have reached a compromise with the Government that if we could not have a local authority responsibility for
438
admissions, then local authority schools should have the same sort of autonomy as grant-maintained schools so that there should be a level playing field. We have agreed that compromise and we hold to it.
However, looking at these paradoxes I cannot help but be reminded of the description of the religious policy of Henry VIII: that he was like one who would throw a man from the top of a high tower and bid him stay where he was when halfway down. We have had all these principles of school autonomy, markets and so forth introduced into the middle of what is still a universal service. I do not believe that they mix. I do not see that anyone on any Bench is yet ready to tackle the task of bringing logic back into the system. Attempts to bring logic back into education have always tended to involve imposing one particular philosophy which has not met acceptance from the next government. It is no wonder that people in education are suffering from what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, once described as "innovation fatigue".
While we are thinking about these subjects, I also hope that thought will be given to the question of how much spare capacity we need in the school system. There is a casual reference at the beginning of the code of practice to reducing capacity in the name of efficiency. I hope that it will not be quite the same efficiency that has been applied to reducing the rolling stock on Virgin Railways, for example. There is a point beyond which efficiency is not efficient.
I also hope that some thought will be given to the implications of the Rotherham judgment, which says that a parent who has expressed a preference, even if it is the second, third, fourth or umpteenth preference, is to take priority over a parent who has not. That again is making it hard for people to gain admission to their own local schools.
I also believe that we need, and have always needed, to think about education admissions in the context of transport. That is something where joined-up government has yet to happen and I look forward to it. Effectively, the range of choices available to pupils is the range of choices between schools to which they can get transport. It is a particular problem in the: London Borough of Bromley where the effects of the Greenwich judgment have been very severe indeed.
The noble Baroness pointed out that all this is extremely complicated to administer. So it is; I agree with her. The question is: first, how did we get here? I believe that the noble Baroness made some contribution to that. The second question is: how do we get out of it? If we were to decide that the system we have is now too hybrid to be really workable, which way are we going to alter it? Are we going to continue to have a market within a universal service? If not, the Greenwich judgment will have to be repealed. If the answer is yes, then many of these problems will continue. Are we going to have selection continuing within the comprehensive system? If we are the Sutton problems will continue.
At present I do not see any general political will or any consensus emerging which will allow us to provide any workable and potentially durable solution to these

439
problems. Until we do I am not at all certain that the mess can be made any tidier than it is now. It is difficult. It is not appropriate for teachers to have to understand all these various regulations to which the noble Baroness referred. That always was our case, as I have argued from these Benches before, in favour of local authority control of admissions rather than complete autonomy for every school.
As that does not seem to be a practical possibility, and as we do not intend to reopen a compromise that we have honourably and seriously reached, I do not want to make any further criticism but simply to suggest that we have problems and we must all think of a solution. Yes, it is difficult, but we have arrived here and we all have to take a share of the responsibility. The house is glass; the glass needs mending; but I do not think that we should be throwing stones.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government plan to bring this new admissions code of practice into force on 1st April. It will apply to admission arrangements for primary and secondary schools for September 2000 and beyond. The purpose of the code is to give vital practical guidance to local education authorities and schools. I should make it clear at the beginning that that guidance is not for parents, and, in turn, local education authorities will be asked to provide adequate advice and information for parents. The code will include five sets of regulations which are required to implement the new school admissions framework.
The five sets of regulations currently before Parliament are due to come into force from 1st April 1999 and it is crucial that the admissions code comes into effect at the same time. The code will have statutory force; so local education authorities, schools which are admission authorities, the adjudicator and admission appeal panels will have to have regard to the guidelines in the new code. In addition to the requirement—in initial year regulations which have been in force since 6th January this year—for them to consult upon and determine their admission arrangements by 1st April and 1st May 1999 respectively, they also need to make other essential preparations over the coming weeks for September 2000 admissions. The code must be in place from our planned date of 1st April to give those involved in the admissions process sufficient time to ensure that all their arrangements for school admissions from September 2000 can benefit from the guidance it contains.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have asked a number of specific questions. They have also made one or two more general points. I shall respond to the general point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that such arrangements are too complex for parents and schools to follow. Perhaps I do not need to explain this as I believe the noble Baroness is fully aware of it, but the arrangements are not for schools as a whole; they are for admission authorities; that means LEAs and a small minority of schools, those that are grant-maintained and will become foundations and voluntary-aided schools. We do not need to worry
440
that all the different regulations that the noble Baroness read out are something that we would expect parents to try to follow.
The code sets out—fairly clearly, I think—for admission authorities what are the arrangements. Moreover, the Government have consulted on the code and have received many responses, the vast majority of which are extremely positive. The noble Baroness's suggestion that the schools are "in despair"—I believe she used those words—does not in any way bear out what the Government have found on the basis of that consultation.
The new framework should not place onerous burdens on schools. For LEA and voluntary-controlled schools where the LEA is the admissions authority, there will be no additional burdens, as consultation should already have taken place between the LEAs and their schools over proposed admission arrangements. The foundation and voluntary-aided schools will be required to consult other admission authorities in the area. I am now talking about the consultation burden on schools. Where a local admissions forum is established to form a consensus on admissions arrangements at a local level, LEAs will be responsible for ensuring that the forums receive the service support that they need.
The noble Baroness asked when the code of practice on admissions appeals will be available. A draft of the admissions appeals code of practice will be sent out for consultation after Easter. A final version of the code will be laid before Parliament in June and the code will come into effect, subject, of course, to Parliament, on 1st September 1999.
The noble Baroness also asked about the London Oratory School. Special school provision is covered by the existing partial selection regime referred to in paragraph 5.11. However, if there are objections to any of the London Oratory School's arrangements, they can be made to the adjudicator either by the local education authority in the area or by parents.
The noble Baroness also asked about the admissions authorities which admit pupils from other schools into sixth forms. Such authorities should publish an admission number for admissions from outside the school. They are required to publish an admission number at each normal year of entry.
The noble Baroness also asked about the 1998 Act permitting selection by ability to sixth forms, which is Section 92(2)(c). Again, such arrangements will be subject to statutory consultation and objection may be made to the adjudicator.
The noble Baroness mentioned possible confusion in a large area such as London. It is unlikely that any LEA will set a relevant area as wide as the whole of London—and it is the LEA, not the school, which sets the relevant area. I should have thought that in London it would be much more likely that a relevant area would comprise a London borough. In London, the boroughs are the LEAs. However, they will, of course, have to take into account the point that the noble Baroness rightly made that quite large numbers of parents in London do not send their children to school in the borough in which they live but to a neighbouring

441
borough. That is particularly likely where they live close to a borough border. Local education authorities are well aware of the burdens on schools and would not want to set a relevant area that is much too wide.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl referred to partial selection. The noble Earl mentioned selection within a comprehensive system. Our policies are well known and we shall deliver our commitment on this. We want to move forward, whereas I think—and I believe that the noble Earl suggested this—that there is a sense in which the Conservative Party wants to cling to some of the existing forms of selection which we believe are inequitable. We want a system that works in the best interests of all children and parents, not one that is confusing and divisive or which in any way restricts parental choice.
The noble Baroness also asked about ability and aptitude. Again, a modern education system should deliver high standards for all children within a framework which is sufficiently diverse to meet their individual needs. That is why the new admissions framework allows schools with a specialism in one or more prescribed subjects to have admission arrangements which allow that school to give priority to up to 10 per cent. of pupils on the basis of their aptitude for that specialism.
There is a distinction between "aptitude" and "ability". Indeed, the previous administration recognised that distinction. Aptitude has nothing to do with prior or current educational attainment. The code makes it clear that children who will be able to benefit from teaching in a specific subject or who have demonstrated a particular capacity to succeed in a subject can be regarded as having an aptitude for that subject. The aim is to enable the particular skills of a child to be matched with the particular strengths of a particular school. We want children who have the capacity to succeed in a particular area to have the opportunity to benefit from the facilities which particular schools with specialisms might have.
The noble Earl asked about the Greenwich judgment. It has never been possible to guarantee every child a place at the school of their choice, as I am sure that the noble Earl understands. Popular schools will sometimes have more applicants than available places. Reversing the Greenwich judgment would not alter the fact that popular, over-subscribed schools would not be able to admit all their applicants. Many parents would find it difficult to understand the rationale behind the resurrection of an artificial barrier to their choice. They would not see the justification behind the fact that although they live next door to a school, they cannot gain admission to it for their child because they are on the wrong side of the LEA boundary. There is no general body of support—
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may make a clarification which I should have made earlier. I was not intending to refer to cases of people who live close to a borough boundary; I was more concerned with long-distance migration.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for clarifying what he meant. Our admissions
442
framework ensures that LEAs consult with neighbouring education authorities about their admission arrangements where pupils may be travelling rather longer distances across LEA boundaries. That consultation will enable the LEAs to work together to ensure that admission arrangements work in the best interests of all parents in areas affected by substantial cross-border movement of pupils.
The noble Earl also asked about the Rotherham judgment. Paragraph A. 28 on page 18 of the draft code provides guidance on that judgment. Sixth-form admissions are covered in paragraph A. 41. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to that.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl asked about interviews. The code makes it absolutely clear that interviews should only be conducted under limited circumstances. Church schools may carry out interviews but only in order to assess religious or denominational commitment. Boarding schools may carry out interviews to assess the suitability of a child for a boarding place. We recognise that there is a difficult balance to be struck.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way again. Can she explain what evidence the church schools can get on commitment from an interview that they could not get from a letter from the local vicar?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, church schools requested that they should continue to be able to interview parents about denominational commitment and this, after considerable thought, the Government conceded. Clearly, this is something we shall want to monitor to see how it works in practice. The Churches do not take quite the same position as the church schools and have suggested that it is perhaps possible to find other ways of determining that commitment. For the time being we have recognised that this is an issue about which church schools feel strongly and have therefore made the concession.
I have tried to answer all the questions. I may have failed to succeed, but at this late hour perhaps it makes more sense if I read what the noble Earl and the noble Baroness said, and if there is anything I have failed to pick up on, perhaps I can write to them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness writes with clarification on a number of points because many of the answers leave even more questions in the air.
The code itself is very ambiguous. The noble Baroness says she has read it carefully. I have read it very carefully too. There are a number of areas where there is confusion in the way it is written between the admissions authority and the local education authority. The noble Baroness referred to LEAs being the main body. There are many schools which will be their own admissions authority and they are headed up by head teachers and their staff. They will need to understand the complexities of this code of practice and all the regulations with which it is cross-referenced, just as the LEAs will. Any school within an LEA needs to

443
understand that too. The idea that schools remain blithely ignorant and only the LEA understands is unacceptable. It is the school that has face-to-face contact with a parent who is aggrieved for one reason or another and has to give them an explanation. So the idea that schools will not need to understand or bother their pretty little heads about the code, nor indeed the parents, I am afraid I simply do not accept.
The noble Baroness also said that the LEAs set the relevant area. I accept that too. When a school such as the Oratory and many other schools in London take from a London-wide area—from as far away as Islington as I mentioned earlier—is the noble Baroness actually saying that there is no requirement on that school, which will be its own admissions authority, to consult parents in the area from which it has traditionally taken children; that is, from places as distant as north London and the extremes of the southern London boundary? It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could deal with that matter in the letter.
The noble Baroness said that the draft paper for appeals will not be out until after Easter and will not be ready for presentation to Parliament until June. That is awfully late. It leaves a matter of a few weeks for the schools and the education authority to get to grips with a very sensitive area of activity; that is, the appeals system, which could well be a factor they will be dealing with in September.
The code of practice was meant to make things easier and clearer for parents. I am afraid that it does not. Many of the answers we have heard tonight will not help them either.
My final question concerns interviews. I return to the prep department of the Oratory. Is the noble Baroness officially saying that it is deemed to be a selective school and, under the paragraph to which the noble Baroness referred me at the end of Annex A, any degree of selection that was deemed to be in place at the time of the passing of the Act shall continue? In other words, it is selective and therefore can continue to be selective and interview for selection. It would be helpful to have clarification. I think it is deemed to be a secondary school and therefore the primary school paragraphs will not apply to it.
The noble Baroness did not refer to the necessity for all schools to interview for suitability for entering into the sixth form and taking specific courses. It has been common practice throughout the country. I suspect it will be difficult to continue without it and it will be more pertinent in the context of the code for those schools which take sixth formers from outside their own school catchment area. That applies, of course, to many sixth forms because an increasing number of schools throughout the country over recent years have opted not to have a sixth form and therefore there have grown up sixth form colleges or a school with a sixth form that draws from a wider area. It would be helpful also to have some clarification of the processes of interviewing, selection and recruitment into what are ostensibly sixth form colleges but which, for the purposes of designation, are in fact schools.
444
The noble Baroness did not refer to the one school in Hammersmith and Fulham which is well known to her department as having no legal basis. Perhaps she can say, first, what is the designation of that school and, secondly, how the code impacts on that school and that LEA.
I shall seek to withdraw my Motion, as is the convention, but I am extremely dissatisfied with the code. It was, I believe, dismissed lightly as not mattering to teachers and head teachers. I believe it will cause them great grief. We shall see that only when the code of practice is up and running. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Rating (Valuation) Bill
9.21 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is a short Bill which concerns the valuation of properties for national non-domestic rates. Its purpose is limited and concerns a matter of principle. I cannot however pretend that the subject matter is straightforward. That is reflected in the length of my opening speech, for which I apologise to the House.
The Bill is necessary following a decision of the Lands Tribunal in a rating valuation case in March 1998. I will refer to that case and its implications shortly. The Bill aims to overcome the effects of that decision by placing the law on rating valuations on a fair and equitable footing and ensuring parity of treatment between ratepayers. It makes explicit one of the key assumptions that underlie the valuations made for both the 1990 and 1995 rating lists. Just as importantly, it also clarifies the position with regard to future revaluations.
As noble Lords will be aware, annual rates bills are calculated by multiplying the rateable value by a figure—equivalent to a rate in the pound—set annually by the Government. It is therefore essential that these rateable values are assessed fairly. A full revaluation exercise is carried out every five years. Revaluations are carried out on the basis of a common valuation date; for example, the revaluation in 1995 was based on rental values on 1st April 1993. The 2000 revaluation is currently under way based on rental values on 1st April 1998.
As noble Lords will know, rateable values are the equivalent of a notional annual rent estimated for each rateable premises on the basis of a so-called "hypothetical tenancy". Until the introduction of national non-domestic rates in 1990, the basis on which this rent was estimated allowed for two different bases of valuation, depending on the type of property to be valued. The first (used for non-industrial property) was a valuation on the assumption that the landlord under the hypothetical tenancy would be responsible for keeping the property in repair. This was called valuation to "gross value" and deductions were made from the

445
figure arrived at to reach the rateable value. It was established by case law that, when valuing to gross value, an assumption was made that the property was in a state of reasonable repair, disregarding any repairs which would be uneconomic to carry out. The majority of commercial properties were assessed on that basis.
The alternative basis of valuation was valuation to net annual value, where the tenant was deemed to be responsible for repairs. While there is no reported judgment which gives detailed consideration to the question whether the same assumption applies in net annual value cases, leading writers have given their opinion that there was nonetheless no necessary difference, and the same assumption had to be made; that is, that premises were to be deemed to be in a state of reasonable repair when estimating their annual value.
The rating hypothesis was altered in 1990 as a result of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which was introduced by the previous government. Schedule 6 to the Act, which this Bill seeks to amend, requires the obligation for ongoing repairs to be assumed to be that of the tenant under the hypothetical tenancy, whereas under the previous system, as I have said, it was assumed to be the responsibility of the hypothetical landlord. This change reflected the general movement in the non-domestic property market towards leases where the tenant had such a repairing obligation. Thus it reflected the real world. It allowed valuers to use direct rental evidence obtained from leases without having to adjust that evidence to accord with the hypothesis, as happened prior to 1990.
However, it was not the then government's intention that the approach to valuation should change in respect of the assumption of a state of reasonable repair. Indeed, valuation officers continued to apply the primary assumption in valuing a property; namely, that it was in a state of reasonable repair.
However, the decision in the case of Benjamin v. Anston Properties given by the Lands Tribunal on 11th March 1998 was to the effect that this approach was wrong. The tribunal found instead that rating valuations should reflect the actual repair condition of the property on the valuation date. The decision in the Anston case would allow any ratepayer who considered it was to his advantage to challenge his valuation assessment in either or both of the 1990 and 1995 rating lists. The ratepayer would be able to cite the decision in Anston in support of an appeal on the grounds that the rateable value ascribed to his property in the rating list did not take account of the actual repair condition of the property. As a result, we believe that the decision potentially calls in to question a large proportion of the valuations carried out for both the 1990 and 1995 rating lists.
The Bill therefore seeks to underpin the rating valuations made for both of these lists by confirming the basis on which they were made. It also establishes firmly that property is in future to be valued on the assumption that it is in a reasonable state of repair. This is clearly important not only to protect the integrity of the 1990 and 1995 rating lists but also to make the
446
position absolutely clear in respect of the revaluation, already under way, which will take effect in new rating lists in April 2000.
In doing this, we are simply re-establishing the approach to valuation that was understood to exist before the rating hypothesis was changed in the 1988 Act. The Bill does this by making clear that it is to be assumed that the property is in a state of reasonable repair. However, there is an important and equitable exception to this assumption. The exception to the repair assumption applies where a reasonable landlord would consider the cost of carrying out those repairs to be uneconomic. This exception follows pre-1990 established case law. Our aim in introducing the Bill has been to treat disrepair since the 1990 revaluation in the same way as it was treated before 1990 under gross value; and in the same way as valuation officers have treated it in the valuations they have made since then. No more, and no less.
Having explained the provisions of the Bill, I should also record some of the representations that the Government have received about it. It has been clear since the Bill was introduced that the professional bodies representing rating surveyors—the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and the Rating Surveyors Association—had concerns that the Bill would go further than the Government had suggested. Officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Valuation Office Agency have met with representatives of these bodies. These representatives have made their main concerns quite plain. Officials have sought to reassure the wider profession that valuation practice will not be affected by this Bill.
It has been suggested to us that since we are planning to require valuers to assume a state of reasonable repair we should define what that term means within the Bill and that we should define the circumstances in which any damage should be taken into account in the valuation. Noble Lords may think that this would be innocuous, but I believe that it would be dangerous. There is a body of case law which elucidates what is meant by a reasonable state of repair. I also believe that if we were to try to define what the term means in statute, we would run the significant risk of introducing unintended restriction and so lose the flexibility which valuers and the courts need in deciding what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case. Similar arguments apply to the treatment of damaged properties under the rating system.
I also believe that it could be counter-productive to try to be too specific. As Mr. Charles Partridge, the Chairman of the Rating and Local Taxation Panel of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said in a letter of 8th February to the House of Commons standing committee, we could not hope in legislation to anticipate all the possible combinations of events which might need to be considered when valuing a property in disrepair. I agree with that view. It is far more sensible that we should rely on existing valuation practice, supported by the existing case law, which can, if necessary, be developed by the courts as and when

447
difficult or marginal cases arise. The Valuation Office Agency is drawing these strands together in a practice note which it is discussing with the professional bodies.
To summarise, this short, technical Bill amends the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to ensure that property in England or Wales which is subject to non-domestic rating is valued consistently, on the assumption that it is in a state of reasonable repair. This assumption will apply whatever the actual condition of the property, except in relation to any repairs which it would be uneconomic for the landlord to carry out. The Bill ensures that rating valuations are made on a fair and consistent basis for all ratepayers and ensures the integrity of all valuations carried out under the Act of 1988.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
9.32 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that introduction. As it happens, this is the third time this week that I have addressed the House. I call to mind the dictum of the late A1 Capone. He said that once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times is enemy action.
I appreciate that it would normally have fallen to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to introduce this Bill. I wonder whether there is some reason that the noble Baroness finds herself in the front row of Pharaoh's army on this occasion. In speaking to this Bill I must declare a professional interest as a chartered surveyor, and one whose professional career included nearly seven years in the Inland Revenue Valuation Office where I dealt largely with rating. My current professional interest is so small it is hardly worth declaring. However, I differ on a number of the points made by the Minister. I wish to give a slightly more simplified explanation.
In the days when I started to deal with rating, non-industrial, commercial properties were, as the noble Baroness has said, valued to gross value, which was the rent reasonably to be expected from a hypothetical tenant, if that hypothetical landlord carried out all the repairs to maintain the property sufficiently to command that rent. The actual parties were disregarded. Normal running repairs and maintenance were also disregarded, but major disrepair, damage, functional and economic obsolescence were, however, taken into account. In the event of significant damage, substantial reconstruction, total destruction or other serious impact on the property assessments were often reduced, perhaps to a nominal £1. All this on the assumption that after a certain point the landlord would reduce the rent rather than carry out the repairs. The precedents are set and well established.
After the 1988 legislation, of course, gross value disappeared, as the noble Baroness said, and all properties were assessed directly to rateable value. The repair assumption changed from what the landlord could be expected to do and the rent he might reasonably anticipate to what the tenant would consider appropriate by way of repair, and thus his bid to a landlord. This moved matters much closer to the real world of
448
commercial full repairing and insuring leases and was, I think, broadly welcomed. In each case the tenancy was assumed to run from year to year and any indications for rental values had to bear that timescale in mind. That happened both before and after the 1988 legislation.
While the landlord and the tenant were effectively hypothetical, the property to be valued is always undeniably real. It is to be valued as it stands; or to use the Latin doctrine rebus sic stantibus. It was never the rule—I was in post to administer it—that substantial repair was to be ignored. So I must take issue with the noble Baroness on some of her introductory remarks on this point.
All was fine until the case of Benjamin v. Anston Properties Limited which, as the noble Baroness said, came before the Lands Tribunal last year. This concerned an office building in Brighton with a substantial level of disrepair and where the remedial costs were materially greater than the estimated annual rental. It is worth noting what the Lands Tribunal president, Judge Marder QC, said. He described counsel for the valuation officer's proposition that the semi-derelict office building should be valued as if it were in good condition as,
"extending the meaning of the word 'reasonably' to an unreasonable degree".
Following the plentiful and long-established case law, the Lands Tribunal—I think not surprisingly to the profession—found for the ratepayer. The valuation officer appealed but, presumably because of this Bill, withdrew it, finding a government with a large majority ready to take on the matter with perhaps less potential exposure to costs and greater certainty of outcome. I leave it to others as to whether it is proper to use parliamentary time in such circumstances.
Unfortunately the wording of the Bill makes the totality of its intentions unclear. I for one cannot understand it and I am supposed to know about these things. For the first time it splits the personality making the rental bid from the one making the assessment of cost benefit with regard to repairs. I see this as a departure from the 1990 position in which the test was what, on a dispassionate assessment, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out, not what the landlord himself considered economically worthwhile, as the Bill suggests.
Not surprisingly, the professionals in this field started asking questions about the intentions behind the Bill. My impression is that the professionals are far from satisfied with what remains now in the Bill despite the discussions that they have had. But what is surprising is that the Government seem to have been unable to provide answers. All that they will say is that the Bill adopts the test which existed before 1990. But, of course, as I have demonstrated, it does no such thing.
Indeed, the Anston case was thought by most practitioners to have followed scrupulously the established precedents and that it made no new law. The fact that the Valuation Office agency has persuaded the Government to follow the legislative route makes it pretty clear to me that what is intended is in fact a departure from the established position. So there is a

449
dichotomy between what the Government claim they are doing and what the rather novel wording of Clause 1 may actually achieve.
The key to all this is to be found in the Second Reading debate in another place, when the Minister for Local Government and Housing said it was an assumption that,
"other than in extreme cases … the property is, and remains, in a state of reasonable repair". —[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/99; col. 58.]
That is a factually incorrect statement of precedent and practice; and the statement has not been totally withdrawn.
Amendments were proposed in another place, first, in an attempt to clarify the wording so that it indeed goes no further than the traditional understanding of the repairing obligation; and secondly, to place on the face of the Bill an affirmation that where a property is in material disrepair, that will, as hitherto, continue to be taken into account. The Government have consistently rejected such amendments. Their responses have simply skirted round the issues and give little confidence.
Having given several conflicting explanations, at Third Reading in another place, the Minister seemed to acknowledge the lack of clarity. She announced (at col. 501 of Hansard) that the Valuation Office agency had drafted a practice note on the approach to valuation to be adopted, as mentioned by the noble Baroness.
This is a classic case of delegating what should be clear in primary legislation to a non-statutory document which could readily be revised. The fear is that instead of taking the actual state of repair into account, this may be part of a move to an assumed or deemed state of repair. The effect that that could have on run-down areas awaiting redevelopment readily brings to mind the scandals that I well remember of rooms being removed from industrial buildings in the West Midlands to avoid rating liability under the 1974 surcharge provisions. Part of the reason why there is such close scrutiny of the valuation effects of the state of repair is that there is no longer a general exemption from paying rates on empty commercial property. In the context of a property tax, it must make for the grossest form of inequity and injustice if the real world value of the property in its actual state is set aside in favour of some administratively convenient assumption.
At the small business end of the scale, would a property such as the lemonade factory in Malton flooded by the River Derwent in the past day or two benefit from a substantially reduced assessment in future? Or is it the Government's intention that it should be deemed to have been repaired? We should be told what the effects will be for serious damage which will ultimately be repaired.
I gave the Minister prior notice of my intention to raise two points that are fundamentally at issue. First, there should be a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous statement as to the precise intentions and the effect on valuation for rating purposes of the repairs issue—and that should be on the face of the Bill. Secondly, there should be an explanation of the status, if any, of the practice note and the reasons behind its creation. This is
450
not a question of attempting to define "reasonable", but of retaining a body of existing case law which is already well-established.
As it stands, the Bill cannot be allowed to become law without amendment. Its wording is unclear; its intentions are opaque; and, in adopting a practice note to explain its shortcomings, it incorporates an improper procedure which could circumvent necessary parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will look very carefully at this matter. Will the Minister be kind enough to place a copy of the practice note in the Library?
I do not accept that there will be a flood of appeals arising out of the Anston case. Where is the evidence?
While I do not believe that the Bill should ever have come before Parliament, I shall seek to amend it constructively, to give it the clarity that has always been the hallmark of its legislative parentage. Meanwhile, I look forward to the Minister's reply.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who is unable to be present. I cannot bring her expertise to the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he does not understand a great deal of the Bill's content. I struggled hard with it—particularly when I arrived at at least three assumptions in one section and a large number of hypothetical points. It seems somewhat to ignore the real world.
My main worry is that in the real world those who will suffer most from this legislation will be on the margins of towns, where regeneration should and could be taking place. The Bill does not take any account of repairs which will be undertaken but which for some reason the landlord, though in best faith, is unable to undertake at the time. Such properties will not be readily bought with a view to repairing them, as this approach to valuation will make them more uneconomic. The Bill also fails to differentiate between a landlord who has chosen to let his building fall into disrepair and one who has done so other than by choice.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, chose the real life example of flooding, something that affects us in Somerset. I can imagine one of our Somerset towns in bad need of regeneration and under frequent threat of flooding. People would not touch commercial properties there with a barge pole if this Bill came into force. I should be grateful for an explanation of exactly how, in the non-hypothetical, non-assumption world of difficult-to-let properties and difficult-to-regenerate towns this Bill can possibly bring any benefit.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her description of the Bill. We should all be aware of what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, with his great experience in such matters from his time in the Valuation Office. There were also important points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.

451
As other noble Lords have said, the Bill arises from the case of Benjamin v. Anston Properties Limited, where the matter arose of whether the valuer should take into account the state of repair of the property. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the words of the president of the Lands Tribunal and I shall not go over it again. However, I feel that the Bill could create further confusion and litigation.
Many in the profession were surprised that neither the Court of Appeal nor the House of Lords had been asked to give its opinion and were also surprised at the haste of legislating without consultation. Can the Minister tell me why that was the case, particularly with a subject so complex and with so many experts available both in the Valuation Office and in the private sector?
In the Bill we also come across the word "reasonable" in two areas: "reasonable repair" and "reasonable landlord". That introduces a subjective measure into the valuation process. Surely some definition is required. I cannot see why the Minister said that it would be dangerous. I understand that the practice notes will have guidance on the matter but, as the noble Earl said, they will have no standing in law.
Having read Hansard in the other place, it appears to me that three options have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government: first, to restore the law to what it was before; secondly, to return it to what the Valuation Office thought it was before Anston; or, thirdly, to try to get the law back to what it was before the 1990 revaluation. Which option are Her Majesty's Government taking? Can the Minister tell me what was wrong with the decision in Anston?
Another area that has raised concern is the question of temporary disrepair due to some physical problem, mentioned by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, for example, from fire or some other natural disaster. It does not appear from the Bill, notwithstanding what the Minister said, that this has been taken into account. The only option available would be to take the property out of rating, which may not be desirable. For example, a fire may destroy only a small part of a factory but could still render the entire building unusable.
There is concern for the plight of the small ratepayer in secondary or tertiary locations, perhaps in starter units, where the state of repair would not necessarily be reasonable. But for that type of property it would actually be a reasonable state of repair. It may be that this is how the Valuation Office will interpret the legislation, but there is nothing in the Bill to give the ratepayers this reassurance.
Many interesting points have been raised in the debate and I am sure that there are a number of issues that we will debate in greater detail during the Committee stage. I wish to underline to the Minister that these are not political issues that we are debating but areas of concern that must be put right to enable the Bill to work properly and also to enable the property professions to interpret the legislation. What the industry needs is legislation that gives certainty, simplicity and consistency. It is to be hoped that before this Bill finishes its passage through this House we shall have achieved that aim.
9.49 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as I said to the House at the beginning of our debate, the Rating (Valuation) Bill is a short Bill that encompasses a simple principle. That principle is that in valuing a property for rating purposes the property is assumed to be in a state of reasonable repair. This assumption will apply whatever the actual condition of the property, except in relation to any repairs which would be uneconomic. As has become clear this evening, while the principle is simple the background to this Bill and rating valuations in general is far from that. Noble Lords have assisted me very much in making that point.
The Bill puts the law on rating valuations back to that on which the officers of the Valuation Office agency have prepared all valuations for both the 1990 and 1995 lists, and on the basis of which work on the 2000 revaluation has already begun. Case law going back well before 1990, and the practice established as a result of that case law, means that what it is reasonable to expect in relation to the repair condition of any hereditament will depend on the age and type of the property, the locality in which it is situated and all the surrounding circumstances. The precedents are well-established. If we tried to redefine the term "reasonable repair" on the face of the Bill we would run the significant risk of introducing an unintended restriction and so lose the flexibility which valuers and the courts need in deciding what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case.
Reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others to the position following the judgment in Anston. I am not qualified to say what valuers believed or did not believe the 1988 Act to mean, but the issue does not seem as clear cut as they now make out. Certainly, the Valuation Office agency took a contrary view. The leading textbook on rating Ryde on Rating and the Council Tax also clearly took the view that properties should be valued on a common repair assumption.
While it is interesting to debate who thought what and when, it is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that valuation officers, who have the statutory duty to compile and maintain an accurate rating list, have actually carried out valuations for both the 1990 and 1995 rating lists on the general assumption that a property is in a state of reasonable repair. It is the integrity of those valuations and those being undertaken for the 2000 rating list that this Bill seeks to defend.
It would have been open to the Valuation Office agency to appeal against the Lands Tribunal decision in Benjamin v. Anston or pursue another case to appeal on that point. However, we saw no merit in the delay that would be necessary if the point were to be pursued through the higher courts. The practical business of enabling the current revaluation to proceed on a clearly established footing, as well as underpinning the existing lists, is of the utmost importance. That is why we brought forward this Bill. Were the Bill not enacted the rating system would be unfair as between individual ratepayers.

453
The value of non-domestic property on which the annual rate liability is based is, unless there is a material change of circumstances, assessed only once every five years. Fairness dictates that at that time two identical properties in the same location should be given the same rateable value and, hence, should have the same rates liability over the following five years. But two buildings—identical in every other respect—may, on the day on which they are assessed for rates, be in different states of repair. Indeed, it is almost certain that they will be. Most commercial property is let on the basis that the occupier will maintain the property in a reasonable condition. And as noble Lords know from their own property, all buildings need repairing simply to maintain their condition.
Yet, as will be equally clear to noble Lords, the timing of those repairs and the speed with which those works are done depends on the individual decisions of the person occupying the property. It is likely, therefore—indeed, almost certain—that two identical properties in good repair on the day on which they were let to different tenants will be in more or less different states of repair on any later date, including the common date every five years on which the properties have their rateable values assessed for rating purposes.
That being so, if rateable values were based on the actual repair condition of the property on a single, arbitrarily chosen date, the two properties would not have identical rates bills. They would have different rates bills over that five year period unless the rateable value was adjusted to reflect changes in the repair condition of the property.
In bringing the Bill before the House, we are simply seeking to re-establish the approach to valuation that was understood to exist before the rating hypothesis was changed in the 1988 Act. Our aim in introducing the Bill has been to treat disrepair since 1990 in the same way as it was treated before 1990 under the gross value system of rating valuation and in the same way as valuation officers have treated it in the valuations they have made since then. No more and no less. Existing valuations will therefore not be affected.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to his entering the fray as, perhaps, enemy action. Far from viewing his contribution as enemy action, I found his questions interesting and instructive. I will refer in conclusion to the issues to which I may not have given an adequate reply.
I am concerned that the noble Earl remains unclear about the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is straightforward and specific. It is to reverse the decision in the Anston Properties case and secure that the valuations contained in past, present and future rating lists are not subject to challenge on the basis of the analysis of the Lands Tribunal in that decision. In other words, it is to underpin the basis of the existing rating lists and those which are now being compiled to take effect next year; and to enact expressly in legislation what was merely assumed by those promoting the Bill to be the law at the time when the Local Government Finance Act 1988 was passed.
454
The provisions of the Bill will therefore apply for the purposes of new rating lists which will take effect on 1st April 2000, and retrospectively for those of the 1990 and 1995 lists. In most cases, this will have no effect on the rate payable on property entered in the 1990 and 1995 lists, although ratepayers who challenged their valuations before the decision in Anston are safeguarded by the Bill.
The noble Earl asked whether it would be possible to place in the Library a copy of the practice note. The answer is yes. He is right to say that, of itself, the VOA's practice note has no force in law. I hope that I have not suggested otherwise. It will be what it says it is; a practice note. It is not intended to be a substitute for legislation, but to do a different job altogether; to set out how the VOA proposes that its valuation officers will translate the legislation into practice.
Legislation cannot and should not spell out everything, particularly the detail of how it is proposed to be implemented. That is all the more true in a field such as non-domestic rating in which the law as a whole is a vast iceberg of which the legislation is only the tip and there is a great deal of case law below the water-line.
Nor will the practice note be the product of the VOA's fancy or produced in a vacuum. It will deal with the valuation of properties and in particular will address the treatment of the types of cases about which the professions are most concerned. It will draw on existing case law in support of the approaches it proposes should be taken in respect of each one, approaches which will restate the ways in which those properties are treated now. It would be almost impossible to draft legislation which will deal adequately with every approach, as I am sure the noble Earl would agree. The note offers a sensible way forward and the VOA is at present consulting the professional bodies on content. As I have explained, the Government's intention is to reverse the effect of the decision in the Anston Properties case.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to, for example, the effect of a flood. If a severe storm or any other external force renders a property incapable of beneficial use, the rating assessment is removed from the rating list until such time as the necessary works have been carried out to enable the property to be used again. The Bill will not affect that position. If a property is flooded for a short time during exceptionally heavy rain, for example, it is unlikely the damage will be sufficient to affect its rating assessment.
We believe that the Bill will place the law on rating valuations on a fair and equitable footing and make clear the assumptions which underlie those valuations. It is a necessary and worthwhile measure consistent with good administration and, above all, it will ensure fair treatment and a fair tax assessment for all ratepayers.
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. In particular, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for not having the opportunity to reply to some of the detailed points which he raised. I shall make certain that Hansard is read very carefully to ensure that we write on any points which have been

455
raised. Further, I am only too happy to offer a meeting with officials with all of your Lordships who have taken part in this Second Reading debate before we reach Committee stage. As the noble Earl said, this is not a party political issue. Anything which can be done to ensure that we understand fully the position from which we each speak will no doubt be helpful. I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss issues and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Easter Act 1928 (Commencement) Bill [H.L.]
10.2 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill was originally introduced in 1928 when it passed all its stages in both Houses. However, it did not actually commence. The purpose of the Bill is to permit the 1928 Bill to come into effect so that Easter Day will always be the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April.
I shall speak briefly under three main headings. First, I shall tell your Lordships how Easter is currently decided. Secondly, I shall deal with what may be termed the ecclesiastical arguments. Thirdly and finally, I shall refer to the practical arguments.
First, let us consider the interesting question of how Easter is currently decided. Easter Sunday is now fixed in accordance with tables which were drawn up for Pope Gregory XIII when he reformed the calendar in 1582. Those tables are founded on a so-called metonic system. Meton was an Athenian astrologer who lived over 400 years before the birth of Christ. The tables are extremely ingenious but what they really give is not the movement of the moon of the astronomers but an entirely artificial ecclesiastical moon which has been used for convenience ever since.
In short, Easter is currently determined from astronomical tables relating to the movement of the moon originally formulated over 400 years before the normally accepted date of the birth of Christ. The reality is that this long custom of what might be termed the floating date for Easter has its real basis in neither religion nor science but in what might be termed happenstance or even accident. By contrast, I point to the fact that Christmas Day was fixed by law in the fourth century. It was fixed as 25th December from the solar calendar based on the movement of the sun.
I now turn to what might be termed the ecclesiastical arguments. Your Lordships will see that the Bill proposes that the legal Easter be the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. It is legitimate to ask why that date has been taken, or to put it more precisely, why that date was selected by my predecessors in 1928. The reason is that, according to the best research, the date of the Crucifixion is normally perceived as being 7th April
456
in our calendar. The date proposed for Easter in the Bill would therefore be as near as possible to the real date of the original Easter virtually 2000 years ago.
However, I concede that it is by no means improbable that the commencement of this Bill might, in a manner of speaking, decouple the Church's day from the Easter holiday. That might be perceived as being a serious, even lethal, objection. However, I point out that there are many people equally Christian and civilised who take differing views of holy days and holidays. Some people seem to believe that one is, as it were, more holy by observing a holy day as a holiday. Another, perhaps a smaller group, takes the entirely contrary view that if one observes a holy day as a holiday one is somehow less holy. Both points of view are entirely legitimate and point to the fact that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in decoupling the Church's holy day from the normally accepted public holiday.
The reality is that in practice there are to some degree different kinds of holy days. For example, Christmas Day is an important religious celebration and a great family festival. However, Ascension Day, which is scarcely less important from a religious point of view, is hardly recognised in the lay world. In so far as it is celebrated at all, it is only observed religiously—if indeed that is the proper word to use in this or in any other debate.
I now address the ecclesiastical arguments. I have not been fortunate enough to have been in correspondence with the present Archbishop of Canterbury, but I have looked up the views of his predecessor in 1928 when the predecessor to this Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament in all its stages. The Archbishop of Canterbury of those days said in this very Chamber:
"In the view of the Church there is no dogmatic reason why the Church should oppose a fixed date for Easter".
I now turn to the practical reasons, which I also touched on in a letter that I sent to every attending Member of this House, to which I received about 15 replies. To give just a few examples, businesses, retailers and all manufacturers would all like to know the date of Easter well in advance. It would enable them to plan ahead and would do something real and helpful for enterprise and prosperity, on which subjects the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Simon, who is not in his place, addressed the House in his customary fashion only yesterday. Such a fixed date would also make life easier for parents, teachers and all would-be tourists and travellers.
As I mentioned earlier, the original Easter Bill that provided for Easter to be the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April—this year it would be Sunday, 11th April—was passed in 1928 but never came into effect. As the Archbishop of Canterbury of those days said on 23rd July 1920:
"And I believe that the establishment of a fixed Easter would be a gain in the civil life and in the ecclesiastical and educational life … of the community as a whole".
I hope that this Bill will meet with your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
10.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, the Christian Churches worldwide are currently taking new steps to agree a common but not a fixed date for Easter. The British Churches would be helped in playing their part in this delicate task if the Easter Act 1928 were not reactivated at the present time. The Easter Act would affect only the United Kingdom. That would create particular difficulties for the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which would both continue to observe Easter on the same day as the rest of their world communions. Church authorities would be guided not so much by the convenience of a fixed date but much more by the possibility of an Easter festival celebrated by all Christians throughout the world on the same date.
In the 20th century the Christian Churches have rediscovered a deep concern for Christian unity. Despite substantial progress towards visible unity, a major stumbling block remains the fact that the Eastern and Western Churches calculate the date of Easter in different ways. Essentially, that is due to differences in calendars and lunar tables. Since 1582, Western Christians have calculated the date of Easter using the Gregorian calendar, while Eastern Orthodox Christians have generally continued to use the older Julian calendar. In 2001 the dates of Easter, according to both Eastern and Western calendars, will coincide.
Currently the Churches are considering a set of proposals that will enable a common date—not a fixed date—of Easter to be agreed. The recommendation is threefold: first, to maintain the norms agreed by the first Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church after New Testament times, the Council of Nicea in AD 325, before East and West began to diverge, namely, that Easter should fall on the Sunday following the first vernal new moon; secondly, to calculate the astronomical data (the vernal equinox and the full moon) by the most accurate scientific means; and, thirdly, to use as the basis for reckoning the meridian of Jerusalem, the place of Christ's death and resurrection. I believe that when that agreement comes, as I hope and pray it will one day, it will go a long way to meeting the objections made by the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, about the calculations being based upon very old-fashioned science.
The main point is that a fixed date for Easter would obscure and weaken the vital biblical link between the events of Holy Week and Easter, on the one hand, and the Jewish Passover festival, which is still calculated with reference to the vernal equinox, on the other.
The Christian Churches are being invited to study these proposals in principle with a view to consulting together in the year 2001 when, as already mentioned, both East and West will celebrate Easter on the same day. The 1998 Lambeth Conference of all bishops of the Anglican Communion welcomed that initiative, supported the recommendations and invited all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to endorse them.
The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, mentioned the view of the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1928, suggesting that at that time the Churches had no principled objection to a fixed date for Easter. However, one of the
458
big changes since then is the fact that the Churches now work closely together and do so on a worldwide basis. That is why Church leaders in this country are perhaps more sensitive now than they were then to the ecumenical and worldwide dimensions of this issue. They will want to keep in step with fellow Christians belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as with the great bulk of western Christianity through the Roman Catholic Church.
It seems likely that in any eventuality the Churches will want to see the link between the religious festival and the public holiday maintained. The origins of the holiday are to give public expression to the Holy Day. In the event of a disjunction—the noble Earl referred to a "decoupling"—between the religious festival and the public holiday, large numbers of Christians would continue to observe the festival on the traditional day and would strongly oppose transference of the name "Easter" to a secular holiday.
Although I listened carefully to the points made about commercial considerations, is it not true that it is possible at the moment to calculate the date of Easter five or 10 years ahead or perhaps even as long ahead as one might want? There is no difficulty at the moment about commercial organisations planning their business as many years ahead as they want. For those reasons, I think that the Christian Churches of all denominations would very strongly want to oppose the idea of a fixed date for Easter.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the right reverend Prelate sits down. Has he not identified the problem between the religious significance and celebration of Easter and its secular importance as a holiday and, indeed, a bank holiday'' If the right reverend Prelate wants to keep the secular holiday linked to the religious holiday—that would mean that people would have time away from work in which to consider the religious significance—do we not have to recognise the problem that the secular holidays are "concertinaed" at that time of year? We have the Easter holiday, the May Day holiday and then the Spring bank holiday. We have three secular holidays within a period of eight weeks. We go through to August for the next bank holiday, and then there is a great blank until the end of the year. The problem on the secular side is that holidays are not distributed evenly throughout the year. If the right reverend Prelate is advocating that there should be a religious and a secular holiday at the same time, surely we must recognise the concertina problem with regard to the secular holidays.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly. First, the Churches want to keep a link between the Holy Day and the holiday because we believe that that is deeply embedded in our cultural life. Secondly, some continental countries have as many as 50—or even 60 or 70—public holidays a year. The European tradition—and certainly that of our continental brothers and sisters—suggests that a certain degree of "concertinaing" is not necessarily a bad thing.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Manton: My Lords, about 20 years ago I had to give evidence to a Royal Commission looking into the future of horse-racing. Your Lordships may say that that has nothing to do with Easter, but it has. Having been cross-questioned by the dozen or so members of the Royal Commission for about an hour and a half—apparently, two hours were set aside for the inquisition—the chairman, the then Lord Rothschild, asked whether I and my two companions would like to put any questions to the commission. That took the wind slightly out of our sails. At that time I was responsible for preparing the fixture list for all horse-racing for 59 race courses on about 340-odd days of the year. I said, rather off-the-cuff, to the commission, "Why cannot we have a fixed Easter?" I have to say that most of its members seemed very much in favour of the proposition. Lord Rothschild said, "Why cannot we have a fixed Easter?" There were all these fairly intelligent people, and none of them really had a view. They mumbled something about the Church or some Churches not agreeing.
Luckily for them, or for Lord Rothschild, the Home Office provided a civil servant, an adviser to all Royal Commissions, who came up with a very simple answer. This was 20 years ago so I am not necessarily disagreeing with the right reverend Prelate. The civil servant said, "The Church of England is quite prepared to have a fixed date for Easter, provided of course that the Church of Rome agrees. "He added, "What is more, the Church of Rome is quite prepared to have a fixed Easter, provided the two Orthodox Churches agree but, as the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches have never agreed on anything, it is not very likely to happen."
The commercial aspects are extremely strong. I disagree with the right reverend Prelate. To market anything it must be done in the same week of the year all the time. Anything like a fixture list, whether it be sporting, commercial or whatever—it might even be the school syllabus—is much simpler if done in the same week every year. I am very supportive of the Bill.
10.22 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I find myself speaking to both sides of the fence. I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Dartmouth who has made out a persuasive case for a fixed Easter. It is possible to have a reasonable interval between the Christmas and spring holidays and the noble Lord rightly referred to the easier planning made possible in all aspects of our national life. My noble friend Lord Manton referred in particular to the racing calendar, but I include commerce, education, tourism and many other aspects of our national life. In rationality there can be no other solution.
This subject was, I believe, last debated in your Lordships' House on 7th April 1984 when our late noble colleague Lord Airedale made a speech of such distinction that it was quoted at his memorial service by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Lord Airedale, while recognising the Christian aspects of the problem, wished
460
to see Easter sufficiently far into April to guarantee a reasonable chance of better weather, and at the same time not to bring it too close to the spring holiday. In his winding-up speech my noble friend Lord Elton, then the Minister at the Home Office, said that the government's view was that they wished to await the outcome of talks between the Churches. And that is the Opposition's view today.
Easter is not only a secular holiday. It is historically a Christian one, as has been recognised in the debate. In saying that I am fully aware of the significant proportion of the population of this country who are not of the Christian faith, nor indeed of any faith at all. Nevertheless, Easter has its historic roots in the Christian Church and I suggest to your Lordships—a point made strongly by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford—that the initiative for any change in the date of Easter must lie in the first instance with the Christian Churches, not only in Great Britain but internationally. I say that through no theological dogma; it is a practical move.
As noble Lords pointed out, the present Easter was fixed by Pope Gregory XII in 1582 and it is a fact often taken for granted that one of the early manifestations of ecumenism is that all the western Churches have followed that formula. The complication is, of course, the Orthodox Church, to which noble Lords referred. Incidentally, that makes the Orthodox Church an unlikely bedfellow of the United Kingdom Inland Revenue in that the two are apparently the only two bodies that follow the old Julian Calendar.
The right reverend Prelate assured us that talks are in hand with the Churches, both east and west, to agree a common date, though I understand from his speech that it will still be moveable. If, as appears unlikely, they agree a fixed date, the object of this Bill will presumably have been satisfied. Nevertheless, the common date will be a start.
Let us consider one or two practical implications of this Bill were it to be implemented. Citizens of the United Kingdom going for the UK Easter holiday, say to continental Europe, to celebrate Easter may well find that Easter in that country will be celebrated one week later. Or we can consider the case of an employer who receives a request from a committed Christian in his employment to be allowed to take off Good Friday because it is being observed in Rome and elsewhere. Those are just two instances of the complications which would arise were the United Kingdom, on this question, to go it alone.
We are fortunate in that today there is a spirit of co-operation between Churches across the world far greater than in 1928 and—dare I say?—possibly 1984. The arguments for a fixed Easter are persuasive. While acknowledging that the rules for subsidiarity permit holidays in member states of the European Union to be fixed nationally, in the worldwide village it is only practical for the Easter holiday dates to be agreed at an international level, and that must be at the initiative of the Churches. This season is so central to the Christian faith that it must be left, in the first instance, to those Churches. Once progress has been made on that front,

461
of which we have been assured by the right reverend Prelate, then the time will be right to revisit this question; in other words, not yet. Therefore we do not support this Bill but will not be opposing it at Second Reading.
10.27 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the points made in the course of this debate. Also, this is a matter to which the House has returned on many occasions. I say to the noble Earl that his Bill is a further expression of the concerns of your Lordships' House.
I can understand the point that has been pertinently put regarding the question of whether to see the date of Easter put on a more settled and comprehensive footing. There are good arguments for that. It is true, and indeed it was explained to us by the noble Earl, that the way at which we arrive at it is a mystery to many people. As he said, it derives from a resolution of the Council of Nicea in AD325 and was given statutory authority by the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750.
For those who do not keep a close eye on the calendar—the noble Earl is evidently one—Easter can often come as something of a surprise, and I admit that. However, I do not find the arguments that have been made here tonight about the convenience of a fixed Easter wholly persuasive. The date of Easter is well known in advance. For example, Whittakers Almanack provides the dates of Easter up to the year 2040 and the Book of Common Prayer, even beyond. So no one who needs to be aware of the dates for the purposes of planning, including the tourist industry, schools and businesses, has any grounds for uncertainty.
An argument is sometimes made that a date fixed in accordance with the Easter Act would improve the chances of better weather at Easter; indeed, that has been said again tonight. However, knowing the vagaries of our weather, I should point out that we are just as likely to get good weather with an early Easter as we are with one which falls a little later. We have considered all such proposals.
Mention has also been made about the "bunching" of holidays, especially by my noble friend Lord Hacking. Perhaps I may point out to him that the present pattern is now well-established. Unless agreement can be reached between the Churches, a fixed date could lead to an extra holiday being established in this period. So, in that respect, we could find ourselves in a worse situation, especially if the Churches did not recognise it.
Up to this point I have dealt with secular concerns, but there is another consideration, referred to by the right reverend Prelate, which overrides all of this. Fixing a date for Easter is not simply a matter of deciding upon another Bank Holiday: Easter is a religious festival of great significance. I do not believe that any attempt to change its date would be possible without the support of the Churches. Indeed, when the 1928 Act was passed, it was recognised that regard should be had to any opinions officially expressed by the Churches, or other Christian bodies, before an order was made to fix the date for Easter.
462
As noble Lords will be aware—and it has been said again tonight—the Western Churches have always said that they would be willing to consider a change in the method of calculating Easter. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, they would not want to do this without a consensus being arrived at between the Eastern and Western Churches. There has, of course, been movement in that direction, but the fact remains that the stumbling block has been that the method of calculating the date of Easter between the Eastern and the Western Churches differs. As has been said, they differ as regards the calendar introduced by Pope Gregory, which is the one recognised by the Western Christian Church, and the Julian calendar, which is the one recognised by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The differences between the latter to date have always been regarded as a major obstacle, but in 1997 there was consultation in Syria, sponsored by the World Council of Churches and the Middle East Council of Churches. As has been said, proposals emerged for establishing a common date for Easter. Surely now is not the time to begin the change.
Such matters are under consideration by the Churches worldwide. I should stress that there are three proposals involved. The first is to retain the norms agreed at the Council of Nicea in AD325; namely, that Easter should fall on a Sunday following the first vernal new moon. That would also allow the link between Easter and, most importantly, the Jewish Passover Festival to be retained.
The second proposal is to calculate the astronomical dates by the most accurate scientific data available. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the points raised by the noble Earl. The third proposal is to use the meridian of Jerusalem as the basis for reckoning. The Christian Churches are being invited to study these proposals in principle with a view to consulting together again in 2001. Significantly, in that year, both East and West will celebrate Easter on the same day.
I should make clear, as has been said during the course of the debate, that the acceptance of those proposals by the Churches would not result in a fixed date for Easter. However, it would result in the Eastern and Western Christian Churches worldwide having a common date to celebrate Easter. Moreover, as the right reverend Prelate said, the Churches place great importance on retaining the biblical link between Easter on the one hand, and the Jewish Passover on the other. It is thought that a fixed date for Easter would weaken and obscure that.
Serious deliberations are currently being undertaken by the Christian Churches worldwide on this issue. The British Churches would not be helped in this process by now bringing into force the Easter Act 1928. Moreover, it is likely that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church would continue to observe Easter on the same day as the rest of their world communions.
In the absence of any significant support among the Churches for fixing the date of Easter in accordance with the 1928 Act the Government do not consider that they could lend their support to this Bill.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I say from these Benches that I entirely accept what my noble friend the Minister

463
says; namely, that until the Churches agree on the date of Easter it cannot be fixed because it is a religious ceremony wholly connected with the Christian Churches. However, does not my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a problem as regards the distribution of holidays?
I believe it is a matter of supreme importance in our society to retain the family and the meeting together of the family. I do not have so much experience of European holidays, but I have a great deal of experience of American holidays. The fact is that Labour Day, which comes at the end of September, Thanksgiving, which comes in November, Christmas and the Spring bank holiday—Memorial Day Holiday, as it is called— which comes in May, are occasions for families to join together. We have to recognise that.
If we have our secular holidays bunched, with Easter as a roving date somewhere towards late March— I should disclose the interest that I was born on Easter Sunday in 1938 and I have had only one opportunity to celebrate my birthday on Easter Sunday since that date—there is a problem. I believe that we should address that matter. All I ask the Government to do is to look at the distribution of bank holidays, recognising me point that I believe is essential; namely, that these are occasions when families come together. Families in America come together on Memorial Day, on Labor Day, on Thanksgiving and at Christmas. That is also an important point which should be brought into the equation.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I understand the point my noble friend makes but it is wider than the issue we are discussing tonight. We have considered the bunching of holidays, but they are settled and recognised. I think there is a great coming together of families over Easter. Not only are they celebrating a secular holiday but also one of religious significance. That is of vital importance. I think my noble friend ought to take that into account. I emphasise again what I said earlier. I think it would be totally wrong at this time when the Christian Churches throughout the world are moving towards a common date for we in this country unilaterally to alter it and try to implement the 1928 Act.
10.38 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I shall briefly discuss what has been said by the various speakers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford— the university of which town I am a graduate— mentioned that the Churches are currently negotiating a common but not a fixed date. It may be a common date
464
but that still makes it moveable. Of course these negotiations have been going on for a long time. I believe there is a good argument for breaking the Gordian knot, as it were, and encouraging the Churches to finalise their mutual negotiations by passing this Bill.
The right reverend Prelate answered my points very eloquently. Perhaps I may say for the record that I regard "disjunction" as a much better coinage than my word "decoupling". But neither of us answered the problem very well. The right reverend Prelate made a good point when he said that Easter can be predicted even under the current arrangements. But, of course, very few people have the ability or the commitment to do so. Even if one can predict what the date of Easter will be in five or even 10 years' time, it does not invalidate the point that the date is still moving; is still floating, as it were.
I much appreciated the eloquent support given to my case by my noble friend Lord Manton. I just wish to place that on the record.
I now wish to turn to the points made by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. He is right to say that if the Bill were passed there would be the possibility Easter being celebrated on different days in different countries. But that is exactly what applies at the moment with numerous other holidays apart from Easter. Anyone who has spent time in the United States will know that Thanksgiving and Labor Day are major holidays which are not recognised in other countries. There is also the divergence which presently exists between the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches and the western Churches on the very date of Easter itself. It may be of passing amusement to the House to know that I researched most of my material for my speech from the debates which took place in 1928. It was clear from what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said that most of the research for his speech came from the debates in this House and elsewhere in 1984. On that basis—1928 and 1984—who can say that the Conservative Opposition are not fully wired into the information revolution of the millennium?
I wish to thank the Minister for the serious response he made to my remarks. In particular, I was very taken by the points he made about the 1997 consultation by the Churches. Furthermore, he telegraphed that a further meeting is planned by the Churches in 2001. Even though that meeting between the Churches only envisages a common date for Easter, it is nonetheless a significant stepping stone towards a fixed date for Easter. In view of those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Second Reading.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Prisoners: Unescorted Home Leave
  Prisoners: Unescorted Home Leave
  Prisoners: Home Detention Curfew
  Prisoners: Home Detention Curfew
  Women Prisoners with Families Overseas
  Women Prisoners with Families Overseas
  Women Prisoners: Alternatives to Full Imprisonment
  Women Prisoners: Alternatives to Full Imprisonment
  Non-custodial Sentences for Women
  Non-custodial Sentences for Women
  Women Offenders: Deferment of Sentence
  Women Offenders: Deferment of Sentence
  Protection of Pet Animals Convention
  Protection of Pet Animals Convention
  CHCs in Wales: Budget
  CHCs in Wales: Budget
  Salah Idris
  Salah Idris
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Gibraltar and the EU
  Gibraltar and the EU
  Meetings with Foreign Governments Inside and Outside the EU
  Meetings with Foreign Governments Inside and Outside the EU
  General Pinochet: Vatican Representations
  General Pinochet: Vatican Representations
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Parliamentary Counsel Office
  Parliamentary Counsel Office
  Ofsted Inspections: Reception Classes
  Ofsted Inspections: Reception Classes
  Head Teachers: Professional Qualification
  Head Teachers: Professional Qualification
  HEFC for England: Quinquennial Review
  HEFC for England: Quinquennial Review
  Eurofighter: Air-to-air Missile
  Eurofighter: Air-to-air Missile
  Cattle Health Scheme
  Cattle Health Scheme
  Specified Risk Material: Changes to Industry
  Specified Risk Material: Changes to Industry
  Atlantic Salmon
  Atlantic Salmon
  Livestock Slaughter on Farms
  Livestock Slaughter on Farms
  Slaughterman's Licence: Inspection Fee
  Slaughterman's Licence: Inspection Fee
  Parliamentary Questions: Cost
  Parliamentary Questions: Cost
  Aviation Policy
  Aviation Policy
  Shipping
  Shipping
  Integrated Transport
  Integrated Transport